 We will now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 3858, in the name of Michael Russell on article 50. I would invite all members who may wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Michael Russell to speak to and move the motion. As the First Minister has indicated, this afternoon's debate on article 50 will culminate in, and I quote her, one of the most significant votes in the history of the Scottish Parliament since devolution. If this debate were to require extra time, I am sure that we would all wish to give it extra time. I am sure that I need not remind MSPs that, on 23 June last year, the people of Scotland voted clearly and decisively to remain in the EU. That is also how Scottish MPs voted when this issue was debated in the House of Commons last week. Only one of the 59 Scottish MPs defied the wish of the majority in this country and in every local authority area and chose to support taking Scotland out of the EU against its will. The debate in Scotland's own Parliament gives MSPs the opportunity to speak loudly and clearly, to reaffirm the vote that was so conclusive last year and to say to the UK, to Europe and to the world that we oppose the catastrophic hard Brexit that is now being pursued by the electories at Westminster. It has never been the case that the Scottish Parliament or any of the devolved legislatures had a veto over Brexit, but this vote is more than symbolic. It is a key test of whether Scotland's voice is being listened to and whether our wishes can be accommodated within the UK process. Before she became Prime Minister, Theresa May set out her view of the future of the United Kingdom. It was one that she said in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continued to flourish side by side as equal partners, different and proud to be so, outward not inward, her words. Once she was Prime Minister, she promised that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be fully engaged and fully involved in considering and agreeing a common UK approach to triggering article 50. The Scottish Government took those promises at face value. We worked long and hard to deliver and table in the formal UK structures compromise proposals, showing how we can keep our place in the single market. We put those proposals before this chamber and received clear majority support for our approach in that matter. We sought to initiate constructive consideration of those proposals with the aim of securing a common UK approach when we still do so. We have taken part in meeting after meeting at official, ministerial and head of government level. Yet, so far, the UK Government has not offered a single compromise of its own. In fact, it has offered nothing—neither formal reaction to our proposals nor formal rejection of them. Accordingly, what underlies the formal substance of the motion today about a technical measure in a European treaty is actually a debate about democracy itself. It is a debate about how democracy should work in these islands. It is a debate about the sort of country that the United Kingdom is becoming and the sort of country that we in Scotland wish to be. The contrast between those countries is stark, Presiding Officer. Theresa May's hard Brexit will lead to a hard Britain, a Britain out of the single market, with cutting immigration and enforcing borders prioritised above all else. Living standards, the economy and how the UK is seen across the world will all play second fiddle to that obsession. If Theresa May fails to succeed in her negotiations with the other 27 nations, she will set her country and our country on a race to the bottom on tax, working conditions, regulation and wages. She has said so to enthusiastic applause by Nigel Farage. Just let that sink in, especially on the Tory benches. They are becoming apologists for a hard, isolated Brexit and a hard, isolated Britain—just what you kept wanted. Of course, I accept that there is a majority for leave in England and Wales, but I do not accept that there is a majority anywhere in these islands with such a narrow and regressive vision. There is certainly no such majority in Scotland where the people, by a margin of some 24 per centage points, voted to remain in the EU. Patrick Harvie. I do not think that I have done that before. Is it not clear that, despite the narrow majority for leave across the UK as a whole, many leave campaigners were explicitly saying that the UK would not be taken out of the single market and that there is therefore no mandate at all for that destructive action that the UK Government is pursuing? The member is absolutely right. Indeed, the leave campaign was disingenuous on many points, including the point of repatriation of powers, but I will come to that. On June 28, this Parliament voted by a margin of 92 to 0 to welcome the overwhelming remain verdict in the referendum and mandated the Scottish Government to explore options for protecting Scotland's relationship with the EU. Even the leader of the Tories waxed eloquent about the need to do so and how important the single market was to us. The Scottish Government has therefore been clear ever since last June that recognition of the democratic outcome in Scotland must be part of the process of the UK exiting the EU. That was not a surprise then, it should not be a surprise now. It has been obvious that the Scottish Government, with the explicit support of this Parliament, has been pursuing the objective of preserving Scotland's relationship with Europe by rational, constructive and reasonable means. In July, the First Minister identified our objectives in this work, the economy, solidarity, social protection, democratic interests and our wider ability to influence the laws and the politics that affect us. With those objectives in mind, she set up a standing council in Europe to give expert advice. We have engaged with a range of stakeholders and institutions in Scotland, the UK and across Europe. Ministers have engaged with representatives of every country of the EU. We have worked tirelessly to develop alternative approaches that would recognise the democratic outcome in Scotland and across the UK and meet the objectives set out by the First Minister. As a result, we published in December that rational, constructive and reasonable compromise plan. The plan to keep the UK as a whole in the single market and, if that is not possible, for Scotland to retain its place. Proposals that envisage a major increase in devolved powers. Those ideas were well-received, as important and serious. Our paper is one that makes practical proposals complex, yes, but what is not complex at the moment? Proposals that accommodate the various objectives. On June 17, this Parliament, by a majority of 86 to 36, welcomed the options set out in the paper and agreed that we should seek to keep Scotland in the single market. Had the UK Government's reaction been agreed, so far we have had no sign of serious engagement with our proposals, no recognition of the referendum outcome in Scotland and not even a recognition of the votes taken in this national Parliament. On the same day as our debate, and just two days before we presented our proposals formulated at the JMC in London, the Prime Minister stood up at Lancaster House and set out without any prior discussion or notification the UK Government's objectives for negotiations with the European Union. On the central issue of membership, not access to the single market, she announced that she had unilaterally decided that the UK must leave the largest integrated market on the planet carefully constructed over many years. Apparently not to do so would not constitute leaving the EU at all, which will come as something of a surprise to a number of countries within the European economic area. There was no acknowledgement of the possibility of a differentiated solution for Scotland, but instead there was a threat, repeated in the UK Government's white paper last week, to walk away dragging us on her coattails without any deal, regardless of the disastrous consequences of such an approach for us and for the whole of the UK. The attitude of the UK Government needs to change, and we have said so directly to them. Three days before the latest white paper was published, the Prime Minister agreed with the First Minister and the First Minister of the other devolved administrations that work to find a common UK position on triggering article 50 needed to be intensified. That process is meant to be commencing tomorrow at the JMC in London, although we have had as ever great difficulty in discovering what the UK Government wishes to table and indeed even what the agenda will be. This morning, I wrote to David Davis, my opposite number, asking him to ensure that the agenda had at the very top consideration of the so-called article 50 letter. That is a formal document that will be sent to the EU to notify that the UK intends to leave and to commence negotiations. In particular, the agenda must address the way in which that letter will make mention of the devolved administrations and their requirements, including that of differentiation. I have also made clear that arrangements must be made to complete work on those issues before any article 50 letter is signed off by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has indicated that she intends to send that letter before the end of March. Some have speculated that it may be sent as early as the second week of March. Incredible as it must seem to most in Scotland, the Scottish Government does not know the proposed date of submission, has never seen a paper about its contents, let alone an early draft and has not been given any information about how the UK Government intends to seek our involvement in its production and finalisation. The promise of a UK agreement on its contents looks, therefore, as it may have been, an empty one, but we will go on asking the UK Government to honour it right up until the last moment. The Scottish Government needs to see clear evidence from the UK Government that it is taking seriously the views of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and of course the diversity of opinion in England, too. Some things are vital, however, if we are to protect Scotland's position at this time. We must be able to find a way to preserve the free movement of people. We must have the powers to comply with EFTA-EA rules, which means that we must increase devolved competencies, and we must have guaranteed to us the further devolution of those matters that lie within devolved competence but which are presently decided upon in Brussels. Ruth Davidson may be preparing, as she indicated yesterday at the NFU, to sell the pass on Tory promises, including that of automatic transfer of powers from Brussels to this Parliament. She may have swallowed the false rhetoric of some mythical UK single market that needs to be prepared, whereas what is being talked about is a rigid and rigged unitary market controlled from London. That will not deflect us, no matter the noise that the Scottish Tories make as they defend the indefensible. The Scottish Parliament of whatever hue has always been willing to share and to work with London Cardiff and Belfast, but the only people who laugh are the Tories who do not wish to share with anyone. We do so in devolved competencies on the basis of powers' exercise close to the people and informed by them. The attitude of Theresa May is now one that reverses that basic tenet of devolution. It will therefore not be allowed to prevail. Accordingly, as there is no evidence of progress on any of the compromises that we have sought, and indeed there is growing evidence of an actual attempt to reserve more and more powers to the UK Government, whilst ignoring this Parliament, this Government and the votes of the people of Scotland, we can do no other than recommend that the Parliament does not give approval to the triggering of article 50. The Westminster Bill, in fact, gives the Prime Minister unprecedented and untrammeled power in these matters. No Prime Minister should be given that. The clock is ticking as the time to trigger article 50 approaches. There is still time for the UK Government to recognise democracy in these islands, the existence and importance of the devolved settlement, the actual votes of this Parliament and the clear voice of the people of this country. However, that time is running out. Consequently, voting today to reject the triggering of article 50 is a good way. In fact, it is now the only way to remind the Prime Minister of that fact, of her promises and of the disastrous consequences of the past that she seems determined to tread. Therefore, I commend my motion to the chamber. John Lamont, to speak to and move amendment 353858.3. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to speak in today's debate on the triggering of article 50 and to move the amendment in my name. I am somewhat surprised that we do not have a legislative consent motion to vote on. It is a surprise because, less than two weeks ago, the Brexit minister, Mr Russell, promised us all that he would publish one. In fact, he was so sure that he told this Parliament that there was no doubt that the legislation enabling the UK Government to trigger article 50 would require this Parliament's formal approval. Could it be that the Brexit minister was wrong? Moreover, could it be that my colleague Professor Adam Tompkins was indeed correct in saying that the process for triggering article 50 is a reserved matter? Could it be that the Scottish Government has not submitted an LCM, because it knows that it is outwith the competence of this Parliament, despite all its grandstanding in the past few weeks? That is an important point, because it shows that the Scottish Government's default position is to try to manufacture a grievance out of nothing. The Scottish Government tried to portray the Supreme Court ruling and the UK Government's bill to trigger article 50 as an example of Scotland being ignored. When the truth was actually more simple, it is a matter for Scotland's other Parliament to deal with, and it is, at the reserved matter, one for Scotland's MPs to scrutinise. It is important to record that all the withdrawal from the European Union bill does is to allow the UK Government to start the process of us leaving the European Union. As the Scottish Government's motion alludes to, elected representatives from Scotland are currently debating and voting on that bill at Westminster. They will debate and vote on the great repeal bill and other legislation to implement our exit from the European Union. When legislation affects devolved powers, the Scottish Parliament will of course get to debate and vote on those matters. That is how the devolution settlement works, and it is time that the SNP accepted that principle and moved on from grievance politics. Despite the rhetoric from the Scottish Government, the reality is that there has been plenty of opportunity to engage in the process of the UK leaving the EU. The Prime Minister has already chaired two meetings of the joint ministerial committee, and it has established a separate joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations, which has met on a monthly basis since November. With Theresa May's first visit as Prime Minister being to Scotland to meet with the First Minister, it is clear that the Prime Minister has tried to give the Scottish Government every opportunity to engage in this process. In response, we have a First Minister and a Scottish Government, which is always unhappy after every meeting and is refusing to engage constructively. The Scottish Government's motion today is yet further evidence of its grievance politics. It completely ignores the creation of the GMC for EU negotiations and the detail contained in the UK Government's white paper. Its motion also attempts to blame the UK Government for the deadline for negotiations after article 50 is triggered. On the serious issue of the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the UK Government has said that it wants to reach a mutual agreement with the EU at the earliest opportunity. The SNP, meanwhile, is trying to use this issue for its grievance agenda. In the run-up to the independence referendum, it was this SNP Government that was threatening EU nationals of their right to remain in Scotland. The SNP backbenchers do not like it, but the First Minister's words are on the records. Back in 2014, the then Deputy First Minister said that we had set down a robust and common sense position. There are 160,000 EU nationals from other states living in Scotland. If Scotland was outside Europe, they would lose the right to stay here. Not my words, but the words of Nicola Sturgeon. I wonder whether the Scottish Government was wrong to publish its compromise views at all, and whether, Presiding Officer, can Mr Lamont, for all the meetings that there have been, tell us of a single, however trivial change that has been made to anything whatsoever that the Prime Minister has proposed, discussed or stated? John Lennon. I may have read a different document to Mr Stevens, but I could see no compromise in the SNP's position. They are obsessed with stoking up the politics of grievance and their agenda for independence and nothing else. Instead of constantly trying to undermine the process, the Scottish Government really should get on with the job of getting the best deal for Scotland. Their current grandstanding is putting that at risk. We repeatedly hear from the SNP that Scotland voted differently from the rest of the United Kingdom in the EU referendum. That is certainly the case. Indeed, I was one of the Scots who voted for the United Kingdom to stay in, but the referendum was about the UK's membership of the EU. The question on the ballot papers was not about Scotland's membership of the EU for the very simple reason that Scotland is not a member of the EU. That is an important point, because if Scotland was a separate member, our membership would look very different to that of the UK's, and the issues at stake would be very different too. The UK voted to leave the EU, including a not-insubstantial £1 million Scots. Democracy is easy to defend when we agree with the majority, when we get our way. Our belief in democracy is tested when we disagree with the result. I believe that on balance leaving the EU was not in the best interests of business, trade or international standing in the world, but I lost the argument and I have accepted the results. I am now working to get the best deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom outside of the European Union. The Brexit minister is keen in referring to me and my party colleagues as born-again Brexiters. Is it not time for the SNP to accept the result of the EU referendum and, for that matter, the result of the 2014 independence referendum, both of which we are on the losing side of? Is it not time for Mr Russell and the SNP to become born-again Democrats? Let us look to the future. With the publication of the UK Government's white paper, we have further clarity on the UK Government's approach to the negotiations. The UK Government has guaranteed the current level of funding under CEP pillar 1 until 2020, as well as all European structural funds projects that have been signed off. The UK Government will seek to secure the status of EU citizens who are already living in the UK, and that of UK nationals in other member states as early as possible. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that she is prioritising controlling immigration, while at the same time ensuring the greatest possible access to the EU internal market. However, it is completely reasonable for the UK Government to refuse to provide a running commentary. As with any process of negotiation, revealing our red lines and potential trade-offs are not in the interests of getting the best possible deal. I suspect that the European officials' task of managing the EU negotiating position will not be revealing their hand either at this early stage. So, while we have some useful clarity from the UK Government strategy, the debate over what we will do with the extra powers and what type of systems we will design is still very much up for debate. That is what the Scottish Government should be focusing on, getting the best deal, the right solution for Scotland and ensuring that Scotland's needs are considered as powers over farming, fisheries, trade and research support return from the EU. Leaving the EU means our own system of farming support that works for British farmers, not farmers from across the other 27 member states, an immigration system that attracts the right workers for UK businesses, the ability to negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world, and leaving the EU will mean that this Parliament will emerge more powerful. That is what the SNP should be spending its time on. The final point that I would like to make is on the First Minister's weekly threats of a second independence referendum. I recently spoke alongside SNP MP Callum Kerr at a debate in council with local farmers about the impact of Brexit on agriculture. Mr Kerr faced a number of questions from concerned farmers who were worried about the SNP's independence plans and whether that would undermine the UK's own internal market, a market worth four times that of the EU. Mr Kerr's response was to refuse to answer their questions. I found that astonishing. Was he refusing to answer, or was he unable to answer those tough questions about how an independent Scotland would actually work? All the options put forward by the First Minister, particularly independence for Scotland, would undermine Scottish trade with the rest of the UK and put up barriers between us and our largest trading partner, something that would make the challenges of Brexit look insignificant. Very important just to nail this misapprehension immediately. It is absolutely clear that the proposals in Scotland's place in Europe do not require Scotland or the UK to make a choice of trading partners north and south of the border. That trade is actually in the UK's benefit by a significant sum, but there is no requirement for a choice on either side, so he should be able to move on from that without any worry at all and reassure his local farmers. Mr Russell clearly does not understand how the internal market works, because any member of the internal market has got to accept a free movement of workers. How can Scotland accept a free movement of workers while the rest of the United Kingdom has a separate immigration policy without putting up barriers between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? You have heard enough from Mr Russell today. Enough from Mr Russell. That is why I hope that all parties who believe in the United Kingdom will support the amendment in my name, which urges the Scottish Government to rule out a damaging second independence referendum. We are entering a challenging time. There is no doubt about that. There will be pitfalls, to be avoided and opportunities to be seized, but the challenges of leaving the EU are certainly not solved by leaving a much larger, far more important and closely integrated market, that of the United Kingdom. The next two years must not be about playing games, grandstanding and political posturing. They must be about the hard graft of securing a deal that works for Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom. Now is the time to work positively and constructively to get that deal, and for the SNP benches to break with a habit of a lifetime admittedly, but to break with that habit and cut out the politics of grievance and further division. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When Theresa May invokes article 50 and gives notice of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, we will have reached a somber moment in our shared history. Sixty years after Anthony Eden's resignation marked the end of emperor, sixty years after the Treaty of Rome pointed towards an alternative future, it is almost as if Britain and Europe are back to where we began. However, the question now is not whether Britain leaves the EU or whether the Government invokes article 50. The referendum vote last June made the decision to leave, not to leave is not an option. The question is not whether, but when, is the UK Government in a position to begin such a critical negotiation on our behalf and how will they be accountable in doing so? After months of denying that the act of leaving the EU was any of Parliament's business, Mrs May finally agreed last week to publish her negotiating objectives in a white paper. That white paper confirmed that the Government's approach to Brexit was based not on a rational analysis of costs and benefits but on ideological preferences alone. Ministers have declared that Britain should leave the world's largest single market with no clear strategy for how to obtain unfettered access to that market as an external trading partner. Ministers now also want to leave the European Customs Union to face the risk of tariff and non-tariff barriers with no idea of the terms of trade in any future agreement with the EU. They have laid out no plans in detail for future engagement with the many other European institutions and agreements to which membership of the EU currently gives us access. Can the member tell us how his party at Westminster is getting on, challenging all that? I will certainly come to Westminster in a moment, and I am sure that Mr Rennie will want to reflect on how effective his colleagues are being. After 60 years of Britain growing closer to Europe, we now have a Government that is determined to go in the opposite direction. Theresa May would rather hold hands with Donald Trump than work hand in glove with Angela Merkel. That much is clear, but there remain too many unanswered questions, too many ways in which a reckless and irresponsible approach could yet turn a difficult business into a disaster. Our responsibility in the Scottish Parliament is to say whether we believe that UK ministers have done enough to go to Europe and negotiate on our behalf. We believe that the answer has to be that they have not. Labour this week is indeed promoting a raft of amendments to the article 50 bill at Westminster. Some have already been voted on, others are up for decision over the next couple of days. They set out what Labour believes are the broad principles that UK ministers should follow in negotiations. Maintaining a stable and sustainable economy, preserving peace in Northern Ireland, achieving trading arrangements with the EU, free of tariffs and non-tariff barriers without further regulatory burdens, laying a basis for co-operation with Europe in education, science and research, environmental protection and the fight against serious and organised crime and terrorism. Maintaining existing social, economic consumers and workers rights, and also, as we highlight in our amendment here today, UK ministers should consult with the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations in a serious and meaningful way, and Scottish ministers should work with other administrations to influence the process and the outcomes. The white paper offers no more than a wish list for achieving any of those wider objectives. It shows little sign of taking on board the views of the other administrations within the UK. As the minister did acknowledge today, we in this place have no veto on article 50, but we have a right and a duty to speak on behalf of those that we seek to represent. We should therefore say that we do not endorse Mrs May's proposals and that she should not proceed until she has demonstrated that she has a clear strategy for achieving the right outcomes from the negotiations that will follow. There are other things that she could do now even before these negotiations begin. Yesterday, I met parent representatives at St Peter's School in Aberdeen, where many of the pupils come from countries both within and beyond the European Union. I heard directly about the insecurity that many of those families feel, and certainly about the choices that they have made to live in this country and about their children's future. Theresa May could help with that right now. She could follow the advice of the European Committee in its report this week, provide clarity on the position of EU and EEA after citizens living in the UK without further delay. That would make our constituents feel secure again. It would also, in advance of the negotiations, let our European friends and neighbours know that we will not make their citizens suffer because of a decision that our citizens have made. She could also do what her party declined to do in the House of Commons last night and commit to seeking a consensus with the devolved Administrations on the terms of withdrawal and the framework for our future relationship with the European Union. That would not give a veto to anyone. The constitutional position is clear, but to commit to seeking a consensus would show a degree of willing to look beyond the inner circles of the Conservative cabinet, which has so far been sadly lacking. I am grateful to Mr McDonald, and I want to follow the point that he has just made. If Mr McDonald can see the advantages and the benefits of the United Kingdom Government coming to some form of agreement with the devolved Administrations, why does he think that it is beyond the capacity of the Conservative benches in this Parliament to recognise the wisdom and the value of such a step? Of course, the Conservative benches have to speak for themselves, and no doubt we will hear more from them shortly, but clearly there is a need for people to recognise the choices that are in front of us. We will vote today that article 50 should not be triggered until the UK Government strategy is clear, and we will do so in terms of our own amendments. We debated Brexit on 17 January, and we agreed that the Scottish Government should continue to seek ways of mitigating its impact within the UK. That remains our position. However, it is less clear how far that position remains of the SNP. On the same day as that debate, the First Minister in a moment declared that a second referendum on independence was once again very likely, demanding a common UK position on the one hand, working against the United Kingdom on the other. Can I repeat what I said in my speech on the avoidance of doubt? We continue to negotiate constructively and positively our attempt to, on the basis of the paper that the Parliament has considered, and we will continue to do so up until the article 50 is triggered, because we feel that we can still achieve a deal if there is will from the UK Government. I recognise what Mr Russell says, but the truth is that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Government are keeping the threat of an independence referendum on the table. By doing that, they may argue that it gives leverage with Theresa May, but the truth is that it merely adds to the uncertainty that we already face. Whether, indeed, the SNP really wants to ask people to vote for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom in order to remain in the European Union has to be a moot point. Some of the strongest votes for Brexit were recorded in places such as Banff and Buchan, which voted 61 to 39 per cent to leave. An overwhelming majority, as some of the SNP members might say. Those who voted to leave are hardly going to turn out to vote for independence if it means that Scotland will stay in the European Union, after all. I urge the SNP to recognise that building a consensus cannot be done with the threat of a referendum on the table. If they want a positive response across the board, then they should accept that. We on this side reject an independence referendum and we will not support anything that creates barriers to trade within the UK, but Theresa May has so far failed to address the uncertainty that we face as a result of Brexit, and therefore article 50 should not be triggered at this time, and on that basis I move the amendment in my name. As our Conservative colleagues are ever keen to remind us that we have debated a number of aspects of Brexit in this Parliament in recent months. Just a few weeks ago, members across the chamber again urged the UK Government to end the uncertainty for citizens of the other 27 EU nations living here in the UK to not use them as bargaining chips. It is with some disappointment, but with no surprise whatsoever, that I saw again in today's newspapers that, while offering positive rhetoric about the contribution that our neighbours from elsewhere in Europe have made, the Prime Minister has refused to guarantee her future. I absolutely accept that the Governments of the other 27 countries should also be offering that reassurance to UK citizens in their nations, and they should be taking them off the negotiating table. None of that would stop the United Kingdom Government from taking EU citizens living here off the negotiating table today. That is entirely a choice of their own making. Our green colleagues across the continent have been making the case that citizens should not be part of those negotiations, and we will continue to do so. In the same debates of recent months, we have urged the UK Government again to keep Scotland in the European single market, highlighting the damage that leaving would inflict on our wages, our jobs and the wellbeing of the Scottish economy. We urged Theresa May to respect the democratic verdict of voters in Scotland and in Northern Ireland and Gibralta to agree to a compromise, recognising that we voted to stay. It should not be forgotten that this was a significant compromise on our part. Scotland did not just vote to stay in the single market, but we voted convincingly to stay in the European Union, as stated in the Green Amendment. The proposals that were set out by the Scottish Government were an exercise in compromise, in damage limitation. They were an attempt at goodwill and co-operation towards their colleagues at Westminster, but, frankly, there is very little to show for at beyond empty rhetoric from the other side. I have much sympathy for Mike Russell and the team behind the Scotland's place in Europe paper, but, despite the statements and after a committee session with the minister last week, I really have no idea what intensifying the joint work is in regards to those proposals. I have no idea what that actually means, because I have seen nothing from the UK Government that actually explains it. Given that the Prime Minister did not even wait for the proposals from the Welsh Government in Plaid Cymru before outlining her Brexit proposals, I do not have much faith that she is taking any of those compromise proposals seriously. For this reason alone, the Greens cannot support the activation of article 50, but that is, of course, not the only reason. Across a number of debates, this Parliament has highlighted areas of significant concern, and yet we are no closer to a satisfactory answer on issues that have been raised repeatedly over recent months. The legislation introduced to the UK Parliament is wildly inadequate. It contains barely two provisions, one of which simply specifies the name of the bill. As mentioned, the rights of EU migrants are not assured. Amendments in the Commons to this are shamefully set to be voted down by the Government and its backbenchers if they are selected. Although, for any Conservative MPs watching, there is still the chance of a change of heart that vote has not come up yet. The course that is being set at Westminster could not be further from the collective, though not unanimous, position of this Parliament that Scotland remains within the single market, either with the UK as a whole remaining or through a differentiated agreement. It is evident that Theresa May's Government does not have a clear plan. What she has laid out so far is confused, contradictory and dangerous. The white paper would be laughable if it were not so serious. For all the criticisms that the Greens laid out in 2014, the Scotland's future document was substantial enough for effective scrutiny and it was scrutinised ahead of the vote. The UK Government's white paper was not even released until after the article 50 first reading vote in the Commons. Nothing approaching a coherent position was laid out ahead of the referendum itself. The definition that the UK Parliament has of a white paper is that it is a policy document produced before legislation. Was it even a white paper at all? Mr Stevenson is quite right. What the UK Government has published is nothing approaching the definition of a white paper. It is certainly nothing approaching the definition of satisfactory answers to the huge numbers of questions that not only we have but the other Parliaments and Assemblies of this country, of businesses, of citizens across the United Kingdom. We are told that their Brexit plan will protect and strengthen workers' rights. That is the same Conservative Government, which has just passed the most restrictive trade union bill in living memory. The Brexit minister himself described that bill as fascist in nature and comparable to the dictatorship of General Franco. If the Brexit minister does not have faith in his own Government's ability to defend workers' rights, why should we? We are told that Theresa May will take a whole UK approach to Brexit, and yet she refuses to work with the Scottish Government on their compromise proposals. We are told that the Brexit negotiations will provide certainty. Yet we have heard from European leaders and experts a deep skepticism that a deal can be reached within two years—certainly not a deal on our future relationship. We have seen no plans from the Conservative Government to prepare transitionary arrangements. Just last week, before our committee on Europe, Professor Sir David Edward, a former judge of the European Court of Justice, said that if you believe that all of this can be sorted within a few years, you are away with the fairies. Day by day, it becomes clearer that the Brexit plan is being made up on the go by hard-right Tory ideologs. Neil Findlay? Are people away with the fairies when they think that an independent Scotland could be set up in a similar timescale? As I am sure, Mr Findlay is aware, the timescale that was set up by the Scottish Government in 2014 was something that the Greens were openly sceptical of. We believe in independence, we believe in putting Scotland's future in Scotland's hands, but we disagreed with the Scottish Government on some of the details, and we were clear about that. If Mr Findlay wants to intervene again, he is free to do so. Absolutely. Neil Findlay? If the inaccuracy was on his friends on the SNP benches on the timescale that it would take for an independent Scotland, what do the magnificent Greens say would be the timescale for that? Ross Greer. Unfortunately, without the resources of a Government behind us, we estimated that it would take a couple of years. We were not putting a hard timescale on it because, at that point, with our two MSPs and now with our six, we are keen to do work on it, but it is no surprise that we are not coming up with a white paper of our own. Anyway, Britain is now hardling towards a hard Brexit, turning our back on Europe, closing up to Donald Trump and looking weaker and weaker by the day. So we really must ask ourselves what kind of country we want Scotland to be. This is not only about our EU membership, this is about Scotland's place in the world. Do we want to stick with a country so isolated and in need of allies that holding hands with the bigot in the White House is our best chance of securing a trade deal? Not forgetting that said bigot is also a protectionist whose trade negotiators weren't famed for giving the other side a good deal before his administration came in. Brexit is a monumental change in itself, but it is happening as part of a wider sea change in global politics and in the wake of an economic crisis. To rush into this without anything approaching agreement across these islands or even a plan for the central government at Westminster is simply reckless, and it is certainly not in keeping with the verdict that our constituents gave us last June. In the spirit of Conservative and Labour speeches referencing our constitutional position and Mr Finlay's intervention, the Greens have been quite clear on our position. During the independence referendum, we were told that Scotland is an equal partner in the union. That is clearly not the case. It has been confirmed by the Supreme Court that the Sewell convention is merely a political convention that can be overridden at will, despite promises made in the 2014 referendum. I expect that the chamber today will vote against article 50 being ratified, but this vote and the vote of the people of Scotland in the EU referendum will be overridden by Westminster. All members in this chamber must now ask herself, where would you rather see Scotland? The time for compromise has almost passed, and we will likely have to choose one future or another. Come to close, please. That was a happy coincidence, Mr Greer. Willie Rennie, eight minutes, please. The debate today is marked by omission, irony and confusion. The SNP motion is significant by what it does not say. In fact, the minister was very disciplined today. I do not think that the words independence were uttered from his lips, and certainly the motion does not mention it either, but that is all that they really want, and we know that to be true. The Conservative amendment is full of irony. It accuses the SNP of division when it is the Conservatives that have divided this country over Brexit simply to heal the divisions in their own party. The Labour amendment is marked by its length in an attempt to hide total and utter confusion over what its position is. The Labour party has sought to bring clarity on Brexit by opposing the position of the Labour party on Brexit. That brings great clarity today, and I commend it for that tautology. However, what is also consistent in all three parties is that each of them is giving up on the European Union. The Conservative leadership, having argued for remain, now favour a hard Brexit, no matter the consequences for our economy, our security or our environment. The Labour party is simply following the Conservatives. They are a compliant and ineffective opposition at Westminster, and that does not serve our country well. Now we learn that the SNP is abandoning the European Union 2. Instead of pledging, to take an independent Scotland back into full membership of the European Union, there are reports that they will only make the case to join Liechtenstein in the EEA. For those pro-Europeans who thought independence would be the answer to Brexit, that EU membership would follow independence as night follows day, they need to think again. To get the independence-supporting Brexiteers back on board for independence, the SNP is preparing to sell pro-Europeans down the river. Using the EU to get an independence referendum, ditching the EU to win independence, I will give it to you. I am sensing that Willie Rennie is about to explain how his party can provide his clarity. Before he does that, could he just tell us how many different ways his party voted in Westminster? We all voted for membership of the European Union. We all voted for a Brexit deal referendum before triggering article 50. Every single member of Parliament who voted in that debate voted for article 50 and a Brexit deal referendum. That is the clarity that Mr Daniel Johnson wanted, and that is the clarity that his party has failed to give in Westminster. I think that they have not served this debate well. Mr Corbyn has not been an effective opposition leader. The Liberal Democrat position, in contrast, is crystal clear. We are in favour of Scotland in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom in the European Union. That is no to independence, yes to the UK and yes to the European Union. It is a coherent and consistent approach with internationalism and partnership at its heart. It would be wrong for the only people to have the final say on the Brexit deal to be a small number of people around the Conservative Cabinet table. Surely, for something so monumental, so life changing, we need the British people to have the final say in a referendum. The British people were denied a white paper. They were denied a manifesto. In fact, any real detail on what the Brexit deal would look like. We do not even know now. To be fair to the SNP and Mr Russell, they produced a several hundred-page white paper, broadly repetitive, but anyway it was a detailed white paper before the Scottish people rejected it and they need to remember that it was rejected. We did not have that last June. The Conservative Government never supplied that. Mr Farage never supplied that. Nobody supplied that Brexit white paper. If we do not have a Brexit deal referendum, we are handing a blank check to Theresa May to agree whatever she wants, no matter what the consequences to our economy, security and our environment. Our new referendum would be a choice between accepting that deal or staying in the European Union. If the SNP are as pro-European as they claim, they would back our amendment. If they are only using the Brexit debate to generate grievance for another independence campaign, I suspect that they will oppose it. So this is the chance for the SNP to show that that is not the case. Will Mr Russell give a commitment that such a referendum were to be held? If it resulted in the people of Scotland voting against leaving and the people of England endorsing leaving, that would be binding for the people of Scotland. In other words, does he respect the Scottish democratic voice in his future referendum? Willie Rennie? I do not know how many ifs and ifs that were in that question, but it was not clear by any means. It has not got a chance of going any further if his party does not back it in here and in Westminster. That is the best way to get the democratic will of the British people. If he is so pro-European, he will back our amendment. I noticed that he did not answer my question, which I presume means that he is only in favour of using the Brexit debate to generate further grievance for another independence campaign, and that is something that we will have nothing to do with. The SNP and the Conservatives are both right about one thing, however. They are both right about each other. The SNP accused the Conservatives of risking our economy with a hard Brexit. The SNP are right about that. The Conservatives accused the SNP of risking the economy with their plans for Scottish independence. The Conservatives are right about that. The Conservatives with their hard Brexit and the SNP with independence will cause real damage to our economy. Both determined to pursue their ideological goals irrespective of the consequences. Both determined to deliver independence or a hard Brexit, no matter how many jobs are lost, businesses are closed or taxes are lost. It is that ideological pursuit that will damage the fortunes and our future. It is a partnership with our neighbours, both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, that will deliver a safer country, protect our environment and build a stronger economy. I move the amendment in mind. We now move to the open speeches. They are speeches of up to five minutes please, including interventions. We are very tight for time. I call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Adam Tomkins. The UK Government white paper on leaving the European Union has little of substance to say about Scotland. Indeed, it has little of substance to say about leaving the European Union, but I was struck by one line on page 18. It described the UK as a multination state. Multinational is normally associated with positive values such as co-operation and tolerance. There has been very little evidence of co-operation and tolerance in this multination state. In fact, Scotland, as the second largest member of that state, has not been able to make its voice heard in any way. As the minister, Mr Russell, outlined, there has been no movement or compromise in the UK position. Mr Lamont could not answer Mr Stevenson's earlier intervention in this debate today, when he asked him to name one single change that the UK Government has made as a result of these meetings with the joint ministerial committee on exiting the European Union. Mr Lamont, I am giving him the opportunity now to tell us if there is one single change that the UK Government has made as a result of these talks with the other devolved nations. I see that he is not going to... John Lamont respond to the member's point. The Prime Minister has made it very clear, for example, in relation to those EU nationals who are based in Scotland. She wishes them to be able to stay like the Scottish National Party Government's policy is on this. She wants EU nationals, like UK nationals living in the EU, to stay in the UK if that is possible, but she is not going to concede that point until the European Union concedes the same point for UK nationals living in the EU. Entirely reasonable and entirely fair, something that the SNP seems unable to grasp. That is absolutely meaningless and she has not given any guarantee to EU nationals. Last night, the SNP amendment to guarantee a UK approach to negotiations was voted down by MPs from outside Scotland, exposing the meaninglessness of the UK Government's promises to listen to Scotland. It makes a mockery of the GMCEN's terms of reference, which were issued by a joint communique last year. Those terms of reference said that the Governments would collaborate to discuss each Government's requirement of the future relationships with the EU and seek a UK approach to and objectives for article 15 negotiations. How hollow those promises appear this morning, Presiding Officer? Almost as empty as the UK Government's promise to give the Sule convention legal status by embedding it in the Scotland act. Last night, only four SNP MPs were called to speak during that part of the proceedings at Westminster, where amendments of concern to the devolved nations were debated. Just four in eight hours. That, Presiding Officer, is contemptuous given the trust that the Scottish people have placed in this party to represent them at Westminster. We can find examples of contempt much closer to home. This week, the European Committee of this Parliament, after taking extensive evidence on the skills shortages and demographic time bomb facing Scotland if EU migrants cease coming here, published a report that recommended, among other things, a bespoke immigration solution for Scotland. The demographic challenges that we face are acute much more so than England and Wales. Without EU migrants, our working age population will shrink substantially. The Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster and the all-party group on social cohesion in the comments reached similar conclusions. Of course, the Scottish Government asks in Scotland's place in Europe for devolution of powers over immigration, as already exists in sub-states and regions around the world, such as the Canadian provinces and the Chinese, Wisconsin's. I was therefore very disappointed that Amber Rudd, the UK Home Secretary, dismissed this reasonable proposal out of hand when she was responding to the select committee. I was even more disappointed when two Conservative members of our committee, having agreed the report, issued a party press release distancing themselves from its conclusion when they could have chosen to dissent in committee but chose not to. It was quite clear that they were clobbered by their bosses in London. The UK Government has already made up its mind not to devolve a single extra power to Scotland, including immigration. In fact, from what Ruth Davidson told farmers this week, it seems that a great power grab is already in place. The entire consultation mechanism is in place. The UK Government does not listen to the other Governments through the GMC, it does not listen to Scottish MPs, it does not listen to the votes of this Parliament, it does not even listen to its own Conservative members when they back very sensible committee reports aimed at the best possible outcome for Scotland, which is to address our demographic challenges. This is not how a multinational state should work and it is not how democracy should work. Adam Tomkins, to be followed by Ivan McKee. The Parliament spends an awful lot of time, particularly Government time, just going through the motion after motion. We have extensive lawmaking powers, but we do not use them to consider legislation. We have significant and growing problems in our public services, but we do not address them here. We have in today's newspapers reports of the supposedly independent poverty adviser having her report doctored and diluted by the First Minister, and of the Scottish Government's naivety in its dealings with China, but we do not debate these matters. Instead, we spend our time talking about something that a unanimous judgment of the UK Supreme Court has ruled to be a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament, not for devolved parliaments such as this one. In doing so, we are merely reconfirming the Scottish Government's dismal view of what this Parliament is for. In their view, it is not for governing, it is for grandstanding. It is not for making better laws for the people of Scotland, it is to give voice to grievance, contrived grievance, nationalist grievance, grievance which the Supreme Court itself has ruled has no basis in our constitutional law. For here is what the Supreme Court said, and I quote, the devolved legislatures do not have legislative competence in relation to withdrawal from the European Union." It couldn't be clearer, could it? Yet still, the SNP put their fingers in their ears and carry on regardless. Regardless of the rule of law, regardless of the unanimous judgment of the country's highest judges, furious perhaps that their control freakery, while it can apparently reach near me Eisenstadt's door, is mere impotent fury in the face of our independent judiciary. There was me thinking that the SNP liked independence. There should have been nothing surprising about the Supreme Court's judgment. It is the United Kingdom, not Scotland, that is the member state of the European Union. It is the United Kingdom as a whole that was decided by lawful referendum in June last year to terminate its membership of the European Union. The Scotland act unambiguously reserves to the United Kingdom Parliament international relations, including relations with the European Union and its institutions. Schedule 5, paragraph 7. I don't have time to give away, I've got five minutes. This provision has caused no problems in the past, and it should cause no problems now. The terms of the UK's membership of the EU have been changed many times since the dawn of devolution. The Lisbon treaty was given legal effect by the UK in the European Union Amendment Act 2008, an act of the UK Parliament. When that legislation was going through Westminster, did it trigger a legislative consent motion here or in Wales or in Northern Ireland? It did not. Neither a few years later did the European Union Act of 2011 trigger a legislative consent motion. Again, none of that is surprising. Westminster will seek our consent before it enacts law on devolved matters. Yes, it will. It always has. Before it enacts law on devolved matters, whether Mr Stevenson likes that from his sedentary position or not, it happens to be true. It also happens to be our constitution. The UK's membership of the European Union is not and never has been a devolved matter. The UK's membership of the European Union is not and never has been a devolved matter, whether Mr Stevenson likes that or not from a sedentary position. It is not as if the UK Government is marching on without seeking to bring the Scottish Government into the process. The JMC machinery has been reformed and extended to take account of Brexit. The Scottish Government's policy paper, Scotland's Place in Europe, has been considered by the JMC. The Prime Minister has indicated how close her position is to that preferred by the Scottish ministers if only those ministers would listen. The Prime Minister wants the freest possible trade with the European Union. She wants the fullest possible access to and participation in the EU's single market. She wants to be able to guarantee the right of residence of EU nationals living here just as soon as the EU makes the same guarantee for British citizens living in the rest of the EU. She wants to continue with the UK's co-operation with our European partners in the fight against crime and terrorism. Where there is a difference between... Well, some of us know the difference between terrorism and freedom fighters, and some of us don't. Where there is a difference between the Prime Minister and the Scottish Government, of course, is that Theresa May wants to respect and deliver upon the result of the EU referendum, whereas the SNP wants to hijack that result to launch a fresh drive for independence. Here, I grant you, there is no meeting of minds between the Conservatives and the nationalists, and nor will there ever be. I support the amendment in John Lamont's name. Ivan McKee, followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, the situation that we find ourselves in is not of our making. The age-old internal squabble at the heart of the Tory party between those who value economic prosperity flowing from free trade and those who see their historic mission as making Britain great again came to a head last June. As a consequence, Scotland finds itself at risk of losing the substantial benefits of the European internal market. Brexit was not the preferred option of the great majority of Scots or members of this Parliament, including the majority of Tory members. However, it falls to us to sort out this mess. This week, we saw a debate on the triggering of article 50 in another Parliament, a debate that was not supposed to happen, because in the topsy-world of Brexit logic, returning control to the UK Parliament was redefined to mean not giving that Parliament a voice or a vote, and this upside down logic abounds in Brexit land. Brexit is supposed to be about taking back control of immigration, but most UK immigration is from non-EU countries, which the Prime Minister was unable to control when she was Home Secretary. Does anyone really believe that they will achieve their goal of immigration in the low tens of thousands post-Brexit, and if not, what is the point of all the pain? Brexit has been redefined as an opportunity to create a global Britain trade with the rest of the world, yet the first step is pulling up the drawbridge on the UK's largest trading partner, the EU, and then hoping that we can do deals at any price with the most protectionist and inward-looking US administration for 100 years. The internal inconsistency that is at the heart of the Brexit means Brexit mantra will cause it to unravel under the pressures of reality, and unfortunately Scotland will suffer as a consequence. Our economy will suffer. Article 50 has not even been triggered, yet already 58 per cent of footsie 500 businesses are reporting a negative impact from Brexit, a 10th already moving business abroad. Brexit will cost Scotland 80,000 jobs. Our society will suffer. My constituency of Glasgow province, like most, is home to many EU nationals. They are concerned about what Brexit might mean, worried about the implications for them, their families and their businesses, confused as to why the UK Government has not almost eight months after the vote made it clear that they are welcome to stay and frustrated that they are reduced to the status of bargaining chips as the UK Government stumbles towards what passes for a negotiating strategy. Our status within the UK is already suffering. In July of last year, Theresa May stated that she would not trigger article 50 until the UK's approach to negotiation had been agreed with the devolved administrations, yet we are no closer to that agreement than ever. The Secretary of State for Scotland failed to give way. Elaine Smith Thank you, Mr McKee. I wonder if you could clarify if the SNP does not agree with triggering article 50 at all. Ivan McKee We agree with doing what is in the interests of the people of Scotland, and if the people of Scotland made it clear that they want to stay in the EU. The Secretary of State for Scotland has failed to say much in his interview with Gordon Brewer at the weekend. The one thing that he did say was that his Scottish Government Scotland and Europe proposal is under consideration. I hope that Theresa May heard them. We do not, however, hold her breath. Yes, I did display of contempt towards amendments in the Commons to make it crystal clear that the specifics of Scotland's circumstances are being ignored. With the lightweight white paper, which had to be dragged from the UK Government, leaving many questions unanswered, not least how Scotland's needs will be included in negotiations and what post-Brexit devolution might look like. However, the most important part, the most important lesson in all this sorry tale, is not just the flip-flopery of those on the Tory benches. Ruth Davidson has come a long way from retaining her place in the single market should be an overriding priority, nor is it just the clean abandon with which economic vandalism has been enacted. Adam Tomkins has come a long way from economic prosperity lies at the heart of the case for a remain vote. No presiding officer, the most important lesson and consequence of this sorry tale is the way in which the UK partnership of equals is shown to be not worth the unwritten constitution that it is supposed to be written on, because article 50, in the way that it has been implemented, will be remembered for what it did to the coherence of this family of nations when the Prime Minister failed to even mention Scotland in her discussions with EU leaders, when the Tories refused to consider amendments to article 50 in relation to the devolved administration in the Commons. The UK Government, in its arrogance, is sending a clear message that the wishes of Scotland are not to be taken seriously and that the people of Scotland are saying to themselves, if we cannot trust Westminster to listen to us on this, what can we trust them on? Daniel Johnson, followed by Stuart McMillan. Referendums always deliver a result, but they often do not result in clarity nor a concrete course of action. That is why we are having such a heated debate and what we are wrestling with here today. As MSPs, as representatives, we always have to balance a number of different considerations, but today perhaps more than most with this vote and this motion. We have to balance our personal values with those of our constituents and their wider interests. We have to look at the wider public interest but also be mindful of our party's values and the policies that we voted into this place upon. Many of them will be conflicted. Those who voted leave may find their parties pursuing a more pro-European stance than they may be comfortable. Those who voted to remain finding themselves bound by the constitutional conveyor belt. We do not have to blindly accept the version of Brexit that was put before us by the UK Government. It is incumbent on us to interpret the interests of our constituents and the wider interests of this country and make our case as the UK Government considers Brexit. For me, those considerations are easy. I have always believed that a politics that reaches beyond our board is not one defined by it. I have a clear mandate and clear interest from my constituents who voted overwhelmingly for remain. While I recognise the vote, I cannot accept the UK Government course of action, and I do not believe that it is justified by the vote that we have. However, let me tell you about my constituency. In my first speech in this place, I said that my constituents had an overwhelming reason to vote remain, and they did so—80 per cent or so did so. That is because the benefits of Europe are all too clear and apparent to them. I have two major campuses of two major universities and the benefits of people working in higher education students and academics from all over Europe. They can see the benefits of European research money. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people in my constituency working in financial and professional services. The benefits to Europe are not hypothetical or theoretical to them. They deal with them on a daily basis. For them, the requirement, the imperative that we have to maintain our bonds with Europe, regardless of whether we are coming at you, are all too important. Indeed, their livelihoods depend on it. For me, as a Labour MSP, someone elected here because I believe that having access to work and opportunity through work is clear. I will not vote for something that will destroy those very things. I will not vote for something that I think will undermine work and opportunity. In this globalised world, it is Europe collectively that guarantees our ability to benefit from globalisation and not suffer from it. That is the mandate that I believe that I have from my constituents and it is certainly what my personal values dictate. I believe that the UK Government has distorted the result. Through the referendum campaign, time and time again, we heard a leaf campaign that said various things, that the single market was not under threat. Daniel Hannan, a Conservative AMEP, we heard that Norway and Switzerland were examples that we could follow. Nigel Farage said that. We even heard that EFTA was an opportunity, and I am afraid that was Jim Sillis that said that. The reality is that there is no clarity from the vote around exiting the single market. There was no clarity that the vote meant that we would leave the customs union and resort to WTO rules. I am absolutely certain that no one voted to impoverish themselves. This was a narrow vote. It was evenly split. A difference of 600,000 people made the difference between the result that we have and the result being different. The reality is that it revealed division. It was incumbent on the UK Government to reach out, to rebuild. Instead, we have had a distortion of that vote. We see a UK Government pushing for a hard Brexit, citing a Singapore model, a low-tax economy. What they needed to do was to provide insight and transparency. They needed to provide a democratic process so that we could all have confidence that we would have a say over how that would proceed and over the final result. Above all else, the UK Government needed to build consensus, because that is what the divided result required them to do. I say gently to my colleagues in the SNP and the green benches that consensus is not just the preserve of the UK Government. The imperative of consensus lies on all the benches. I understand for those who have long pursued independence that this may feel like another reason to pursue it again, but it cannot be. Brexit and the risks that we face are there because of uncertainty, and independence does not mitigate those risks. It does not decrease the number of scenarios. It increases them. For those reasons, we must reject the idea that independence mitigates those. I urge members to support our amendment. Earlier on, my colleague Neil Findlay raised the issue under 8.14.3 about trying to extend the debate for the usual up to 30 minutes. We do that during members' debates frequently, and that debate involves a vote in this Parliament. We now find a bit further into the debate that members are being constrained. Some members will not take interventions where they might have wanted to because of time factors. I wonder whether the business managers could now be consulted to see whether it would be possible to extend the debate. Clearly, it might not be the full 30 minutes. It could just be up to 30 minutes, and I would like to make that request. It is less than a week ago that the business managers put to the Parliament what the timetable for this debate should be. I do not think that I am minded to look at that request, along the same lines as the Presiding Officer earlier. Stuart McMillan, please, to be followed by Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The People of Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and only one of the nation's 59 MPs last week has now backed the UK Government by voting for the triggering of article 50. The people of this country did not vote to put jobs at risk by making it harder for Scottish companies to buy and sell goods and services with what is the world's largest trading bloc. The people did not vote to allow the UK Government to use Brexit as a means of rolling back devolution. The UK Government is responsible for negotiating the UK's exit with the EU. The Scottish Government's role in that process is to ensure that Scottish interests are fully taken into account as we seek to agree a common UK negotiating position. I also argue that the role of this Parliament is also to ensure that the voices of our constituents are loudly heard. The Prime Minister must live up to her earlier commitment that Scotland is an equal partner of the United Kingdom, something many people in this chamber are uttered prior to the 2014 referendum. The Prime Minister has said that Scotland would be fully engaged in the Brexit process, that options for Scotland would be listened to in article 50, would not be triggered until there were UK objectives for negotiations. The proposals from the Scottish Government must be part of the article 50 process. The UK Government last week published a white paper that claims that the UK Government acts in the interests of the whole UK. Those claims will only be meaningful if the voice of Scotland's Parliament is respected and if Scotland's interests are fully taken into consideration. Last week, MPs sadly, and I say sadly, rolled over and handed to the authority to Theresa May to do whatever she wants. She did this even before the white paper had been published. It was an act of parliamentary submission. Some would say to narrow economic nationalism, others would suggest parliamentary idiocy. The calamitous self-harm that the Prime Minister speaks of actually started when the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, succumbed to the UKIP wing of the Tory party, to hold a referendum on EU membership. Ever since then, it has been a political conveyor belt of calamitous self-harm. The Prime Minister has insisted that access to the single market will continue on Britain's terms. The comments of the Prime Minister's Mr Tomkins has insisted that access to the single market will continue on Britain's terms. Who is she kidding? Does the Prime Minister actually believe that anybody is going to roll over and agree to the UK's terms? Whatever they may be, tough bargaining will happen. The EU is actually got all the cards. There are 65 million people in the UK with 440 million people in other EU 27 member states, so the EU has the strength and numbers. Then we see the UK Government out hawking itself across the world seeking a trade deal. This week, Jeremy Hunt, the English NHS Secretary, was out in America. The USA has 318 million people and the UK once again has 65 million people, and the USA will be in the strong bargaining position against isolationist Britain. Parliament needs to remember that the CETA deal, which was under way for seven years, only became out of great economic interest when provincial procurement was added to that list of considerations. I will look out NHS if we sign up to a deal with the USA. What type of half-baked, half-cocked, calamitous self-harm deal will we then be signed up to at the expense of Scottish jobs, UK jobs and the economy as a whole? The calamitous self-harm that the Prime Minister speaks of will not just continue for this process, it will continue for generations to come. The harm will be to Britain, not to the EU, not from the punishment beatings that Boris Johnson carefully puts it, but from losing the privileges of single market membership. On 15 July last year, the Prime Minister was quoted to the saying, I am willing to listen to options and I have been very clear with the First Minister today that I want the Scottish Government to be fully engaged in our discussion. Similarly, there has been the much-vaunted respect agenda towards Scotland from the UK Government. With those points, I wonder if either Jackson Carlaw or Rachel Hamilton can tell the chamber how the respect agenda to this Parliament and its European Committee works. I wonder if they can tell the chamber about the phone call or phone calls from London to tell them to start criticising this European Committee report that we, unanimously, signed off last week with no divisions. Last week, we signed off this report, this EU migration and EU citizens rights report. We call for a bespoke immigration system based on the extensive expert evidence heard by the committee, which detailed the demographic crisis Scotland would face without EU citizens. For the Tories to roll back on this, days after signing off on the recommendation, shows a complete lack of respect for this chamber, for fellow committee members and also for Scotland. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. There have been three referendums in my lifetime. One in 1997, I was too young to vote in, but it established this Scottish Parliament. In 2014, the Scottish people rejected nationalism. They said that they did not want Scotland to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. Last year, the United Kingdom said that it wanted to leave the EU. Everyone going into the air of respect to polling stations knew that they were taking a decision as part of the United Kingdom. While I voted to remain, I will take on the first three paragraphs. I will be interested in seeing what the intervention from Gillian is. Gillian Martin Do you think that the people of Scotland voted in 2014 to stay in or out of the EU, given that that was one of the arguments that you deployed to make people vote no? Was the threat of them getting taken out of the European Union? Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or no? That was a vote taken by Scottish people in the independent referendum in 2014. They rejected your arguments in 2014, and they are still rejecting them now. As I was saying before Gillian Martin intervened, while I voted to remain, if you listened to the SNP in this building, you would be forgiven for thinking that no one in Scotland voted to leave the EU. We now know that members of the Government benches in Holyrood voted to leave. We know tens of thousands of SNP members voted to leave, and we know any proof. Alex Neil said himself. Well, there you go. We know in my home area of Murray a constituency that came closer than any other in Scotland to vote to exit the EU. The difference between leave and remain was a mere 122 votes. 23,992 people in Murray voted to leave the EU, and everyone who voted in Murray and across Scotland and across the United Kingdom expected a binding vote. They expected politicians to respect the will of the people who had presented their arguments to the public and ultimately chose to either vote to leave or to remain. Therefore, it fills me with fear that politicians in any Parliament would try and overrule the will of the people. Many people who voted to remain, while disappointed with the result, are more annoyed at politicians who want to circumvent the democratic decision that was taken. To add insult to injury, what we are voting on tonight is not an LCM but a purely symbolic motion. A non-binding decision will be the result of today's debate. The SNP has tried every trick in the books in the EU referendum result to stoke up more noise for their sepsis agenda, and today's debate is just another element of that. However, the public aren't buying the SNP rhetoric on this. People want a Scottish Government to get on with the day job, to concentrate on our economy, our NHS, our education and with Brexit to concentrate on getting the best deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom. I get annoyed at many things the First Minister and the Nationalists say, but today Nicola Sturgeon took it to another level to say that this non-binding vote on article 50 would be one of the most significant we have ever taken in the Scottish Parliament is complete rubbish. Given the fact that the First Minister walked out of this chamber after one speech, I'd hate to think what her commitment would be if it was a less significant issue. However, for hard-working individuals and families facing paying higher tax in Scotland than the rest of the UK, I think that last week's budget would have been more significant for businesses in Murray and around the north-east. The debates that we have on business rates are more significant. When SNP members voted to ban smoking in public places or to introduce free personal care for the elderly, I think that people will look back on those decisions and think that they were more significant, not a non-binary vote on a motion manufactured by the Scottish Nationalists. Finally, I want to say that whichever way you voted in the referendum, the people of the United Kingdom have spoken. They have made their choice and I have faith in the people of the UK to make the best of Brexit. Scotland can and must play an important role in seizing those opportunities, so let us work together. Let us work for the best for Scotland and the best for the United Kingdom. That is what our constituents who send us here expect us to do—they expect our politicians to get on with this work and we should all do that. Thank you. Christina McKelvie, followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it is a bit rich of the likes of John Lamont and Adam Tomkins to sit in here accusing us of grievance when it was an internal, ultra, right-wing grievance in his own party that brought us to this isolationist place that puts all of our rights in jeopardy. When Tories sit over there celebrating on those benches shouting, Scotland, know your place, you have no rights, and each one of them today has talked about the insignificance of this place. This place has significance, this Parliament has an opinion, and its opinion will be expressed. If they do not like it, they should not be sitting on their benches. 69 years we have had the universal declaration of human rights well beyond the lifetime of most people in this chamber today, and throughout those years we have recognised the right to not be tortured, although I will listen to the Tories and stretch that a bit, to freedom of speech, a safe place to live, a quality for all regardless of religion, sexuality, race or gender. Presiding Officer, there are less slightly obvious rights such as the right to a reasonable work-life balance, to proper employment practices that do not exploit workers, to trade union membership and to maternity leave and pay. You do not need to look too far back in your history to find a society that treated those with disabilities or those who have hit unfortunate times as the undeserving poor, while generous to Kensie and philanthropists gave their vast wealth to help, run work houses and maternity homes for unmarried women, there was no real sense of community responsibility. Presiding Officer, I hope that we have changed that and moved forward. Those with disabilities share the same universal human rights as those without them, the same for workers. If some folk need help and support to be able to work, perhaps to care for themselves, to live independently, then Governments have an obligation to meet those needs and although not without its falls, I hope that Scotland is doing some of that. Yet at Westminster there seems to be some sort of drive to return to those good old British values, those values that talk people down and discard people like refuge in the street. Instead of just doing what the Tories do, we do not congratulate the money makers, despise the needy or we are unwilling to participate in any kind of sharing. We do not call immigrants scroungers, we do not call non-natives not welcome and especially if English isn't their first language, we don't talk them down or abuse them on trains in East Scotland. Such has been the emphasis on the six-line bill to push article 50 through. We have heard little of what leaving the EU will mean for our daily lives. That is going to be as true for ordinary employees as for those with any kind of disability. Liam Fox said last week to restore Britain's competitiveness, we must begin to deregulate the labour market. For me that says not recognising any of these rights. Westminster will no longer need to recognise employment rights such as the working time directive that gives us a right to at least 28 days paid holidays a year, rest breaks and the rest of at least 11 hours in a 24-hour period. It also restricts excessive night work, demands a day off after a week's work and provides for the right to work no more than 48 hours a week. That is the red tape and the deregulation that Liam Fox is talking about taking away. Are you happy for these to be abandoned? I am not and I am not going to allowed it so let's not pretend that these things aren't really at risk, fundamentally at risk from the Tories. Liam Fox confirms it, he confirms it in his words and the Tories confirm it in their actions. It is evident that there is a risk. We have witnessed it from last night's Brexit shambles in the UK Parliament. With Westminster barely even recognising my parliamentary colleagues, only four MPs represent the Scottish constituents. We are allowed to speak one for 30 seconds. This is an ever-growing impression that Scotland's voice is absolutely secondary and set in class in this debate. For some of the people in here to talk down this place, you can see it here as well. Do you trust Westminster to stand up for Scotland? I don't and most of the people I know don't trust Westminster to stand up for Scotland and I don't trust that lot over there while sitting laughing at their rights being undermined. We await further information from the UK Government. We see none of it. The minister himself has told us that the GIMC hasn't produced anything of note but when will they start to listen, when it's a disaster, when things have fallen apart, when people are on the streets? They're already there, Presiding Officer. It's time we act now, it's time we act today and I'm very, very, very supportive of my members and other members across his chamber who will vote against the Tory Dictat today when it comes to Scotland's place in Europe and Scotland's place in the world. We deserve better than that. Elaine Smith, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'll not be voting for the SNP motion tonight and I'm listening to this debate with regard to the amendments. As your colleagues will be aware, I put a socialist case for leave in this chamber last year and I was one of only a few members who indicated in here that we would vote leave. The result of the referendum when it was broken down to Scotland showed that nearly 40 per cent of those who used their vote actually voted leave and they were spread across political parties. A vote by the public of that kind should have been reflected more in this chamber, particularly as we now know that there are SNP MSPs who privately voted leave. The same logic applies to our Scottish MPs voting to try and stop the invoking of article 50. Who is speaking for the 40 per cent of Scots who voted leave? I undoubtedly expect that the result eight months ago should now proceed. That brings me to the issue of examining closely the rhetoric of the term, the people of Scotland voted remain. We'll know what they did and the population of Scotland is 5.5 million, the registered voters were 4 million, the remain vote was 1.6 million and the leave vote was just over 1 million. And frankly I'm astonished that 1 million in Scotland actually voted leave given that all the major political parties were campaigning hard for remain. However, breaking down the vote to a Scottish level is based on a false premise. Anyway, that was not a vote ring fence in Scotland unlike the 2014 referendum vote, which was. The EU vote was a UK wide vote and everyone was well aware of that when they participated in it. There was no veto for Scotland or London or Gibraltar. However, the SNP are not good at respecting the outcome of referendums as evidenced by their refusal to respect the 2014 result. I'll not be taking amendments out, I'm rather hoping that my colleague Neil Findlay might get to speaking this debate as he requested. I certainly agree with the Labour amendment and there should not be another independence referendum. We've had our say, we voted, we got a clear result. The whole EU debate is moving on and ignoring the result and trying to stop the process is not helping to achieve the best outcomes for Scotland and the UK. Meanwhile, a Westminster Labour, while respecting the democratic result, is pushing the Government on the detail and we would not have had a white paper at all if not for Labour pushing on that. The SNP should now focus on supporting the amendments that Labour has lodged and that would significantly improve this process and ensure accountability throughout the Brexit negotiations that follow. There are vital important issues that our Scottish Government should be concentrating on now in which it can influence, like fisheries, like the guarantees for EU nationals living and working here, protecting existing workers rights and ensuring that all tax avoidance and evasion measures are retained. Personally, I'm concerned at the lack of discussion on potential freedoms in terms of economic democracy from EU regulation such as the powers of parliament to provide state aid, to take public ownership of rail ferries etc, to end compulsory competitive tendering, to set procurement conditions on contractors. The SNP is holding this debate today in an attempt to stop article 15. We don't even know the results yet of all the amendments. It would have been legitimate to have a debate about what the Parliament wants to see going forward and if there truly is a desire for cross-party co-operation then maybe we could have had a debate on a motion without vote and that would have proven the desire for cross-party co-operation. However, triggering article 50 is just the start of the Brexit process. It's not the end. Undoubtedly there's going to be a long battle throughout negotiations to shape the final deal. I'm confident that my UK Labour colleagues are holding the Tory government to account and they are putting a strong case against a damaging right-wing Brexit. Labour MPs will vigorously oppose any threat to rip up existing economic and social protections, including things such as slashing co-operation taxes and even more cuts to public spending. Labour is quite clear that living standards and public services must not be used as a bargaining chip in Brexit negotiations but there is no doubt that the result of the legitimate democratic UK vote must be respected. The First Minister said today that this is the most significant vote since devolution, even though it is a reserved matter, maybe for her and her nationalist agenda. However, she chooses to ignore majority votes in this Parliament where we have the power, for example, calling in bad health board decisions, stopping fracking and retaining HIE. It's past time that this SNP Government sorted out the problems in health education and public services where they have the power and respect the result of this UK referendum. Stewart Stevenson followed by Ross Thomson. Presiding Officer, it's always interesting to listen to what Opposition parties have to say. There are many ironies that emerge from listening. One of the ironies is that the strongest supporters of the United Kingdom by far—they've done it in referendum—are the people of Gibraltar. The people of Gibralta who, 95.9 per cent, voted to remain in the EU. It's not simply the UK Government discriminating against Scotland and refusing to engage in the listen. They're being absolutely fair. They're against everything that anybody, apart from their own settled ideas, said. The Gibraltarians, the most loyal of UK citizens, the most committed to remaining in the EU, are being ignored. I hold no brief of the Gibraltarians. I have met ministers from there and it's always interesting to do so. Adam Tomkins in his remarks, and I think I quote, we want the fullest possible participation in European markets, and indeed that is what the UK Government paper says. It uses the mutually beneficial customs union phrase on one dozen occasions, so we know that the UK Government is committed to achieving that. So how can we actually achieve that? Of course, the strongest, most certain way of achieving a mutually beneficial European market is by being in the single market. Douglas Ross took his back to the referendum in 2014, and he told us that it was a very simple question. Should Scotland be an independent country, yes or no? In other words, he told us nothing whatsoever about the EU in relation to Scotland's attitudes to the EU in 2014. That is the assertion that I've had from Douglas Ross. What, in turn, was the question that was asked in 2016? Should the UK be in the European Union? Yes or no? He told us nothing whatsoever about our attitude to the single market. He told us nothing whatsoever about our attitude to free movement of peoples. He only answered the one simple question. We have it confirmed by Douglas Ross. So it's perfectly permissible to stay within the single market, within the European economic area, within EFTA and still be consistent with the result that was delivered on 23 June 2016. That is the argument that is being put out from the benches over here today. Adam Tomkins, of course—I'm afraid in five minutes—is simply not possible. Adam Tomkins is, of course, a young and inexperienced politician, by comparison, certainly with me on both counts, and has forgotten, therefore, or never been aware of the considerable number of occasions where the UK Parliament, particularly in the House of Lords, has amended legislation to affect Scottish competencies in legislative and administrative matters without having the opportunity to bring forward a legislative consent motion. I think that, by some arts, he would suggest that an unconstitutional position to be in, maybe not, but it certainly is not one that I can support. I intervened on Ross Greer on the subject of whether what the Government has published is a white paper. There are only four lines in the UK Parliament's description of white papers. It's clear that it's a white paper when it comes before the bill. What have we actually got? We've got a white paper that purports to have 77 pages in it. Well, six of them are blank. Four of them are at the beginning of just the introduction. It's actually 66 pages. The Scottish Government published 650 pages when it went into the 2014 referendum. What other things have we got? A white paper on travel choices for Scotland from the UK, 114 pages on prosperous communities, local government, 247 pages, 120 pages on educational excellence. We can see that this is a shoddy, inadequate piece of work, Presiding Officer. In fact, this white paper is no white paper whatsoever. It is the white flag that is giving in to people elsewhere. It will give us nothing for Scotland and will sell out our fishing communities once again. That's the Tory plan. That's what they're going to do. I'm making a point of order under rule 8.14. I'm rising as a business manager for the Scottish Conservative Unionist Party. It's a motion without notice that extended debate by up to 30 minutes to allow those speakers and those members who wish to take part. I'm conscious that a number of contributions have been restricted because of the limited time available. I'm also conscious of the remarks by some SNP-backed benchers that they felt that Westminster debate was curtailed. I would like to move the debates extended by 30 minutes. I've heard the previous two, Presiding Officers, in this debate speaking of this. The business time was organised by the bureau, it was voted on by the Parliament just last week. I'm not minded to accept that motion in line with the other two, Presiding Officers, who've sat there through this debate. Ross Thompson, pleased to be followed by Richard Lochhead. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Since the historic referendum result on 23 June last year, the immediate go-to argument from the Scottish Government has been that Scotland voted to remain. Conveniently side-stepping the fact that the EU referendum was a UK-wide vote, something that the Scottish Government acknowledged in their own white paper for independence, where in page 210 it states, if we remain part of the UK, a referendum on future British membership of the EU could see Scotland taken out of the EU against the wishes of the people of Scotland. Despite that, Scots still voted overwhelmingly to remain in the UK. Subsequently, the United Kingdom voted 52 per cent to vote 8 per cent to leave the EU. However, true to her nationalist politics, the First Minister hailed the votes of 1.6 million Scots who voted to remain as representing Scotland's voice. Meanwhile, the votes of one million Scots who voted to leave were airbrushed out of the picture altogether. The First Minister did not even stop to consider that among the leave voters who are now being deleted from Scotland's national story, there were thousands of her own supporters. Will the nationalist bashful Brexiteer MSPs, along with Labour colleagues, finally use this moment to vote with their heart and their conscience in support of Triggering article 50, or will they remain cowards in hiding? Mr Russell says that this debate is about democracy. Imagine this for just one second. Over one million Scottish voices silenced. In both this Parliament and Westminster, Scottish leave voters have been left totally unrepresented. Did you know that in the north-east of Scotland, more people voted to leave than actually voted for the SNP in all 10 constituencies? The Government benches try in vain to convince us that their proposals are a compromise. In reality, they are an unworkable fudge in which Scotland retains free movement and single market membership while the rest of the UK leaves. The SNP's so-called compromise would slam down a hard economic wall between Scotland and the rest of the UK, a market worth four times more to Scotland than the EU. In fact—no, I've only got five minutes as we know it's not long enough—we will—in fact, the SNP can really only muster 50-plus pages in a document to say—this is what they say—give us everything we want and we will take the threat of independence off the table, maybe for a while. The SNP can dress us up as a compromise, I call it constitutional blackmail. Brexit presents a world of opportunity for Scotland. We can negotiate free trade deals with developed and emerging economies. We can control immigration, ensuring that skills and innovation are welcomed with open arms. We can regain control of 200 miles of territorial waters, reinvigorating our fishing industry and coastal communities, and we can finally liberate ourselves from the overreaching and inconsistent jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. You didn't take any, I won't take from you. We have heard the First Minister warn against the rise of populism across the world. However, the Government itself is repeating these very mistakes. In continuing to dilute the referendum results of 2014 and 2016, in dismissing the voices of no voters and leave voters, the SNP only feeds voters' disaffection with the democratic process and distrust in politicians. There is palpable frustration among nationalist leave supporters for this SNP Government's disregard, even contempt for the benefits of Brexit. In their actions, the nationalist stoke divisions rather than six to heal them. The Government is fundamentally incapable of uniting behind anything. It cannot even decide whether it supports the EU or EFTA or the EAA or some other Norway-style arrangement. We have a computer that says no Scottish Government, which is in total disarray, void of substance, void of direction and void of leadership. In fact, the First Minister is not even in the chamber today for what is supposed to be the most historic of all votes. I believe in the talents and the ability of the people of Scotland. I am confident that we can make Brexit a success where Scotland will thrive and flourish outwith the EU as we enter a new chapter in our politics. That is why I will proudly vote for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist amendment this afternoon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. That is an extremely important debate, and I am repeatedly astonished by the Conservative Party for crying the fact that the debate is taking place today, when it is one of the biggest issues facing the people of Scotland that some people think since the Second World War. In fact, it is the lead story in the BBC right now. They are covering it live. Everything that we are seeing right now is the lead story in the BBC website, so it is a major, major issue of importance to the whole of Scotland and to our future. I will take an interventionist. He is saying that it is such an important date. Could we please send out a sheepdog to find the First Minister and all his colleagues so that they can listen to this important debate? If I can just say that, looking at the Labour Party's empty benches, I am not quite sure whether he is in a position to lecture us and turn out our MSPs in this particular point in time in the debate. I also want to take issue before I move on to the main thrust of my speech about the Conservatives' constant reference to the words nationalists. I think that in Scotland, as in many countries of the world, we should take great pride that in this country we have civic nationalism. What we should be ashamed of and what the Conservatives should be particularly ashamed of is the British nationalism. The British nationalism led to grievance against Europe, which means that we have to have this debate in the first place. That is the kind of nationalism that the Conservative benches should be decrying, not the civic nationalism that we are lucky enough to have in this country. There are a few issues of greater significance than our future relationship with Europe and Brexit, with so many implications for the kind of country that we want to live in. For our living standards, for the opportunities that will be available for future generations, for peace and security, not just in Scotland and the UK but Europe and perhaps the rest of the world, for democracy and implications for Scotland's devolution settlement and Scotland's constitutional future. I want to touch on a couple of the key reasons why it is really important that we vote against triggering article 50 this evening. The first argument is the democratic argument, the fact that it is 62 per cent of Scots. This is Scotland's parliament, we have got Scottish political parties, we have got a Scottish Government and 62 per cent of the people that we represent voted to remain within the EU. That is the first and foremost reason why we should be arguing against triggering article 50 because the people of Scotland did not vote for it briefly. Elaine Smith Thank you for taking the intervention. I wonder if we could also confirm then that that is what the motion is about tonight. It is about not triggering article 50 ever. Come on to the reasons why we should be supporting not triggering article 50. The reason that I should say, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am willing to give way to the two members and Labour Party benches is that I have a lot of sympathy for their arguments that we should be extending the time of this debate on such an important issue, and Parliament should be able to respond to them. We could just sit down a minute please, Mr Lockhead. I am sorry to take up your time. Can I make it clear once again that the bureau, where there is equal membership from all the parties in here, decided this timetable that this Parliament voted for and that it is the fault of the bureau? If they wanted that change, they should have had a longer period. I do not want that to be mentioned again. It has been ruled on. I can turn to one of the other democratic reasons why we should vote for the Government's motion tonight. It is also the fact that 58 of Scotland's 59 MPs also voted not to trigger article 50. That is another democratic expression of Scotland's wishes. We have a situation where 62 per cent of Scots and 58 of Scotland's 59 MPs voted one way and this Parliament should reflect the democratic expression that the people of Scotland want to be supported in this Parliament. The other reason why we should support the Government's motion is the fact that the UK Government has simply not responded to the Scottish paper on the options for Scotland to reach a compromise on how those wishes expressed by Scotland can be taken into account. It was outrageous for Theresa May to make her speech ruling out access or membership of the single markets without responding to the Scottish Government's paper beforehand. The Scottish Government and our ministers are being treated with utter contempt. They are being strung along, our ministers travel to London, they meet the UK ministers, they go through the motions of having the meetings, the UK ministers pretend to listen, they express fein concern, they undertake insincere and fake consultation. We are simply not being treated as an equal partner Scotland within the UK. We are being treated like distant cousins who go to visit London, they are not welcome, they cannot wait for us to leave and we are seen as annoying distant cousins and that is not good enough when we are supposed to be equal partners in this family of nations. Parliament has also been treated by contempt. I sit in the European Committee, John McAlpine has spoken already, as have other members. We have vited twice David Davis, the cabinet secretary or the UK Secretary of State for exiting European Union, to come and give evidence to the committee. We are weeks away from the triggering of article 50, weeks away and we cannot get the Secretary of State with responsibility for that to come and give evidence to the Scottish Parliament's committee on what some people say and I reiterate the fact that people are saying this, one of the biggest challenges to face this country since the Second World War. David Davis and UK ministers clearly think that they have better uses of their time but it is treating this Parliament and the people of Scotland with contempt and they should not be allowed to get away with that and the Conservative party in Scotland should stand up to their own colleagues in London and get behind the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland today. The current member for Murray chose not to mention his constituency once in this debate, a constituency that came closer to any other in Scotland to leave the EU. I wonder if your constituency will be ignored today. Please sit down. I now call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Neil Findlay. Presiding Officer, the majority of people who voted in Scotland last June I voted to remain in the European Union and I was joined in doing so by the majority of people in London, Manchester and Northern Ireland. However, the analysis done by the BBC shows interesting differences in the way that communities across Scotland and the United Kingdom voted. It would be fair to say that, although the result was not one that I wanted as a Democrat, it is one that I accept. People across the UK had voted to leave and I respect that. Whatever else we might debate today is the case that the UK will be leaving the European Union. The question is when and under what terms? We know that once we trigger article 50, there is a two-year timescale for negotiations. Whatever the deal arrived at or even if there is no deal, two years is the limit. Frankly, for such a complex negotiation, that is no time at all. With uncertainty in Europe—I really do not have time, I apologise—with uncertainty in Europe, elections coming up shortly in France and Germany and little clarity on a range of issues, it would be reckless to start the negotiations now. I believe that we have a responsibility to secure the very best deal possible for Scotland and for the whole of the UK. Access to the single market, securing jobs, protection of employment rights, the status of EU nationals resident in the UK and indeed those EU nationals who are UK citizens resident abroad are just some of the big-ticket issues that should cause us concern. There is a responsibility on all of us to secure the best possible transition for our economy and for jobs. That is why I want to pause not to frustrate the process but to make sure that we are properly prepared for what will be a very tough negotiation to come. I also respect the decision that was made by the Supreme Court. This is a matter for the UK Parliament to determine. Our vote tonight is advisory. The SNP do not have a veto and neither does this Parliament. It would be entirely unfortunate if the SNP were to spin this as anything else. I have to say that the rhetoric from the First Minister this morning said that this is the most important vote in Parliament since devolution is just a tad overblown and does not help her cause. It has been said that the only issue, the only issue that the First Minister and the SNP care about is independence. Everything else is secondary and viewed through a prism of whether it is good or bad for the argument about separation. I think that people have a right to expect much more than that from this Parliament and, indeed, from colleagues in the UK Parliament. There are very few, if any, economists that consider Brexit as being good for jobs and the economy. There is a growing view that, instead of engineering grievances with the UK Government, the SNP would be better focused on supporting businesses to grow and engage with other export markets. Increasing funding to new export markets across the world, rather than just the EU, recognising that our biggest market is, in fact, to the rest of the UK, might be uncomfortable for some members of the SNP, but it is the everyday reality for many of our businesses who trade with the rest of the UK. Let us redouble our efforts with our closest partners in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as seeking new markets in China, India, Brazil and beyond. However, instead of doing that, the SNP Government, who proclaim growing the economy as its top priority, has cut the budget of our enterprise agencies by 48 per cent since 2009, the very bodies that are charged with economic development in Scotland in the face of Brexit. However, how can I possibly forget the finance secretary's largesse just last week, when he gave them an extra £35 million? In case you missed it, that is underspend financial transaction money for one year only and it can be only used for lending. He forgot to mention that he is still suffering a budget cut of £50 million at the end of all that. That is on top of the budget cuts to local services of £170 million. Finally, I cannot help but reflect about how we got here. A Tory Prime Minister who gambled with the UK's future prosperity by having a referendum because of internal divisions, his successor determined to commit economic vandalism by pursuing a hard Brexit. The SNP appeared more interested in pursuing grievance with the UK and using Brexit as a battering ram for independence. Frankly, a plague on both their houses. What this country needs is practical action that protects our economy and jobs. Let's pause to make sure that we get the best deals for the UK and that we get the exit right. The First Minister and her party only appear to like democracy when it goes their way in two referendums. They have been on the losing side but accept the result of neither. This debate has become part of a game. It is part of the Scottish Government's diversionary tactics to take the focus away from failings in the national health service, our falling status in the world of education, the crisis in social care, the butchering of local government and the failings in our transport system. Week after week, we have had debate speculating about the EU in the single market and how Brexit might impact on everything from holidays in Magaluf to the price of an iceberg lettuce, yet they scrupulously avoid debating their record on health, education, transport and other essential services. It is also a tactic in the game of constitutional bluff and counter bluff. The reality is that I do not think for one second that the First Minister and her party see EU membership as a die-in-the-ditch issue of high principle. If it was, she would be sitting at the front throughout this debate here today. Where is the logic to back up the demand for independence from the UK? Because it is seen as distant, centralising and anti-democratic, only to further demand that would remain part of our European Union, that is even more distant, that is even more centralising and more bureaucratic. Where is the logic to say that we want to leave one single market that we sell our goods to, only to demand that we remain within another that we sell four times fewer goods to? In whose world does that make sense? I genuinely believe that the First Minister thought that she could gain advantage for her cause by adopting an anti-European position tomorrow. She would do it in a heartbeat, and her backbenchers would fall into line behind her. The reality is that, out there in our country, people are divided on our future relations with the EU. Scotland did not speak with one voice in the referendum. The SNP does not speak for all of Scotland just as much as that shower over there does not speak for the UK on Brexit. Mr Finlay, please. I do not like the word shower, okay? Okay, I will draw it. This Parliament is not represented of Scotland in relation to Brexit, and I say that as someone who voted Remain. I say to all members of this Parliament and the UK Parliament that we all knew the rules of the referendum before a single vote was cast. There was no Scottish, no Welsh, no Northern Irish veto. There was no separate Scottish vote. There was one vote, just one, and one result. Whether we like it or not, we have to respect the will of the people. In this Parliament, we see that the Government defeated on fracking, on the NHS service changes, on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, on local government, finance and on other issues, yet the will of Parliament has been ignored. No, well, you will come out of your time, I am free. Very briefly. Mr Finlay started his speech by saying how we do not debate all of those issues, and now he is talking about how we have defeated them and the Opposition joined together to defeat the Government on those issues. The Parliament does debate them, Brexit is important, we debate that as well. Mr Finlay. You have made your point. Now we see moves to ignore the result of this referendum too. What does that say to the voters? What does it say to the people? You are not important, your vote does not count, you did not vote no in 2014, you did not vote to stay within the UK, politics and democracy across the world is in a very fragile state. I think that we enter into very treacherous waters indeed. If we say to the people that we are going to change the rules after the match has finished, then your vote does not matter and we are going to ignore it. Of course we must hold the UK Government to account and press for the best possible outcome. In his last seconds. We must retain the social protection that we have been afforded as a minimum. We must not dilute workers rights, environmental or consumer standards. Of course we must, and we must argue for access to a reformed single market that is no longer driven by an obsession for competition at the expense of jobs, sustainability and public services. Thank you Mr Finlay, please conclude. Thank you. I just managed to squeeze you in. I now move to the winding up speeches. I call Willie Rennie. Seven minutes please Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been an interesting debate. This Parliament is not really truly reflective of the Scottish public opinion on Brexit. I think that that is pretty clear. We overwhelmingly in this Parliament voted for to remain, I think that individual members, to remain within the European Union. We are not truly reflective of the million votes in Scotland. It is good to hear from Ross Thomson and Elaine Smith, people who were genuinely before the debate on Europe, who were genuinely in favour of leaving the European Union. We have also had some surreal contributions. Christine McElvie is saying that if we disagree with the SNP Government, we should automatically resign our seat from this Parliament. That was an interesting contribution. We have also had Richard Lochhead arguing the difference between bad British nationalism and good Scottish nationalism, partly civic nationalism. I think that nationalism is nationalism in my view, and we should reject it. We have also seen a shift in the nature of this debate. It started off back in June with the SNP focusing really on the European Union, and what would be lost as a result of leaving the European Union. I commend them for doing that. I think that over the summer they have gradually made it more and more about independence. However, what is interesting within the last few weeks is that they have turned it from a debate about the European Union into a debate about grievance, about how Westminster has done this place down, that it constantly ignores the will of the Scottish people. It is no longer a debate about what it should be, which is the economic, the environmental and the security benefits of the European Union, and how we are going to continue those benefits. I believe that I have a separate solution as to how to achieve that. However, it is no longer about that for the SNP. That is about generating more and more grievance. All that you had to do was listen to John McAlpine and Christina McKelvey, Stuart McMillan and various other contributors this afternoon, who made those exact points. It is very rarely that we are talking about Europe, very rarely more about the individual grievances and grudges, including apparently some theatre that there was in the House of Commons last night. That is not what the debate should be about. The debate should be about the benefits, I believe, of our continued partnership with the European Union and how on earth we are going to get ourselves out of that predicament. I deeply regret that the SNP, as usual—and it is probably true to type—is what it does, which it turns every single possible issue that you can imagine on the planet into an issue about independence. Nothing else matters. That is what it is all about, whether it is tax, whether it is about the welfare system, it is all about grievance in order to advance the cause for independence. I know that they will say that this is what they stand for, this is what they have always made it clear, but what they said last June, and they said very clearly to us—not just now, what they said very clearly to us on all those benches is that these measures over the summer would not be about independence, categorically not about independence, but they have talked about very little else since. Daniel Johnson, I thought, made a very clear and good speech, in fact, and I commend him for the way he set it out. Obviously, the clear difficulties that he and his colleagues in his party are facing, with many of them being very pro-European, but then being dragged away by Mr Corbyn down a path that nobody really understands. He talked about not being in favour of voting for something that would damage his constituency, but yet he remains part of a party that is doing exactly that, by unquestioningly supporting the Conservative Government in its measures to pursue a hard Brexit. I know that they will say that they have put various amendments, but the motion, the dedication and the commitment to the European Union is simply not there. You can tell that from the body language, if nothing else, from Mr Corbyn and his approach. I am very much a pro-European, I believe, in international partnership, I believe, in working with our neighbours, whether that is the United Kingdom or the European Union, whether that is the United Nations or whether it is our partnerships with various countries across the world. I do not believe in turning in on ourselves, I believe in looking out, and the direction of travel from the Conservatives and from the SNP is to turn in, is to look to blame others, is to look to divide not unite. I deeply regret that. I think that we should be uniting together to work to try and make sure that we get the best possible deal for Britain. I believe that there can be no better possible deal than the current arrangements that we have with the European Union. However, what is deeply regrettable is the ideological drive from both the Conservatives and the SNP, no matter what the consequences, no matter what the damage to our economy, to our security, to our environment. I think that instead of looking to that ideology, they should be looking to try and work together in partnership across the European Union and across the United Kingdom. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. At some levels, this has been a fairly simple debate with some fairly simple questions. Should article 50 be invoked? Last week, we saw the sight of MPs openly admitting that they were voting against the interests of their constituents. I can understand why some of them representing areas that they voted to leave might have felt conflicted. However, this Parliament is not in that position, and we can in good conscience vote in favour of both the wishes and the interests of our constituents. Should article 50 be invoked now, with no clarity about transitional arrangements from the UK Government, no conditions attached, essentially a blank check, and no consensus on Scotland's future? Should this Parliament's view be given respect, be given a formal role, leaving the EU very clearly involves a change in the powers of this Parliament? I find it hard to understand the view that formal legislative consent should not be a requirement, at least in terms of the convention, even if the statutory footing promised in late 2014 has been shown up as the sham that we always thought that it was. However, there are deeper aspects of this debate and the context in which we have it. We see the rise of deeply troubling, far-right politics on both sides at the Atlantic, from Trump in the US to Le Pen in France. There are dangerous forces gathering, forces against which Europeans and Americans stood together in the middle of the last century, and forces that we must oppose again in this century, forces that make it abundantly clear that they have gained momentum and inspiration from the narrow, short-sighted, xenophobic and anti-intellectual nature of the Brexit campaign, forces that are increasingly explicit in seeking the destruction of the European Union itself. We must stand in opposition to those forces. The Greens very clearly will be supporting the Government motion tonight. The UK Government is very clearly taking a narrow majority in the referendum as a mandate for the most extreme action possible. Despite even prominent leave campaigns, it is explicitly promising that there was no threat to our place in the single market. As for the Conservative amendment, in moving it, John Lamont, who at times achieved a fair approximation of actual anger, told us that we should reject the politics of grievance and division. I thought that the politics of grievance and division was the whole point of the Brexit campaign. The Greens must clearly oppose the Conservative amendment. Even aside from the principle of article 50, Mr Lamont is asking us to agree that the JMC is an effective way for Scotland to be heard. If the effect that it seeks is to neutralise Scotland's view, ignoring our interests and overriding our votes, then yes, it seems pretty effective so far. If he thinks that that is unfair, then perhaps he will join the rest of us in condemning the snub from UK ministers David Davis and Liam Fox, who refuse to engage properly with this Parliament's European Committee. Mr Lamont tells us that the test of a Democrat is to accept a result that we do not like. In reality, he is demanding so much more than that—to leave the single market without a shred of a mandate, to use EU citizens as bargaining chips and to leave the future of devolution to this Parliament at the whim of Tory ministers that this country never voted for. As for the Labour amendment, it reminds us indeed that Scotland voted to remain part of the EU and the UK. Indeed, in 2014, a 55 per cent majority to stay in the UK after hearing explicitly that independence was the threat to our place in Europe and that we then voted by 62 per cent to stay in the EU after hearing promises that even if we lost, we would stay in the single market. I am yet to hear a clear proposition from Labour about how that circle can be squared. The Scottish Government, I think, has gone to some length to explore the options for specific arrangements for Scotland—probably greater lengths than I would have gone to myself—but it is the UK Government, which seems utterly disinterested in exploring those options. Even from UK labour, I detect very little support for such distinctive arrangements. As for the Liberal Democrat amendment, I have to say that I can understand the case, I can understand the argument for a second referendum, and I am pleased at least that they are not opposed in principle to second referendums. However, it seems perhaps a stronger case if seen from the perspective of those who represent leave voting areas. The Liberal Democrats appear to have no answer to the very simple and obvious question of what is to prevent exactly the same outcome arising again, with the votes of people living in Scotland ignored and overridden once again. We could find ourselves once again with no voice and a UK Government acting against our interests without a mandate or without any shred of respect. We have heard the voices of several leave voters as well, and I am always happy to hear minority views expressed in this Parliament. Of course I am, but I have to say that, after the events of the last eight months, I do not think that anyone can claim that things are working out too well for the left case for leave such as it ever was. The Green amendment, Deputy Presiding Officer, is grounded in a respect for the mandate. Scotland voted to stay. I know and I respect the fact that not every remain voter can be assumed now to be more open to independence, but on that same basis not every no voter in 2014 can be assumed to be willing to see Scotland ripped from the EU against our will. Even aside from the Brexit result itself, we cannot endorse the UK Government plan to invoke article 50. They have no plan, they have no transitional arrangements, they have no respect for Scotland's position in this debate, they have no prospect of giving clarity in the next two years, and we have no confidence in their management of the situation. I commend the amendment in the name of Ross Greer. I welcome the chance to speak in today's debate. It is important that the chamber makes its voice heard, although we must accept, as Jackie Baillie has said already, that it is ultimately for the UK Parliament to have the final say. Those on the SNP benches may not like that, but people in Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that should be respected. The Labour's amendment accepts that the UK is leaving the European Union. There was a UK-wide vote, and those of us who backed remain lost. The strength of our democracy rests on our respect for the will of the people. I say to Willie Rennie that, in his quest for simplicity and clarity, he seems somehow far too willing to completely dismiss and disregard the result of a UK-wide referendum. Whatever happened to the Liberal Democrats, if you would not mind if I just make a bit more progress, Mr Rennie. I am not happy about the result, and I fear what will happen to our nation. I fear what will happen to the EU nationals who have made Britain their home but have yet to receive any reassurances about their future. The 181,000 people in Scotland, the 39,000 that live here in Edinburgh—I do not think that we can say often enough as a Parliament that this is your home. You are welcome here. I fear the impact that Brexit will have on our economy, on jobs and on our public finances. While I accept that the UK is leaving the European Union, I do not accept that Theresa May's terms and the way that she has set them out. That is why I do not believe that article 50 should be triggered right now. Not when the Tories seem determined to deliver a settlement that will do incalculable damage to the country. I cannot and will not sign up to Theresa May's vision of Brexit. As Daniel Johnson said in this debate, leave voters did not back Brexit to make themselves poorer, but that is exactly what is going to happen under the current plans. I want to address another part of our amendment, and that is the section on the SNP's plans for another independence referendum, because the only thing worse than Brexit for Scottish jobs and the economy would be independence. The SNP Government's own figures show that being part of the UK is even more important to Scotland than remaining in the European Union. The economic links built up during our 300-year union are deep and of great benefit to Scotland. On trade, currency, on jobs and so much more, together we are stronger. As our amendment makes clear, Labour will not support any SNP plan to impose another independence referendum on the people of Scotland. Our nation is divided enough. Another referendum would do irreparable damage to the very fabric of communities across Scotland. The message from a clear majority in September 2014 was that we should remain in the UK, and the SNP should respect that. The reality is that the SNP has only been given this excuse to seek another referendum because of the mess that the Conservatives have made of this whole process. Ruth Davidson never fails to try and tell us that the union is safe in conservative hands. She spends hard days straddling tanks and waving a union flag just to emphasise the security of the realm. Meanwhile, the actions of her own Government have exploited the insecurities people feel in their own lives and reopened the divides of the referendum, despite the Tory's apparent willingness to move on from it. Let's look at how the Conservatives have behaved since the independence referendum in 2014. We had David Cameron's half-baked English votes for English laws, playing straight into the hands of the nationalists. Then there was the 2015 general election campaign, fully signed up to by Ruth Davidson, which sought to divide our country further by setting Scotland against England, a gift to the SNP. Now we have Brexit. The EU referendum was a device designed entirely to appease the right wing and the very worst of the Conservative party. Instead of standing as ground, David Cameron capitulated in the hope of buying off a few UKIP votes and to appease people like David Davis and Liam Fox. I haven't got time to go into the detail of the Tory's attacks on social security and their multiple attempts to undermine workers' rights, which again undermine the union, pouring flames on the fire for independence. Time and time again, it has been the Conservative and Unionist party that has put Scotland's place in the UK at risk. Yet the Tories have the brass neck to come to this place and claim to be the party of the union. Ruth Davidson is sitting there smirking, but she finds herself now voting for something that she knows will damage the UK economy and Scottish job prospects. She told us on TV debates across the nation and sought plaudits for telling people that leaving the European Union would be bad for our country. Ruth Davidson now sits there without a word of regret or an explanation to underline the principles that she finds herself in. No wonder people have so little faith in politics and in politicians. To John Lamont, he told us to respect democracy, to look to the future. While bluntly John Lamont, people are looking for that £350 million that your party promised us that we would get for the NHS in the event of leaving the European Union. To conclude by saying this, I voted to remain in the EU referendum last year for many of the same reasons that I voted to stay in the United Kingdom in 2014, because I reject a narrow nationalist view of the world, the view that blames something or someone else for our country's problems, whether that's England or Westminster, immigrants or the EU, nationalism, civic Mr Lockhead or otherwise, an ideology on the rise the world over is about breaking apart and creating division. Brexit and independence are two sides of the same coin and I believe in working together. I believe in solidarity with our friends and our neighbours. I believe that we can achieve more together than we ever could apart. I believe in pooling and sharing resources, whether that's with the EU to tackle climate change, the refugee crisis or international terrorism, or whether that's with the rest of the UK to fund our public services, to pay pensions or to grow our economy. That's what Labour's amendment calls for, and I urge members to back it at 5 p.m. We were told this afternoon that there was going to be a historic debate, and yet, interestingly, between the opening and closing speeches, the party that had the most representatives in the chamber throughout was the Conservative party and not the Scottish national party that told us how historic it was. Instead, from the SNP this afternoon, we have had an extended tantrum chasing a grievance to justify all over again a further independence referendum, and all of that because it disguises the abject failure of the Scottish Government on the responsibilities over which it has control, the ruins of Scottish education, a health service now falling into ruin and our ruinous economic policy that now makes Scotland the highest tax part of the UK and very unlikely to attract into it the very people that the SNP say that we need to maintain our public services. They are being driven away by SNP policy. Now, if it was a historic debate, Mr Russell no doubt felt the hand of history on his shoulder this afternoon. I thought maybe Fiona Hyslop would be responding, but no, both the hands of history are on Mr Russell's two shoulders this afternoon. I want to start off where he began because it was really quite revealing. He said that only one MP voted for article 50 in the House of Commons this week. This goes back to a point that I think this Parliament has really not wakened faced up to in light of the referendum itself, and that is that 38 per cent of people in Scotland voted to leave. This Parliament, supposedly a proportionally elected Parliament, did not represent 38 per cent of the people of Scotland. In a moment, 38 per cent of people who voted to leave were not represented in any way in the House of Commons by the Scottish members of Parliament that represented them. And while Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly goes on about how the voice of Scotland is being ignored and how she intends to take into account and respect the voice of those who want to leave, it is impossible to detect in anything the SNP Government has advocated or said any way at all in which they have reflected or respected anybody who voted to leave in Scotland, including their own members. Bearing that in mind, how would he explain that only one Tory MP was Ken Clark, voted against article 50? Does that show a proportional view in the Tory party? No, I think that what it shows is that they were bludgeoned into the lobbies to support something many of them do not believe in. What we have heard from the SNP, week after week, month after month, Nicola Sturgeon is standing up and saying that the Prime Minister cannot even give clarification on whether she believes that we should be in the single market or not. Since last June, almost on a monthly basis, the Prime Minister cannot give clarification, then when the Prime Minister does give clarification, oh, it is an absolute disgrace, it is an absolute disgrace. How dare she give clarification, how dare she give clarification before every last part of the United Kingdom has responded? That is the definition of grievance, it does not matter what anybody says, the SNP is unhappy. Lewis MacDonald, I think, gave the game away run. I understand and respect his point of view, rather Labour was now in charge of the process. I would remind Kezia Dugdale, though, that nearly to a man every last Labour MP who was in the House of Commons at the time voted for the referendum that took place. I thought that Daniel Johnson had a fair point. You do not have to accept the UK Government's version of Brexit. There is a United Kingdom Parliament where you can table amendments to the Brexit process. This is all about Triggling article 50, and if you can persuade others of your arguments, then they will be carried. The point is that the SNP were unable to persuade anybody of their argument this week in the House of Commons, in the House of Commons, that 2 million Scots voted in 2014 for this country to remain a part of that United Kingdom. That is what sticks in their throat more than anything else—the democratic decision of the Scottish people. Mr Johnson, I think that its remonstrations would have a little bit more credibility if the UK Government had not had to be dragged to the House of Commons by the UK Supreme Court to give that democratic consent in the first place, because that is the reality of the UK Government's policy. It has been to avoid the House of Commons at every step that it can. Stuart McMillan also referred to the voices of our constituents that need to be heard. I would like to hear Mr Carlaw, not just Stuart McMillan, but Mr Carlaw. They are being represented by SNP MPs in the House of Commons. It is most unfortunate if their arguments are so unpersuasive. We all get to see them. Tasmeena Ahmedshake regularly ensures that every speech that she makes is widely promoted on social media, so there is an opportunity for everybody to see them, but they have failed to convince them. Willie Rennie then, with only seven of his nine Westminster MPs who bothered to vote in the final division, again said that he was a pro-European. Presumably he was against both Ming Campbell and Nick Clegg when they circulated election literature saying that they were in favour of a decisive yes or no referendum, because, of course, he now realises that there was a concern about the result. He also then referred back to the white paper in 2014 and said that somehow the SNP had given us a convincing and comprehensive plan for independence in 2014. I remember it. There was one page in the economy, two pages in the regulation of outer space and one page in the Eurovision Song Contest. That was not a paper that gave a convincing and demonstrable white paper plan for Scotland. It was an ideological paper designed to promote yet again the SNP's policy on independence. Ross Greer made reference, at one point he said in response to Neil Findlay, that, with only six MSPs, there was no surprise that we were not coming up with any accepting or sensible arguments of our own. However, I may have misheard him at the time. I am not sure. He also dwells on the point that John McAlpine asked if there was any evidence that the Scottish Government paper had been listened to. The Scottish Government paper asked for the protection of workers' rights. The Prime Minister in her speech agreed. The Scottish Government paper asked for co-operation on tackling international crime terrorism and foreign affairs. The Scottish Government paper asked for collaboration with our European partners on major science research and technology initiatives. It is simply not true to say that nothing within the Scottish Government's paper has been accepted by the UK Government. It is included in the statement that the Prime Minister made. It is true that the Prime Minister does not agree with the Scottish Government on the issue of the single market, but that is a different thing from saying that they have not accepted or taken heed of or listened to any argument that the SNP has made. It is also true that there is much in the paper that the committee on Europe published on immigration this week, which we agree with. The demographics of Scotland over the next 30 years demand that we increase the working population in Scotland, not just from the EU, but from the UK and the rest of the world. We need to ask why it is that only 4 per cent of those people who settle in the United Kingdom from the European Union wish or choose to settle in Scotland. Could it be because the environment in Scotland that the SNP has created is so deeply unattractive to the people who are choosing to settle in the United Kingdom? Presiding Officer, we are at a critical point. Article 50 is going to be triggered. I think that Pauline McNeill in a contribution in an earlier debate said that she may not agree with any of the Conservative Party are going to do, but it is now important to influence the actual debate taking place. That has got to be the challenge for the Scottish Government, not standing there shouting full of grievance, full of pain, full of false argument and favour of independence. It is time for them to actually stand up and influence the outcome for Scotland, and if they want it, it is up to others to do that for them. Thank you, Mr Carlaw. Paul might rustle to wind up the Government cabinet secretary. Nine minutes, please. I have had many occasions during this debate to reflect on what a strange collection of people the Scottish Tories are. They are a party that was entirely saved by the process of establishing this Parliament. They were virtually extinct in Scotland. Their present vote is actually not as high as they got in the 1980s in Scotland. They have no ambition for this Parliament, they have no ambition for Scotland and, indeed, they spend most of their time—I have to say the last speech proves it—talking down Scotland apparently. People do not want to come here. That is the message that Jackson Carlaw has just told people on television. They should not come here, they do not want—no, thank you—they do not want to come here. Of course, I know why they are miserable and conflicted. They do not want to be here because they are the prime exponents of Dr Johnson's view that the nobler's prospect that a Scotsman ever sees is a high road that leads him to England. However, they are frustrated by that because there are no opportunities for them to go to the Westminster Parliament. David Mundell escaped. The rest of them are condemned to suffer here because they cannot get because they cannot go anywhere else because nobody will elect them to the Westminster Parliament. We have to put up with them. They try—like John Lamont but they fail. The arguments in this debate are quite interesting when you look at them in that context because there are basically four. There is that alienation from the Scottish Parliament, from Scottish politics, from the so-called Scottish Tories. Then there is the why, the how and the what of Brexit. The why is the way in which the Tories—but, of course, with some Labour members—approach the business of the vote itself. A UK vote, apparently. Scotland's results are not relevant. Despite the profound change that is going to be caused in Scotland by what is taking place, there is the most important and devastating change in several generations. Surely there is a need at the very least, even if you do not accept the issue of Scottish democratic choice, to reconcile that choice with the UK choice. However, the Tories say no, we will not do that. I will tell you why I recognise Scottish democracy, and that might be a hint to the Scottish Tories of why they do so badly. This is the Scottish Parliament. The people who voted us are Scottish voters. They expect us to stand up for Scotland. Then there is the how of this process, the process of leaving. Apparently we should just join in. No matter what happens in the JMC, we should just join in. Now go to the JMC. I'll be there tomorrow. I see what is happening, but you don't have to take my word for it. If you want to get the Welsh Brexit Minister to come and give evidence to this Parliament, I'm sure he'd be pleased to do so. I think that he would tell you what I have told you, that this is a profoundly dispiriting process. Indeed, the Government in Wales has a Liberal Democrat member. I think that she would tell you the same. The reality is that the JMC process doesn't work. It's never worked. Every analysis of it shows that it doesn't work, but we're trying to make it work, if only the UK Government would do the same. Then there's the what of this debate, the belief certainly held by the Tories, held by Labour and by others that, in some sense, the arguments that we are putting forward are a stalking horse for independence. The reality is that the Scottish Government has put on the table a compromise position. It is—actually, that was accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so they appear to be out of tune with their own man who made it to Westminster, unlike the rest. We are willing and keen to negotiate on this. We still wish to do so. Moreover, if some of the Tory members had read it, they would discover that it answers the key questions that have been raised by them in debate, including the question of trade on page 159. There are a range of issues raised here that deserve attention. The reality of this is that this is on the table. There are options in this that can be achieved. Whatever happens now is because the UK Tories take it off the table. They are the ones who are refusing to compromise. When you look at those three points in this debate, you see all the contributions essentially contributing to them. Douglas Ross and Adam Tonkin, who really don't want to be here, and they do not like the fact that they have not made it elsewhere, but that is life. People just will not vote for them. John Lamont is the same. However, I have to say that there were positive points, too. I was impressed by members—no, not across the chamber because I had none from the Tories—but I was impressed by points made in other parties about the depth of analysis that the Scottish Government is trying to undertake on this matter, as opposed to the lack of analysis in the UK Government, about the openness to negotiation coming from all the devolved Administrations rather than the closed Tory view of the process, of the desire to be part of the world to engage to have an open view that I have always agreed with, which is the definition of why I came into politics, and I am glad to hear it from other benches, too, and about particularly the richness of migration and the contribution made by EU citizens. Last week, Shona Robison and I met a group of health service workers, and one contribution from them stuck in my mind. A doctor had worked in the health service for 28 years from Germany. He said that it was up to the UK if they wanted to make decisions on migration, but what really offended him, what offended him beyond anything else, was the way he was being used by the UK Tories as a bargaining counter—a man who has made a profound contribution to this country being treated in that way. That is shameful, and the Tories should say that it is shameful. There were, of course, extremist subsets in this debate, but I will ignore them. I have to say, however, the belief from Neil Findlay and Elaine Thompson that we can get rid of the bosses Europe by allowing the Tories to take us out of Europe is bizarre. Finally, let me make a point. Jackson Carlaw attempted a definition of the word grievance. Let me give him the actual definition. It is a wrong or hardship suffered, which is the grounds of complaint. The false grievance was the Tory grievance against Europe. That was a false grievance. The real grievance, which we have to resolve, is being forced out of Europe against the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It is making proposals in good faith and having them ignored and the negotiating process derailed by a UK Government that is not listening. It is bringing a compromise to the table and having it rejected by people who never wanted it and hadn't read it. No, I am sorry, I am just my last minute. So what are we going to do about those real issues? We are going to tomorrow's GMC with a positive view and a willingness to talk. We are going to keep talking and make sure that we go on talking so that the article 50 letter can still be influenced by the reasonable demands of Scotland. What we are also going to do, Presiding Officer, is this. Never allow Scotland to be humiliated and its democratic choice rejected, and we will never, ever turn our back on Europe and the world. That concludes our debate on article 50. The next item of business is consideration of Scottish parliamentary corporate body motion 3830, in the name of Bob Dorris, on the appointment of a Scottish public services ombudsman. I call on Bob Dorris to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am moving the motion and my name is a member of the cross-party selection panel, which was established under our standing orders to invite members to nominate Rosemary Agnew to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment as the Scottish public sector ombudsman. The cross-party selection panel was chaired by the Presiding Officer and other members were clear hockey Richard Leonard and Margaret Mitchell. Although the Parliament is not subject to the code of practice of ministerial appointments to public bodies, we followed the guidelines to ensure best practice observed and that that process was open and fair. On behalf of the panel, I would like to thank James Walker, the independent assessor, who oversaw the process and has provided the Parliament with a validation certificate confirming that the process complied with good practice and that the nomination is made on merit after a fair, open and transparent process. The Scottish public sector services ombudsman role, as many of us know, is to investigate complaints of the most organisations providing public services in Scotland for a member of the public claims to have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of maladministration or service failure. The organisations providing public services in Scotland include councils, the national health service, universities and colleges, most water and storage providers, prisons, the Scottish Government itself and most Scottish authorities. The ombudsman also has a statutory duty to publish standardised complaints handling procedures for the public sector and monitor and promote best practice in complaints handling. In addition, the ombudsman is the independent reviewer of the Scottish welfare fund and from 1 April 2017, as part of health and social care integration, the ombudsman will be able to consider professional judgement in relation to social work complaints. The ombudsman's role is important because it not only provides an independent, impartial and free complaint service to the people of Scotland, it also lets us know how well or otherwise our public services are working. Turning to our nominee, who is in the chamber this afternoon, Rosemary Agnew was the unanimous choice of the panel from a strong field of candidates. Rosemary is the current Scottish Information Commissioner, a post she has helped since 1 May 2012. Prior to being the Scottish Information Commissioner, Rosemary was the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and immediately before that she worked as an assistant ombudsman for the UK local government ombudsman. The panel believes that Rosemary will bring to the post considerable knowledge and experience of complaints handling, a commitment to providing first-class customer care, and a enthusiasm and drive to deliver an independent and effective complaint system for Scotland. I am sure that the Parliament will want to wish her every success in her new role. I also wish to thank the Parliament, which the Parliament would like to thank and put on our record our thanks to Jim Martin, who has, during his term in office, as the current Scottish Public Sector ombudsman, significantly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the office and set up an internationally recognised complaints handling authority to support and improve complaints handling in public bodies in Scotland. I am sure that we would all like to wish him well for the future. I move the motion in my name. Thank you Mr Doris. I would also like to thank Jim Martin for his work and Rosemary Anganew for her work as Information Commissioner before congratulating her on her nomination. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I would ask Shona Robison to speak to and move motion 3631 on the health service medical supplies cost bill. There are seven questions at decision time this evening. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of John Lamont is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Lewis MacDonald falls. The next and the first question is that amendment 3858.3. In the name of John Lamont, which seeks to amend motion 3858 in the name of Michael Russell on article 58, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote on members' Macastor votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3858.3 in the name of John Lamont is yes, 31, no, 92. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 3858.1 in the name of Lewis MacDonald, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Russell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote on members' Macastor votes now. The result of the vote in the name of Lewis MacDonald is yes, 20, no, 102. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 3858.2 in the name of Ross Greer, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Russell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote on members' Macastor votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Ross Greer is yes, 72, no, 33. There were 18 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 3858.4 in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Russell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote on members' Macastor votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie is yes, 35, no, 119. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 3858, in the name of Michael Russell, as amended on article 50, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote on members' Macastor votes now. The result of the vote on motion 3858, in the name of Michael Russell, as amended is yes, 90, no, 34. There were no abstentions. The amendment, the motion, as amended, is agreed. The next question is that motion 3830, in the name of Bob Doris, in the appointment of the Scottish Public Services, on which men be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And I congratulate Rosemary Agnew on her appointment. And the final question is that motion 3631, in the name of Shona Robison, on the health service medical supplies cost bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll now move to members' business, in the name of Mike Rumbles, and we'll just take a few moments to change seats.