 Mae'r next item of business is the continuation of the debate on motion 4710, in the name of the First Minister, on Scotland's choice. I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Nicola Sturgeon. Last week, the debate came to a halt in the worst of circumstances. Almost one week on, our thoughts remain with those affected by the London atrocity. It is worth reflecting today perhaps on how we all felt last week. In our shocking sadness, we were reminded of our common humanity and the core values that unite us. We came together to proclaim our commitment to that most cherished principle of all, democracy. Today's debate at its heart is about democracy. It is about the right of people in Scotland to choose our own future. In itself, it is a demonstration of democracy in action. Elected representatives with different but passionately held views expressing those differences through sometimes very robust discussion. Ours is a privileged position and we all have a responsibility to rise to it. It is the example that we set here in this chamber that many others across our country will follow. Let us make sure that it is the right one. Let us recognise and accept that we are all sincere in the opinions that we hold. Let us always remind ourselves that the person on the other side of the debate is not an enemy, simply someone with a different but still a valid point of view. None of us has come to this debate with anything other than the best of intentions and the best of motivations. We all want the best for Scotland. Let us, today, as we resume this debate, heed the words of the Church of Scotland when it tells us that there is nothing inevitable about this debate or any other debate being divisive. That depends on how we choose to conduct it, not just today but in the months that lie ahead. The Church called for a debate that informs and inspires not one that derides and dismisses. That should, Presiding Officer, be the ambition of all of us. My resolve in seeking to lead by example is to conduct myself in a spirit of openness, honesty, respect and understanding. I hope that others right across the chamber will join me in that. It is not my intention to rehearse all the arguments that I made in opening this debate last week, which will relieve people on all sides, I am sure. However, there are two points that I want to make today. First, I want to remind us why this debate matters, why the debate that we are having today is important. Scotland, like the rest of the UK, stands at a crossroads. When article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is triggered tomorrow, change for our country at that point becomes inevitable. We do not yet know the precise nature of that change. Much will, of course, depend on the outcome of the negotiation that lies ahead. However, we know that the change will be significant and profound. It is change that will impact on our economy, not just in the here and now but for the long term. Indeed, it was the UK treasury ahead of the referendum last year that said Brexit would make the UK permanently poorer. There will be an impact on trade, on investment and on living standards and an impact on the very nature of the society that we live in. Much that we have come to take for granted over, certainly most of my lifetime, the freedom just as one example to travel easily across Europe is now up for negotiation with outcomes that are at this point deeply uncertain. My argument is simply this. When the nature of the change that is made inevitable by Brexit becomes clear, that change should not be imposed upon us. We should have the right to decide the nature of that change. The people of Scotland should have the right to choose between Brexit, possibly a very hard Brexit or becoming an independent country, able to chart our own course and create a true partnership of equals across those islands. If we accept, as I hope we all do, that Scotland does have the right to decide our own future, the question then becomes one of timing. When is it best to make that choice? We are all agreed that now is not the time. In my view, the time to choose is when the terms of Brexit are clear and can be judged then against the challenges and the opportunities of becoming an independent country. The Prime Minister was clear with me yesterday that she intends the terms of Brexit, both the exit terms and the UK's future relationship with the EU, to be known before the UK leaves and in time for ratification by other EU countries. In other words, sometime between the autumn of next year and the spring of 2019. I hear what she says about the Prime Minister's view. Is that her view? Has her Government done an assessment of when a future trading relationship between the UK and the EU might be completed? I have made this point before. I can only go at the moment on what the Prime Minister, who is leading these negotiations on the UK side, is saying about her intentions. I made very clear when I announced my own intentions about a referendum that if that timetable changes, for example if the two years were to be extended, that would have an impact on the timetable that Parliament is discussing today. Right now, none of us can know that. We can only base our decisions on the timetable that was set out by the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister yesterday was very clear with me about her intentions in that respect. For my part, I am equally clear about the responsibility that I have to ensure that the detail of independence is set out well in advance so that the people of Scotland can make a truly informed choice. To enable that choice, the Scottish and the UK Governments require to make certain preparations now, which leads me finally to the question of how I intend to respond should Parliament pass the motion later this afternoon. It is not my intention to do so confrontationally. Instead, I only seek sensible discussion. In recognition of the importance and significance of what will happen tomorrow, I will not do so until later this week after the triggering of article 50. Yesterday, I wished the PM well for both tomorrow and the negotiations that lie ahead, and I assured her, as I assured the chamber today, that the Scottish Government will play as full and constructive a role as she is willing to allow. Let me be clear. I want the UK to get a good deal from these negotiations because whatever path Scotland chooses to take in the future, that is in our interests. I simply want Scotland to have a choice when the time is right. I hope that the UK Government will respect the will of this Parliament. If it does so, I will enter discussion in good faith and with a willingness to compromise. However, if it chooses not to do so, I will return to the Parliament following the Easter recess to set out the steps that the Scottish Government will take to progress the will of Parliament. When the Prime Minister formally starts the process of leaving the European Union tomorrow, none of us should be in any doubt about what is at stake. The next two years will determine what kind of country we are going to be. The European Commission, the European Parliament, 28 Governments informed by their national parliaments will all have a say. The people of Scotland must also have their say. Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands. That is what this debate is about, the future of our country, how we best harness our potential as a country and overcome the challenges that we face. It is a debate that should engage all of us, whatever our views. Let us start today, or restart today, as we mean to go on, positively, passionately and respectfully. I commend the motion. I am responding on behalf of my party today because the First Minister has decided to reopen for the Scottish Government. However, there is only one thing that I think is worth adding to my comments to the chamber last week. That is that if this debate so far has served one purpose, it has been to show why most people in Scotland do not want the Government and this Parliament to be sidetracked by the division and ranker of yet another referendum campaign. Despite some honourable speeches from all sides of the chamber, this Parliament last week added precisely nothing to the sum of human knowledge on Scottish independence. No new arguments, nothing for families who want to see a Parliament focused on improving schools for children across Scotland, no ideas on how we ensure that patients are seen more quickly in hospital so that they get the treatment that they deserve, no insight into how we tackle the endemic low growth in Scotland. This Parliament, within the next few days, is about to gain huge new powers over tax and welfare, making it one of the most powerful chambers of its kind in the world. Yet, in this last week, we have seen a Government whose sole purpose is to spend its time complaining, as always, on the powers that it does not have. We have seen a First Minister whose clear priority is to press ahead with a referendum campaign that she wants to start tomorrow. She wants to use her time here today in pursuit of her real purpose—in fact, her only real purpose in politics. Let me deal briefly with the First Minister's comments in relation to her meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday. Let's go through what the First Minister did not mention. I heard no welcome of the counter-terrorism plans announced by the Prime Minister in Govan yesterday, no welcome for the Prime Minister's support for the Department for International Development in East Kilbride. Instead, the only thing on the First Minister's agenda yesterday and today is how to use her meeting with the Prime Minister to spin some new kind of rationale for her rush timetable for a referendum. First of all, she should be aware that even her own colleagues do not share her view. As Alex Neil stated just last week, all may not be done and dusted by March 2019, and a timetable for a trade deal could extend beyond that date. I also refer the First Minister to that leading authority in all things European, Joan McAlpine, who said in January that I will not do the accent. There is no way that a trade agreement is going to be put in place within two years. That is completely unrealistic. Of course, I would not be as pessimistic as Ms McAlpine. I just look forward to our damascene conversion now that the First Minister has ordered a different tactic to be called in aid to the same old conclusion. It matters not the question, the answer is always independence. Presiding officer, the truth is just one second that nothing changed at all yesterday. I will take the First Minister now. Just for the record, I spoke to the Prime Minister on the phone last week and spoke to her again yesterday about her common interests and security, and indeed the Scottish Government has been working to make sure that the exercise that she announced yesterday is a success for some time. The Prime Minister said to me very clearly yesterday that it is her intention for the exit terms and also a comprehensive free trade deal to be agreed before March 2019. Can I take from Ruth Davidson's comments today that she thinks that I should distrust the word of the Prime Minister? What I find remarkable, Presiding officer, is that the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear time after time question after question in the media as a statement in the House of Commons to say that now is not the time, that it will take time to see a deal bedded in, but what I can't believe is that the one person that she took into her trust was the First Minister who has been trying to derail this from the very beginning. In a one-to-one meeting, the only person that could make Theresa May change her mind—and she is a woman not known for changing her mind—was Nicola Sturgeon, who could not wait to rush out to the bank of microphones and explain all and the reversal of the Prime Minister's politics. I will not take any lessons for the First Minister, because actually sit down. Precisely nothing changed yesterday. I think that I have answered the First Minister's question. I will not take another intervention. I have answered it. Just as the First Minister announced two weeks ago in Bute House, she wants to start a referendum campaign now, to fire the starting gun on an 18-month countdown to a referendum, to have people knocking on our doors from this weekend demanding your vote. Independence campaigners rerunning the trope would all be £500 better off, promising us the earth, still without a plan on the currency, or on EU membership, or how we would pay our way, and I am still wondering who did win that iPad. The First Minister says that she wants the UK to get a good Brexit deal, but no matter how good it is, she still wants to push for independence anyway. Whereas our view and the UK Government's view remains this. At a time of enormous uncertainty, where it is only three years since the last vote, when we were told that it would be once in a generation, that the decision of the Scottish people would be respected by both sides, where there would be no rerun without an overwhelming change in public opinion, and that the people in Scotland have the right to see the Brexit process play out, they need to see it operating, to see it working in practice, and that at this moment we should be pulling together, not hanging apart. As Alex Neil told the First Minister last week, we shouldn't even be contemplating such a vote unless people come with us. Mr Neil was arguing from his own perspective of somebody who wants independence, and that's fair enough that I respect his views, but I am arguing from the perspective of someone who believes that the First Minister's plan for a rushed referendum, with a campaign beginning now without public consent, with no agreement in place for how it should take place, with only one side dictating the timing, the franchise, the question or the rules, would be a farce. Most people, yes, no and undecided, are right to be turned off by this prospect because they can see it too. As I said last week and I repeated today, I think that the First Minister knows this. She knows that the proposal that she's putting forward today can't work, that it's not fair to the people of Scotland, but that's not the point, because that isn't the serious plan of a reasonable Government, it's the SNP cooking up the same old recipe for division. You take one unworkable proposal, you add in some greens, you stir in the grievance and you bring it to the boil, and it might have worked once, it might have done, but let me tell the First Minister this, it is stinct and the people of Scotland aren't buying it. Presiding Officer, I have said my piece and I've said it twice. We will be voting against the SNP's motion today and in support of our own amendment, but we also still call on the Greens to honour their own manifesto commitment. Unless, of course, Mr Harvie can now inform the chamber that, in the days since we last met, he has finally managed to collect that elusive million signature in his referendum petition. No? Well, nothing has changed then since last week. Except this, and this is what's changed since last week. Since the debate was postponed last Wednesday, we here have learned that fewer than half of nurseries in Scotland will offer extended free early learning and nursery hours. That Police Scotland has a projected deficit of nearly £50 million next year. That just 5 per cent of Scottish schools have been inspected in Scotland in the last year. The SNP Government has U-turned on junior doctor hours and now won't bring down the amount of time that they can work. That two former members of the independent panel into mesh implants scandal are warning that the report is a betrayal and it will be watered down. Only this morning, we learned that cancer waiting times have been missed again for the fourth year in a row. Last week, in what was a disgraceful episode, we were shouted at from the SNP ventures and told that we were frightened to debate independence. We're not, but we are sick of it, and most people in Scotland have had enough too, because this Parliament needs to and must focus on the priorities of the people of this country, and it is not the time to be sidetracked by yet more unnecessary division. It is time for a Government that focuses on the job that we pay it to do, and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by saying that I welcome the First Minister's remarks about the opportunity we had to have this debate and discuss it with civility and decency? Can I urge Ruth Davidson to reconsider her approach when we have a chance to reset this debate? Last week, we came together to remember those who lost their lives or were injured in the Westminster terror attack. We united in our condemnation of a barbaric act and reaffirmed our commitment to the values of tolerance and integration, freedom and solidarity. It was right that last week's debate about a second independence referendum was postponed, but the business of the Scottish Parliament has now resumed, and here I am once again responding to remarks from the First Minister about a second independence referendum. If it feels familiar to those of us in here, just imagine how familiar it must feel to those outside of this chamber, to people who very rarely tune into these discussions, who want their political leaders to focus on the business of government by delivering good schools and hospitals and on growing the economy to provide jobs and prosperity. Once again, they see us debating the issue that they thought that had been decided in a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-lifetime vote in 2014. Yesterday's meeting between the Prime Minister and the First Minister summed up where we are in this country today. Two intransigent leaders focused only on the constitution, while the business of government gets pushed to one side. Nicola Sturgeon demonstrated that she has given up any pretense that she will fight for the best Brexit deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom. Instead of fighting for more powers to come to Scotland from Brussels, it is independence or nothing for the First Minister. We had the spectacle of Theresa May, not happy to. The spirit that we are both committed to here, I would ask her to reflect on how unfair that comment is. I have spent a great deal of time trying to persuade the UK Government to find compromise. I published a paper in December that listed the additional powers that could have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament that would have effectively delivered the federalism that Kezia Dugdale supports. However, if we are meeting with a point-blank refusal to do that, what is Kezia Dugdale's argument that this Parliament should simply step back and accept that we are being taken off a hard Brexit cliff edge with no additional powers whatsoever and even an intention to muscle in on the powers that we already have? Can the First Minister say to the First Minister that I recognise the work that she did in December to fight for more powers for this place? I have not heard a word in the whole of 2017 because it is independence first, last and everything when it comes to her agenda. We also had the spectacle of Theresa May claiming to be the best protector of the union yesterday. Just ponder that for a moment. The leader of the Conservative Party has caused so much division in our society that set Scotland against England in the general election and whose reckless Brexit gamble brought us to this point. We are leaving the EU, just provides the SNP with the latest excuse that it was looking for to push for another referendum. Some humility from the Tories and a genuine desire to properly engage with this place would not go amiss. In the weeks since we last met, at least three issues that would normally dominate the front pages of our newspapers have been buried in the back of the book. We have learned that the SNP has abandoned a promise to reduce the working hours of junior doctors, a promise made by the former First Minister to the parents of a woman who lost her life. We have seen a damning report into the quality and provision of child and adolescent mental health services. Just today, it has been confirmed that Scotland's cancer waiting times have not been met for four years. Each of those three issues constitutes an individual scandal. Together they represent a complete abdication of responsibility. However, we are not discussing any of those things. After all, why would the Government responsible for the NHS want to debate its 10-year record on the health service, not when there is another independence debate to be had? We all know the outcome of the vote tonight. The compliant Greens will once again back their fellow nationalists in the SNP. Let us not pretend that this SNP green push for another device of referendum reflects the will of the Scottish people, because it does not. 85 per cent of the population voted in the last referendum and we voted decisively to remain in the UK. That is the will of the people and it should be respected. My message to the First Minister remains unchanged. We are divided enough. Do not divide us again, because leaving the UK would mean £15 billion worth of extra cuts to schools and hospitals in Scotland. Every time I am sat in the TV studio with a member of the governing party and I can see their front bench shaking their heads today, they seek to try and rubbish or ridicule those figures, but they simply cannot deny that these are the Government's own numbers. The Government's own stats say that independence would be catastrophic for working families. That is why I could never support a policy that would hurt our poorest communities, so the question beckons why would the First Minister? We are just hours away from the start of the formal process of leaving the European Union. The First Minister and I agreed that Brexit risks damaging our relationship with Europe. It will threaten thousands of jobs right here in Scotland and hold back our economy, but, like her, I accept that Brexit is going to happen. Scotland and the United Kingdom are leaving the European Union. The First Minister has finally dropped the pretense that we could remain in the EU and that clarity is welcome, but the First Minister has another decision to make now, too. Is she going to spend the next two years and 100 per cent of her time campaigning for Scotland to leave the UK at the expense of governing, or will she roll up her sleeves from today and seek to secure more powers for this Parliament when they return from Brussels to Britain? I will be in Cardiff doing just that, working with the Labour First Minister of Wales, Carmen Jones, who is prepared to put in the hard work necessary now to secure the best Brexit deal for Wales and for the United Kingdom. That is not a battle between independence and the status quo. It is about the SNP's never-ending campaign for separation and what the people want and voted for, a powerful Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Those benches will campaign with everything that we have for Scotland to remain in the UK. A UK where political and economic power is in the hands of the many, not the few, a UK that delivers for the people of Scotland. That was our manifesto commitment, and we will honour that tonight by voting against the SNP's plans for another divisive referendum. Andy Wightman I want to use my time this afternoon to argue why Greens will be supporting the Government motion. I want to say something to those who have contacted us in recent days. We understand that the prospect of another referendum in independence is not welcomed by some voters, and they have not been shy telling us so. We respect their sincerely held views. We also understand why there is so much anxiety, because, for some people, the referendum in 2014 was not the joyous civic carnival that it is sometimes portrayed as. It challenged deep-seated ideas of identity and belonging, and it provoked legitimate questions about the future prospects for everyone in Scotland and the UK. In 2014, voters rejected independence, and nothing I say today changes or is intended to disrespect that important vote. Today, we are facing a very different situation. Whatever transpires over the coming years, as politicians, we are responsible for setting the tone of public discourse. I am committed to engaging in debate and discussion with respect, with tolerance and with empathy. Where do the Greens stand on this issue? Green politics rests on four pillars—peace, equality, environmental sustainability and radical democracy. We are a party of social and environmental justice. We support a radical transformation of society for the benefit of all and for the planet as a whole. We understand that there are threats to economic, social and environmental wellbeing. When we recognise that those are part of the same problem, we further recognise that solving one of those crises cannot be achieved without solving the others. As part of our commitment to radical democracy, and contrary to many assertions that are currently being made, Scottish Greens have had a long-standing policy of supporting an autonomous Scotland. The party was founded in 1990, and in a comprehensive policy document that was published in March that year, we stated that, and I quote, that the Scottish Green Party supports demands for an independent, self-governing Scotland as throughout Europe, Green parties support other local demands for regional autonomy. In the manifesto for the first Parliament elections in 1999, we stood on a manifesto calling for a referendum on greater independence for Scotland as part of a programme of radical democracy to reach far beyond a Scottish Parliament to embrace genuine local democracy and fiscal autonomy. In the context of this debate here today, which is taking place in the backdrop against the backdrop of the EU referendum vote, it is important to stress that we also believe in a more democratic Europe. Our party policy is to reconstitute the EU as a democratically accountable European confederation of regions. The Scottish Green Party is not a nationalist party, we are Greens, and our politics is de-centralist, autonomous, confederalist and co-operative. Heel Findlay. The radical democracy is pretty radical to have a referendum, lose by 10 per cent and completely ignore that result, but it is hardly democratic. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are not ignoring any result, we acknowledge the results of the two referendums that we have had to date, both of which stand and both of which are mutually incompatible in terms of how we move forward. In terms of the decision before us today, as a very large volume of emails have reminded us, we stood on a manifesto the outlined ideas to deepen and strengthen democracy. One of those proposals was for a more open and participative lawmaking process in which citizens could trigger a vote on issues in the Scottish Parliament. We highlighted that this out was our preferred way of deciding to hold a second referendum, but contrary to much misreporting, it is not the only means by which we would vote in favour of another referendum. The two clearest indications of the will of the electorate to date have been the independence referendum vote in 2014 and Scotland's Remain vote in 2016. They are clearly incompatible without a further choice and our party remains as committed as we always have been to autonomy, to self-government, to independence and to confederalism. Today, nine months on from the EU referendum, we are in an unprecedented situation whereby not only do Scotland and the UK face a hard Brexit but in flagrant breach of the UK Conservative party's own manifesto to say yes to the single market, to preserve the integrity of the single market and even to expand the single market, we face being dragged out of the single market with no electoral mandate and no mandate from the people of the UK or of Scotland. We are where we are. It is not where I would like to be. It is not where most members of this Parliament I do not think wish to be, but we are faced with a choice. We could do nothing, as the Tory suggests. We could pursue federalism, as Labour suggests. We could hold a second referendum on the European Union, as the Liberal Democrats suggest. Or we could put as much power in the hands of the Scottish people to decide for themselves what path we choose. We are dealing with the aftermath of one of the biggest failures of UK statecraft. The choice before us is not the choice that we should or would like to be facing now, but it does face us and Greens will vote according to the long-standing principles of green politics that I outlined earlier. Greens have a distinctive, long-standing and proud tradition of democratic reform. We wish to see important decisions about the future of Scotland being put in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and the residents of Scotland. We have no difficulty in supporting the motion to give the First Minister the mandate to seek the powers under a section 30 order for the Scottish Parliament to determine for itself the terms of a future independence referendum. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate a second time as I opened for the Liberal Democrats. When I got to my feet on Wednesday, it was just moments after rumours of an attack on Westminster had been substantiated and I, like many other people in the chamber, could not reach my colleagues. I rose without notes in the speech that I had memorised. That will teach me. However, as I made progress through it, that text started to evaporate. I dried up, you all saw it, I was lost for words. It is very hard to speak with clarity when your thoughts are overrun with concern for your friends. I speak this afternoon with the same conviction that I intended to last week. I speak to keep a promise that I made to the people who sent me here who knew that such a Government motion would eventually inevitably be forthcoming. I speak for those who, at no point, have offered their consent to this First Minister in the use of their vote to remain in Europe as leverage to bring about a second referendum. I count myself among that number. Utterly reject the false dilemma that this Government and the Green Party seek to create in casting this as an unambiguous choice between two unions. The decision to withdraw from Europe broke my heart. However, as an internationalist, my response could never be to upsticks from the one union of nations that I have left to me. Instead, I chose to stay to resist Brexit and then to fight every election thereafter on a platform of re-entry to the European Union. There is no comfort for ardent Europeans in the current vacillation of the SNP. I will to Tom Arthur. The Liberal Democrats have been fighting on a platform of federalism for over a century and have yet to deliver it. Will it be a century before the Liberal Democrats can deliver us re-entering the EU? I thank Tom Arthur for his intervention. This is my party's policy. I have been fighting for lost causes all of my life, but I will achieve this one. On the one hand, we have thin rhetoric from a Government that would reassure those who might now entertain another path to European membership through independence. On the other hand, we see them try to appease Spanish diplomats and a significant pro-Brexit flank of their own party by rowing away from any commitment to guarantee or even seek full membership for an independent Scotland in the EU. Such is the division on this issue of the nationalist base. This Government is trying to ride both horses, but I say to them, remain voters will find you out, and we shall not be the unwitting fulcrum over which you tip this nation back into the divisions of the past. The 2014 referendum caused such friction in our society that one in four people report a damaged relationship with a friend or family member as a result of it. I would not see Scotland return to such a state of acrimony. Successive opinion polls show that the people of this country do not want that either. As such, I do not believe the architects of this referendum. Those parties who will vote for it tonight have met their own tests in the measure of public opinion for bringing it about. If it comes, I will fight it. Like last time, it will not be easy to defend something that is not entirely functional. Americans talk in saccharine terms about building a more perfect union. If you were to ascribe that same ambition to these islands, then, as the old joke goes, you would not start from here, but we are all of us imperfect. That imperfection is reflected in the conduct of human affairs. We make collectively bad decisions, and sometimes we elect Governments that harm us. In constancy is the very nature of British politics. There will always be a battle for the soul of this country. You may not like the Government of the day, but its time shall pass to break a party union that has endured for 300 years or more, because you do not like a political party. It seems to me like cutting off a limb to prevent a bout of arthritis, which returns each winter. However, we have heard many members in this chamber and beyond this chamber state this case. Therein lies part of our challenge. It is not always easy to get people enthusiastic about the idea of being British. There are aspects of our system that are arcane, periods of our history that are shameful and, indeed, lines on maps drawn by British cartographers that still spark conflict to this day. However, for all the darkness that lies in our way, such light exists as well. In the abolitionist movement, the kinder transport, in the response to images of famine in Africa with the philanthropy that can be measured out in decades, and the second-biggest international aid budget on the planet, there is such capacity for compassion among the British people. Evidence last week, in the many selfless acts of kindness on a bridge in a courtyard and in an ambulance, this is the Britain I recognise, one that is resilient, tolerant, internationalist of outlook. I have not given up on that. My election to this place is the single proudest moment of my life. I came here to make a difference, to legislate, to scrutinise the work of government, but nearly a year on, despite a raft of evidence about a crisis in our health service and in our schools. I have yet to vote on a single meaningful bill or examine a new government strategy. That paralysis is the cost of this Government's fixation on the calculations of when to call this referendum, so I will vote against it tonight. I will vote against it because my constituents sent me here to do just that, because I want to turn the focus of this chamber to the problems in our society and away from the divisions of the past. I will vote against it because I still believe in the idea of Britain. I am proud to stand alongside colleagues in parties to my left and to my right and outside of this chamber in our shared belief that the best days of the United Kingdom can still lie ahead of it. We now move into the open part of the debate, and I call, hopefully, without interruption, Kate Forbes. I start, like many others, to pay tribute to those who protect us and those who lost loved ones last week. In the immediate aftermath, there was a somber sense that Westminster and other parliaments like this one are not just symbols of democracy and debate, but places where ordinary people work on behalf of this nation, and last week reminded us of our common humanity. As an ordinary person, I approach this debate with family members and friends, with colleagues in this chamber and beyond, who sometimes agree with me and sometimes disagree with me. That is the bedrock of our democracy, using debate, discussion and, yes, even disagreement, to take forward this nation of Scotland. However, the reason that we care, the reason that we debate and discuss is because we share one thing in common, and that is vision. Vision for Scotland and vision for a better Scotland. Vision was articulated in some form by every member last week, and I hear it day in, day out from many others. We all have a vision for Scotland, and vision is critical in these days, because, as the First Minister said last week, change is inevitable. There is a fog of confusion. There is no certainty that Scotland will be heard or Scotland's interests will be served. This status quo has sailed, and we are left with uncertain, unknown change. As a nation, we can either be tossed on the waves, blown here and there by the wind and drift along in directionless currents without a say, or we can draw a map and chart a course for Scotland. To reach a port, you cannot tie it at anchor or drift and hope for the best. You do not get to your destination unless you steer the boat with the wind in your sails and a map in your hand. This debate is about whether we can. Whether the people of Scotland, with our different views but a shared vision for a better Scotland, will strike out and chart a course with a map in hand, or whether we will drift along and hope for the best. Our future should not be and never should be in the hands of any single politician or single Government. It should be now and always in the hands of the people of Scotland, and it is within our individual and collective grasp to behave in a manner that befits a nation, discussing and determining its constitutional future. Those are weighty matters, and it requires humility, responsibility, self-discipline and courage. Politicians can and do to our shame, sway opinions by appealing to fear and prejudice. It is sometimes called project fear, and we have seen it time and again, but whatever small victories are secured by project fear, I guarantee one thing—it is at the cost of long-term faith and trust. I accept that my friends and colleagues may disagree with me on many things, not now, and I will listen earnestly to all views, and I will defend their right to be heard, to be heard in conversation, to be heard in debate and to be heard in a referendum. I will take the member. Thank you very much. I am very grateful for you taking the intervention. I wonder if you could confirm whether you think that it is disrespectful to define as project fear those who have the audacity to disagree with you and present a different set of arguments about the consequences of independence? If the member had heard correctly, I very specifically said that politicians to our shame, and I did not point the finger in any direction. I repeat that I defend everybody's right to be heard, heard in conversation, heard in debate and heard in a referendum. My vision for Scotland is captured in one of Scotland's languages. If you will indulge me, this is a verse from a Gallic poem by Moelish Keimbal. And in English, which isn't half as good, beautiful Scotland, you've come of age, you will leave your father's house and stand in free communion with the rest of the world. My belief in Scottish independence is not and never will be born of self-importance or of introverted self-centredness or of a whimsical dream of nationhood, but of the firm belief and desire that Scotland could and should join the global community of nations as a worthy member, as a prosperous nation with a strong economy and a highly educated workforce, as a welcoming nation with an open heart for immigrants and refugees, as a caring nation that looks out for those who are more vulnerable at home and those who are suffering in famine and conflict abroad, as an innovative nation in key industries like technology and engineering, as a nation wealthy with natural resources, wind, wave and oil, as an outward-looking nation that is seeing food and drink exports rise, whose young people study and travel abroad, who choose to foster international relationships. That is our nation, Scotland. Oliver Mundell, to be followed by Ben Macpherson. There is no majority support for this proposal in Scotland, and the question over a section 30 order has already been answered simply, clearly and fairly. In response, what do we have? A First Minister who continues to ooze her own brand of intransigence? While, First Minister, after your decision to set the Scottish Government against the will of the Scottish people, history may indeed look back on today and see it as the day the fate of our union was sealed, because nothing that we have heard in these debates reaches out beyond the SNP's own narrow base. I am not sure if Nicola Sturgeon believes that the people of Scotland are daft, because it is plain to all that the motivation for her beloved referendum rings hollow. After harking on about the need for certainty and the need to tell people what they are voting for, how can she justify another referendum on the back of Brexit, whilst failing to say whether or not we would rejoin the European Union? How can she stoke up fear about leaving the single market without telling us her plan for our currency? It is simply not fair, and it is just not on. Nicola Sturgeon talks of the Scottish Parliament as if we have a divine right to decide on behalf of the people. She talks about democracy as if it belongs to her. While this Parliament gets its authority from the people, not just at election time, but on these big issues, I knew every day, no thank you. The people of our country are sovereign. The power to decide does belong in their hands. If you listen, you might hear. The problem for this First Minister is that the people of Scotland have already spoken. Not only have a majority ruled out independence for a generation, but they have also made it clear that there is no consensus that now is the right time to reopen that debate. Despite irresponsible, ill-judged and politically motivated accusations of colonialism and imperialism that have been trotted out by SNP representatives, they themselves seem to have forgotten that they too have a duty to govern by consent. It is a nice try, but when the SNP leadership have so arrogantly suggested that the Conservatives believe that they can do anything that they like in Scotland, they seem to have missed the irony. The truth is that, after a decade in power, it is Nicola Sturgeon who believes that she can dictate terms not just to the UK Government but to the people of Scotland. We saw it out of touch and hardened by the trappings of office, calling a press conference from Bute House to announce a referendum, a moment shared with the camera crews rather than the many voices of the yes movement or the people of Scotland. It was yet another stunt and yet another game. I say this as gently as I can to the First Minister. The danger of telling everyone who does not agree with a referendum that they are Tories comes with a very real risk to her party. Despite what the SNP claim, more people are sick and tired of all of this, and they have been pushed so far into a corner that they are willing to do almost anything to get that message over to the First Minister. I have seen that first hand in my own Dumfrieshire constituency where thousands of Labour voters did not vote for me because they desperately wanted a change of MSP, and they did not vote for my party because they agreed with absolutely everything that we stand for. Instead, they changed their vote many for the first time in years because they feared that a day like today would come. They knew that when it did, the SNP would not listen to them and could not be trusted to respect their point of view. And how right they were, completely oblivious to her own fate at the ballot box, my opponent in that election will tonight put her party before the people, representing everything that people have come to dislike about politics and everything that they expect of the SNP. John McAlpine My king intervention. Your constituents in Dumfrieshire voted against Brexit, and the agricultural economy in Dumfrieshire stands to lose millions of pounds as a result of Brexit. Perhaps when you are talking about the will of your constituents, you might bring them into consideration on how you vote. Oliver Mundell That is exactly it. If we took John McAlpine's logic and applied it to SNP representatives in this chamber tonight, there are very few of them who should be supporting this proposal. They should be listening to the people. What we in fact have is a Government party who no longer speaks for the 2 million no-voters, a Government who has no guarantees for those who want continued EU membership, and a Government who wants to airbrush 1 million leave voters, 17 and a bit thousand of which were in my Dumfrieshire constituency, where it was almost 50-50. They want to airbrush those million Scottish leave voters out of history in order to spare the blushes of their leader. The embarrassment for the SNP is that more people in our nation voted to leave than put across next to Nicola Sturgeon's name for First Minister. We should not be surprised that the SNP wants to ignore democracy because they only like it when it suits them. On a day when they claim democratic outrage and tell us that ignoring them will put our United Kingdom at risk, remember that they do not speak as friends of the people or in the national interest. For the SNP, this debate has and always will be about self-interest. Ben Macpherson is followed by James Kelly. I remind the chamber that I am a parliamentary liaison officer to the fully mandated First Minister of Scotland. However, today's debate is not about Nicola Sturgeon or Theresa May or any other politician. Instead, it is about all of the people of Scotland and the reality that, in the months and years ahead, we, collectively, as a society, face a serious and important choice between independence in Europe or a Tory Brexit Britain. It is a choice being considered around kitchen tables and boardrooms across our country. It is a choice that communities are discussing intriguingly in coffee shops, bars, bus stops and in the workplace, and in our shared hope for a better Scotland throughout our nation. We must face this choice together, democratically, graciously, honestly and in a spirit of mutual respect. As we deliberate this choice, I encourage all of us to think carefully about our words and about how we conduct ourselves. I appeal to all sides to aspire to avoid polarising terms, like nationalists and unionists. Those divisive expressions diminish our public discourse, and they are becoming more and more meaningless by the day, because Brexit will be a severe act of separatism that is motivated, at least in part, by a sense of British nationalism. Arguments for and against Scottish independence concern feelings of national identity and notions of wider political relationships with other countries. Instead, let us agree that we are all civic nationalists and internationalists to one degree or another and instead focus on the substance of the situation before us, which is a complex and imperative judgment about how we want to be governed and where we want power to reside. That is what our constitutional choice is substantially about. For me, the choice that we face is whether to move forward and broaden our horizons as a confident, modern, compassionate, independent country in Europe, or instead whether we want to narrow our opportunities and diminish our quality of life in the years ahead by staying part of an increasingly backward looking, more insular, more isolated Tory-Brexit Britain. It is a fundamental choice about our values and the vision of where we want to be in 10, 20, 30, 40 years time and beyond. It is a choice about our place in the world and the direction of this remarkable place that we call home. Let us remember that this choice that we face has been caused by a Brexit outcome that Scotland did not vote for. It is a choice bound up in the fact that Scotland chose overwhelmingly to remain a committed European partner, an internationalist, outward looking, 21st century society. That is the sort of country that the majority of the Scottish people voted for on the 23rd of June last year, not a hard Brexit. Let us remember Brexit or independence is a choice that Scotland has been compelled into making. By a Conservative UK Government we did not elect and a leave result we did not vote for. A leave result we resolutely rejected by 62 per cent. A leave result that some Labour, Lib Dems, Tory now seem to want Scotland to illogically and fatalistically accept against our democratic wishes and contrary to the economic and social interests of our country and of our time. We face a clear choice about whether, as a people, as a society, we either accept the damaging consequences of a hard Brexit or instead chart a different, more inclusive, more progressive course with independence. That is a profoundly different choice to the one that we considered in 2014, just as the circumstances have changed significantly and materially since the 23rd of June last year. The situation before us is a question of indie ref new, not a question of indie ref 2. We face a new choice with new alternatives and new challenges. A hard Brexit or the opportunity of independence in Europe is a critical choice that matters to every woman and man across our country, whatever their background and wherever they have come from. In this unexpected and extraordinary period of change and flux and deep uncertainty, as a result of Brexit, the voice of the people should and must be heard in a new referendum, a new referendum that our fellow citizens both desire and deserve. As politicians, we have an obligation and a responsibility to empower the people that we have the privilege to represent and to allow the people of Scotland to determine Scotland's choice at a time of Scotland's choosing. Support the Government motion. James Kelly, to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like other speakers in the debate, I would like to offer my condolences to those affected by the events in London last week. People watching this debate from outside the Holyrood bubble must wonder why, again, the Scottish Parliament is considering the issue of a divisive second independence referendum, particularly when we were told in 2014 that it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity. No matter how much Alex Salmond thinks that he can airbrush video footage of him saying that out of the Internet, the reality is that he did say it. Not only that, he also, along with the First Minister, signed up to the Edinburgh agreement, an agreement binding on both sides, where both sides agreed to accept the result. When that was put to Alex Salmond last week by Nick Watson, the BBC, he said, well, it does not really matter. Once I resigned as First Minister, the agreement did not matter anymore. That illustrates to you the arrogance of the SNP that they think that they can dismiss a democratic vote for more than 10 per cent of the people voted. There was a 10 per cent lead for voting no over vote yes, and they can also dismiss agreements that they had signed up to accept the result. The reality is that it is independence at any cost. We have heard much about how it is because of Brexit and because of the EU issue, but the reality is that the logical extension of a yes vote in an independent Scotland in September 2014 would have been to take Scotland out of the EU. We have even heard in recent days that the SNP are confused as to their position whether they want to seek membership of the EU, join after, or even in the view that is argued by Alex Neil and others, that an independent Scotland would have to have another referendum. The reality also is that people do not want another independence referendum. Poll after poll has rejected that. Even last week, the most recent poll of businesses by friend Saunders, the Accountancy Forum, showed that 89 per cent of people working in SMEs did not want an independence referendum. People in our communities do not want to go back to those days because it is Andy Wightman who acknowledged that it was not some kind of civic, joyous, democratic celebration. For those who were abused online merely for expressing an opinion, it was not an enjoyable full-time. For those pensioners, they were scared to say that they were voting no because of the aggressive and intimidating nature of the yes campaigners. For those who were chased up and down streets with threats and intimidation, it was not a celebration of democracy. That is why people do not want to return to a divisive second independence referendum. We have heard much from the Government about the Will of Parliament, but the reality is that the Government's default position is to ignore the Will of Parliament. Whether it is fracking or the Football Act, health service closures or centralisation of economic agencies, the Government ignores the Will of Parliament. People wonder what happens when the Government loses a vote. I will tell you what happens. The Minister for Parliamentary Business takes a bit of paper with a note upstairs to the ministerial office, and he puts it in a file that says, Please ignore no further action required. The reality is that, in the week that the Government called for another independence referendum, child poverty rose to 260,000. The Government did not even blink an eye. In that same week, we found out that the Government had underspent the housing budget by £20 million. What an absolute outrage that, when there are people sleeping rough yards from this Parliament, the SNP Government underspent the housing budget by £20 million. We hear much about the use of powers, yet when it comes to the social security powers, it could not take the powers on immediately because it was going to take three years to build a computer system. What an absolute outrage. The reality is that, when people elected a Government in 2016, they did not elect a campaign committee, so it is time to reject the idea of a second independence referendum, get on with the issues in hand, support the NHS staff in order to avert the crisis in the NHS, defend their public services and create jobs in a local community. Let's get on with the job in hand, let's not waste time on a defisive second independence referendum. Sandra White, followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. How sad to hear the contribution from Mr Kelly. I really would have thought better of him and very sad to hear that. Presiding Officer, I attended a joint meeting in Westminster just last week and my thoughts go to everyone who suffered there. We passed along that bridge also, and I echo everyone in this chamber when I say our thoughts go with them. After that meeting, I was speaking to various people in Westminster, not just from my own party but from others also, and the subject went on to Brexit. I was very fortunate to be giving the paper from the House of Commons library, which is called Legislating for Brexit, The Great Repeal Act. It makes really interesting and good reading also. I have heard numbers, and Mr Kelly mentioned it earlier on, that this is not important. If you hear what is actually in the Great Repeal Act, I think that this debate is very important not just for Scotland but for the rest of the UK. I would like to mention the fact that in the paper it mentions such issues as the Henry VIII powers. I know that the UK Labour party and the UK Liberals have raised the issue with great concerns about the Henry VIII powers. Page 6 of the publication is headed Devolution. I quote, Legislating for Brexit will have significant implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the Great Repeal Bill transposes all directly applicable EU law, it could effectively implement a range of revisions that are within the devolved competence, for example agriculture, et cetera. That would require consent from the devolved legislators, so long as the Sewell convention is respected. It goes on, and this is where it becomes very interesting. Page 48 of the Great Repeal Bill. The Sewell convention, even its statutory form, includes a rider that the Government will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without consent. However, it is not clear if the draw from the EU would be considered inverted commerce normal. That will be a political matter where the Sewell convention is indeed in play. In legal terms, the power of the UK Parliament to legislate on devolved matters without consent is stated in the devolution statutes. If consent is stopped, it might be withheld, or the process of securing consent might introduce a delay. Equally, not using the Sewell convention would bring its own political issues and would raise objections quite rightly, as I said, not ex-quoted, in the devolved institutions. Let's look at the devolved issues—agriculture, fishing, the environment. In fact, Professor Douglas Scott drew attention to this in a paper in the Scottish Parliament's European External Relations Committee. I quote on page 49 of the report. The aim of the Great Repeal Bill is to convert EU law into national law. However, a good part of EU law relates to competencies that have been devolved—for example, fishing, etc. Public experiment, environmental law, as well as many others. If the Great Repeal Bill translates EU law on matters that have been devolved into UK law, that could amount to legislation on devolved areas. Last week, Kezia Dugdale and John Lamont mentioned the fact that taking back powers from Brussels to Scotland, and John Lamont said that Scotland may gain powers. You need this Great Repeal Act that acts in the opposite way. That is why it is so important that we have a vote on this particular issue. In my mind, and many others, the debate today is not only about Scotland and the people of Scotland having a choice. It is about protecting the very sovereignty of this Parliament. That is what it is about, and I think that people should realise that. It is a very important issue. The unionist parties can argue and puttify all that they want. Brexit has changed everything. The manifesto that we are elected on clearly states that the Scottish Parliament shall have the right to hold another referendum if there is a material change in the circumstances that will be veiled in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU. We were not aware of that in 2014, and there is a substantial material change. That is why the circumstances have changed. It is only right that the people of Scotland are given the opportunity to choose their future. That is why it is an important debate. If I can touch on the talk from the Opposition parties about division, or along with Scotland's two we and two poor, that is all that we have talked about. I must say—I must say—if you be quiet please just a second, if I just say—I must say that that is all that we have talked about, but the language that has been used by the unionist and Opposition parties to me is unbecoming to this Parliament. A terrible example is set to our young people, to the Scottish people and to the international world. It is disgusting. I come from a family of Irish, English and Scottish backgrounds. There was never any division. In fact, all of my family, before 2014, were Labour Party not just members, but voters also. We never had division in our house. We had plenty of debate, and that is healthy. Debate is healthy. We now, as a family, get together. We still have Labour. We have SNP—one Labour, by the way—and Greens. Thankfully, we have no Tories. Support this motion tonight. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The people of Scotland do not want this debate, not now, and for good reason. I put myself up for election to this Parliament because I have real concerns about what is happening in Scotland. The attainment gap, the funding and recruitment crisis in our NHS, the difficulties in our transport infrastructure, slow economic growth and IT failures that leave our farmers begging the banks for advances. I could go on. Those are issues in which this Government has the power to do something about, and they have the power to do something about it now. We may not agree on whether blame or the responsibility lies, the solutions or even the way ahead, but by debating and seeking solutions, we would be doing the job that the people of this nation elected us to do. Instead, we have spent three days debating a motion on a question, answered categorically and unequivocally a whole generation of two and a half years ago by around 88 per cent of the voting population. It does not mandate action what we are doing today. If votes in this place are mandated action, I have a great deal to cover, so I won't do. Thank you. If votes in this place are mandated action, the SNP would be revising plans to scrap the board of HIE, revoking the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, revising plans to scrap the board of the Scottish Funding Council and there are others, but they do not. The people elected this Parliament last May to take these actions, to take actions sorting out the challenges in this country. No, I won't. They did not expect to be back in a divisive, unpleasant referendum, and they didn't expect it because Alex Salmond said, in my opinion, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Scotland. Oh, yes, he did. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a generation as 30 years. In her 2015 conference speeches, the First Minister ruled out a second referendum in this Parliament and stated that there couldn't be another one until the majority of Scots were persuaded. In October 2015, the SNP said that support for independence would have to be sitting steady at more than 60 per cent for the long term, but opinion has not shifted from 2014. We must not airbrush what the people knew in 2014 that an EU referendum was likely to happen and the outcome of Brexit was always possible. People still voted overwhelmingly to stay in the UK. They knew what they were voting for in 2014 and in May 2016, and they voted against separation and for a minority Government in Scotland. Another independence referendum was not what they voted for. So why now? Why are we having this debate in the context of myriad social difficulties, the responsibility for which was devolved to this Parliament often many years ago? Distraction, diversion, more flags, more rhetoric, and maybe no one will notice that the SNP haven't passed an act in over a year. The Prime Minister and the UK Government are preparing to embark on negotiations with the EU in order to get the best deal for the whole of the UK, and that includes Scotland. All our energies should be focused on those negotiations, pulling together not pulling apart. Whatever one's views on Brexit, to suggest running a secessionist referendum campaign in parallel with vital negotiations over the UK's future relationship was cynical. It was about this Government trying to force the UK Government to face a fight on two fronts, reducing the ability to negotiate and deliver good terms for all of the UK. Terms that are not clear until the outcome is known. That gives this referendum proposal a different problem. If the people of Scotland were to face this vote, surely they must know what it is that they would be voting for, but there is no answer on currency. Kenny MacAskill says that's laughable. There's no answer on a border with the rest of the UK or the UK single market. No answer on defence other than we might build our own from scratch, and the nascent state would immediately have a £15 billion deficit. I don't want to hear whose fault that may or may not be. It is a fact, and no answers have been provided. At least the SNP are consistent. I'm coming onto the Greens, Ross Greer. We always knew that they wanted another shot, and let's face it. If they get this one and lose, they'll be back again for another go. The Green Party shows no such consistency. When the people voted in May, the Greens went to them with a proposition. One million people should sign a petition and public demand should be irresistible for another referendum. Mr Harvey said that there's little point in revisiting it unless opinion shifts markedly. Neither of those things has happened, yet the Greens elected on promises that the people of Scotland founded upon who said at the ballot box, that is my position, can tort themselves to suggest that that was only one of the ways that they would get justification. Presiding Officer, the people of Scotland do not want this debate. They do not want this vote. A referendum cannot happen whilst the Brexit process is being played out, and it should not happen while there is no public consent or will. The people of Scotland deserve stability in our institutions, predictability in our policies and consistency in decision making. They want the Scottish Government to focus on sorting public services. It is not too late. I say to the Greens that you still have time to stick to that manifesto promise. I say to the SNP backbenchers that I'm sure that a referendum is what the country wants or needs now, keen to give businesses certainty and to focus on the day job. It is time to take a stand, time to stop leaving it to Alec Neill to carry the burden of every pro-Brexit SNP voter and all those who believe that it's not time for more division. Your constituents don't want a referendum, do what they elected you to do, stand up for them and vote for the Conservative amendment. I say to members that I have a limited amount of time in hand that I can use for any interventions. I now have Stuart McMillan to be followed by Johann Lamont. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I want to echo the comments made by others and express my condolences to the friends and family of those affected by the events in Westminster last week. The people of Scotland are sovereign and the people of Scotland deserve the right to choose their future. At 5 o'clock today, we will be making that particular vote. This reconvened parliament is growing older, more mature and like any soon-to-be 18-year-old, it's looking forward to that next chapter in its life. For those of us on the pro-independence side, we see the opportunities that independence offers. For those on the pro-union side, they have a differing view, and they are perfectly entitled to have that view. Bruce Crawford last week spoke about having a passionate but respectful debate. I couldn't agree more with Bruce Crawford's comments, and Bruce Crawford's comments were echoed today by the First Minister. I would go one step further. I think that both sides should put the facts, the figures and their vision, on to the table for the electorate when we come to have another referendum. If the European referendum campaign has got anything to show us, the claim of £350 million per week for the NHS was destroyed within hours of the polls closing, so we should not get into that particular situation. I genuinely believe that we, as a Parliament and a chamber, are better than that and that we can all rise to that challenge when our referendum does take place. Two weeks ago in Scotland tonight, Graham Pearson, the head of the Scotland and the Union campaign, was impressing the point of having a respectful debate. I agreed with him on that, but he blew it a few days later by launching that ridiculous and personal attack on the First Minister just outside of the SNP conference. It clearly wasn't Mr Pearson's finest ever or decision, but I genuinely hope that he learns from that embarrassment. Richard Lochhead last week said that, I thought that I said the most pertinent thing in the debate. That was until Alex Cole-Hamilton's admission milleron regarding the Lib Dems fighting the lost causes, particularly him and Oliver's life, but Richard Lochhead's comment, I thought when he stated that democracy doesn't have an expiry date. Once again, I cannot agree more with my colleague, but just because you're not successful doesn't mean that you change your point of view or belief. Tim Farron, the federal leader of the Liberal Democrats, proved this to be the case when he tweeted on 18 March, and when we lose a referendum, we don't give up. I also agree with Alexander Stewart, and I'm sure that he's quite shocked by that, but during the European debate two weeks ago, he stated that no Government should do all within its power to stymie the debate. He also said that the Scottish Government would take the threat of an independence referendum off the table. The Conservative language and amendment today doesn't talk about removing the opportunity of a referendum altogether, but in delaying it. However, once again, Mr Stewart, I think that I can let the cat out of the bag. It was actually in the debate in January of this year, and the 17th of January in the chamber, he stated that the Scottish National Party should remove a referendum by completely ruling out another referendum for the duration of this session. In this debate thus far, we've heard about just not having it now, not having it during the Brexit discussion process, but Mr Stewart earlier in this year has stated not to have it at all in this session. I think that that speaks volumes about the Conservative party position. However, the Conservative language and amendment doesn't talk about removing it altogether, but in delaying it, and that's an important fact that I think the chamber needs to recognise. However, as the First Minister has stated numerous times, she is willing to have that discussion with the Prime Minister, once again showing the willingness of this SNP Government and the First Minister to compromise and find common ground with the Prime Minister. However, there are a few other contributions that I want to touch upon. One was Alex Rowley. Alex Rowley, I want to thank him. He took to interventional me last week, but he spoke of the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland. I'm sure that all in the chamber I actually want to find that. However, the flaw, I think, in Mr Rowley's argument, is that, in the nine months after the European referendum, we've got no idea at all as to what the cost of Brexit is going to be. When we've got the UK Minister, David Davis, has evidence to the Commons Committee saying that no analysis has been undertaken. It wasn't just an embarrassing for him or the UK Government, but I would argue that it was a dereliction of duty by the UK Government. For a UK Government Minister to state, you don't need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment. I think it's appalling. I'm quite sure that there will be more that unites than divides Mr Rowley and myself. However, with no analysis by the UK Government and no discernible plan, what type of deal will we actually be presented with? Both Miles Briggs and John Normans spoke of a grievance agenda. That is the same old mantra that we hear time and time again from the Conservatives in this chamber to deflect from their position of weakness on this issue. We've got a Prime Minister who doesn't tell the Scottish Government that article 50 is going to be triggered this week. The Scottish Government actually found out about it from the media and then the Scottish Government actually stand up for themselves and are then castigated for having a grievance. I really think that that wasn't appalling in a cheap argument to deploy, but it highlights the lack of substance in the Conservative argument. I'm in my final minute. I've tried to fully comprehend and understand the position that unionists take for not wanting independence. Nothing can remove me from this point, but for me it's the point of self-respect by taking our own decisions and standing up for ourselves. I think that that is one of the key issues and the key points to move Scotland forward. However, with that viewpoint regarding the Conservatives and the issue of a referendum, Scotland will always be hamstrung, limited by ambition and also destined to never fulfil its potential. However, for me, the people of Scotland are sovereign and they have the right to determine the future. With 15,568 people in Inverclyde who have not been fed from the Inverclyde food bank since September 2012, I want to give them hope not to remove it. I want to give them a vision for a better life of opportunity and not one can sign to picking up food parcels for the rest of their lives. I have Johann Lamont, who is followed by Claire Hawke. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I assure that members across the chamber will understand that I am utterly delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. The First Minister struck an important note at the beginning when she talked about respect and recognised the significance of our democracy. I would say this. A First Minister with two full speeches in a two-day debate, while there has been no debate in government time on education since last October. I know that we have redefined what a generation is. We have now clearly redefined what constitutes a top priority. It has been interesting to watch Government-backed benchers over the last couple of weeks—let me get started—over the last couple of weeks. They would appear to have got their module back. I guess that it must be easier to cheer the First Minister playing the old tunes on independence rather than suffer the discomfort of watching the Scottish Government failing on education, on health and on the economy. How much better to look to an imagined world way beyond us rather than confront the tough consequences of the choices of their own government on the lives of ordinary people, cutting budgets and resisting the use of the powers that it has to make a difference to people's lives? I respectfully say to Ben Macpherson who says that we are all civic nationalists now. Speak for yourselves. Do not speak for me. Do not redefine all those who do not agree with you as having some kind of false consciousness. I am not a nationalist and I will not have my politics defined by the constitution. I will have it defined rather by equality. However, let us be charitable. Let us assume that most of us needed all of us here or serious, thoughtful people who want to do our best for the communities that we represent. I do understand that Brexit troubles many in here and way beyond the chamber and that the sense of uncertainty and feeling of shock at the result bring with them a desire for action. Although I say to the Scottish Government that it should not simply seek to recruit that concern to its own cause, many are remain now as fervent in their desire to stay in the United Kingdom as they are in the European Union. I do get that there are concerns about Brexit. Although to paint Europe as some kind of golden citadel democracy, it is to deny entirely the concerns of 1 million voters in this country about its inflexibility and bureaucracy and its lack of accountability. It is true that, while we have debated endlessly the potential consequence of Brexit, there is no doubt in my mind that many on the SNP benches saw it not as a problem but as an opportunity to override the one-seged generation vote just two and a half years ago. We know that, for many, Brexit has been a convenient proxy for the Scottish constitutional debate and the opportunity to overturn a vote that they have neither accepted nor respected. James Dornan Will the member accept that, when the Brexit referendum took place, that many of us on this side of the chamber were every bit as upset and more upset than many other people across the country? That result was the second worst result that I have ever had in my life and I have been defeated in the elections quite a few times. I have already said that I respect people's concerns about Brexit and that people are concerned about it right across the United Kingdom. It is not something unique to our Scottishness that defines our need then for a referendum. Anyway, for me there is a concern that, in this debate, we have moved on swiftly from why there should be a referendum to the process for securing it. We can get enraged if we have been refused a referendum without troubling ourselves with having to justify why it is needed in the first place. We should guard against being conditioned to a sense of its inevitability and why does that matter? The fact is that the case simply has not been made. First, the cause and explanation shift. We hear it so that we can stay in the EU or it is because we want to be a nefta or it is because we want to be in Europe but not in the common fisheries policy. It is time-critical that we hear it or we can negotiate on timing. Those are manifestations of an end goal hunting around for a principle. The SNP should be honest, they just want a referendum and if it were not this, it would be something else. In the rush to hook their goal to this opportunity, it is remarkable that the proposition is no more solid than it ever was. At a time of insecurity, it is simply astonishing to see a proposition that is presented so ill-thought-through on the currency, on the euro and on the deficit. That is not the action of a Government that is serious in providing certainty in these troubled times. Of course, we are told that SNP has a mandate, almost an obligation as a consequence of its manifesto commitment. One might take the view that this is a slightly tenuous argument, but, even if we accept it, the reality is that the Government has other competing and I would contend equally compelling mandates on education, on poverty, on health, on creating a fairer economy. However, those compelling mandates must be put on ice while the SNP pursues its ultimate priority. It is evident that some mandates are more important than others. We already know that there has been no education debate in Government since last October, and, even then, that was about the impact of Brexit. When the Parliament voted to condemn the failure of SNP and education, the will of the Parliament remained remarkably unheard. No two-day debate, no determination at the will of the Parliament will prevail if we did not already know it, is laid bare here. Some wills of the Parliament are more equal than others. I am unable to continue with many of the points that I want to make because of the time that is left. However, in my view, what we have now got, as I have said, is an excuse and an opportunity to argue for a referendum. A referendum, even if it were held, even if people had the referendum, would not resolve the debate if we agree with the SNP. For as John Mason would have said, why bother with this once in a lifetime malarkey? I would recognise that if there is another referendum and if we vote to stay in the United Kingdom, there will still be those who would argue another referendum. I say this to the SNP. Stop developing the narrative, stop redefining what a generation of a lifetime is, get on with the day job and, if you do that, we will support you. I have Claire Hawke to be followed by Jackson Carlaw. I have been so disappointed at times by the language used by some across this chamber during this debate. Language has been weaponised using words like battle and fight and divisive, and I have heard accusations of arrogance, slurs and yes, even rabid nationalism. The language of threat ever present in the last independence referendum is once again being used, threats being made to Scottish trade, untrue and indefensible threats being made about pensions and hard borders, and the shameful use of the word foreigner, used to sow fear of division where none exists. None of this helps in fostering a mature, factual discussion on the future of the country, and as leaders in our own communities, we need to be mindful of this and of avoiding tribalism. Debate, yes. Be passionate about your beliefs, yes, but be respectful to others' views, and, in doing so, allow the people their voice and their choice. This is fundamentally about our right of self-determination, and the starting point has to be that Scotland as a nation has that right. Scotland was not, as some would have, you believe, extinguished as a nation in 1707. We have an absolute right to choose the path our nation takes, particularly when we are being taken down a path that we have no wish to follow. This is not an argument about who loves their country most. This is an argument about choice, about letting the Scottish people decide the future of their nation. That is democracy. That is the people exercising their democratic right, regardless of how they vote. How can anyone in this chamber deny the Scottish people their say and still call themselves democratic? Some parties in this chamber—no, thank you, not just now—even though they opposed Brexit, even though in the wake of the leave vote they supported the aim of this Government to protect our relationship with Europe by staying within the single market, now say that we must just suck it up and do as we are told. Why? At what point does doing what is in the best interests of Scotland come into the equation? Who decides what is in our best interests? The Tories, who, like Labour and Liberal Democrats, have a sole MP at Westminster, or perhaps Philip Rycroft, an unelected senior civil servant, who we now hear will be the person in the UK Brexit department deciding which powers come back from the EU are to be given to this Parliament? Where is the democracy in that? Indeed, where is the mandate? Those who shout loudest about mandates and the legitimacy of this Parliament to call for a section 30 order are often those whose own mandates do not bear scrutiny. The Scottish Government's mandate on this is clear and irrefutable. The SNP was elected on a clear commitment that it would review the constitutional arrangements and, if necessary, call for the people of Scotland to have a choice if there was a material change of circumstances. That material changes on us, and it is clear that the interests of Scotland in the current process is being completely ignored. A hard Brexit will damage our economy. It will damage the global perception of us as an inclusive and forward-thinking and outward-looking nation. If this Parliament votes by a majority today to ask for a section 30 order to legislate for an independence referendum, the UK Government would be ill advised to block what will be a clear mandate for the powers to let the people of Scotland choose their future. However, let us stand back from the emotive language and look at the cold hard facts. For instance, in the last referendum, we were told if we voted no, then pensions would be safe. Tell that to the waspy women who now have to wait years longer for their pension than they should do. Tell that to those who may now have to work to the age of 70 before being able to lift the pension, or tell it to the pensioners, potentially facing cuts to pensioner benefits after 2020. We were told if we voted no, then our shipyards would be safe, but the orders for navy vessels have been cut and they are used behind schedule. We were told if we voted no, then our tax offices would be safe. Tell that to my constituents who work at Centre 1 in East Kilbride. We were told that voting no would deliver the nearest thing to federalism, only for the vow to be watered down, with Labour opposing powers that they are now promising once again with no hope of delivering them. Of course, we were told if we voted no, if we voted no, then we would be able to keep our membership of the European Union and may now face the prospect of Scotland being taken out of Europe against her will. As I said before, Scotland is a nation, not a region, not a province, not a territory. As a nation has an absolute right to seek its interests and to reconsider its relationships with other nations, particularly in the current circumstances. It is also right that the decision in our future is taken during the timeframe outlined by the Government and that Scotland's referendum will be made in Scotland without external interference or obstruction. We will have that national conversation again, as we are perfectly entitled to, and I look forward to that conversation being as engaging and uplifting as the previous one, and my hope is that a new conversation can be had without recourse to the language of threat and fear. We know that the status quo will not be an option in the forthcoming referendum. We will choose between two futures, one that we already see will be damaging and isolationist and the other, while challenging it will be ours alone to fashion. Sovereignty lies with the people and I trust the people to make an informed choice, which will see Scotland say, stop the world, we want to get on. Presiding Officer, any cook will tell you that both the correct ingredients and the correct timing are essential to get a souffle to rise. Get either wrong and the whole thing will irretrievably collapse. In what increasingly is all the characteristics of the great Scottish Government miscalculation of the devolution era, Nicola Sturgeon's gambit of just a fort night ago, in calling for a second independence referendum, has frankly been met with the loudest raspberry from every corner of Scotland since, and the result, the greatest collapsed political souffle of our times. The threat of a second independence referendum has until now been the default sanction of for every perceived SNP grievance. Its power such as it has been rested in it remaining a threat and not an action. Like every deterrent it has a successful influencer in negotiation only if never actually triggered, but a fortnight ago triggered it was. In the 15 long days since, politics in Scotland has changed and not as the First Minister planned or assumed. If the First Minister conceived a surprise of timing on Monday 13 March, just three days later the inherent hollowness of her demand was laid bare when the Prime Minister calmly responded, now is not the time. Opinion posed over that first week and weekend reflected no increase in support for either independence or, in particular, for any second referendum. While the leader of the SNP addressed her evangelical party faithful in Aberdeen, people on the streets of Scotland in shops and bus queues in their homes and pubs and restaurants to which Ben Macpherson referred remained unmoved. Like the Prime Minister, opinion polls confirm that people in Scotland have likewise concluded and determined that now is not the time. Indeed, measured against Nicola Sturgeon's previously preferred yardstick of clear majority demand for a fresh referendum sustained over many months, it is difficult to imagine when the people of Scotland will be persuaded that we have again arrived at that time. In our speech in this chamber a week ago, Nicola Sturgeon generously entertained MSPs to a repeat airing of her SNP conference address. While it may have moved many of those behind her to tears, no glass eyes wept elsewhere, Scotland was left cold and unimpressed. No new arguments were rehearsed in support of her obsession, just the same dreary old repertoire of grievance and dirge from 2014. By now, we knew that barely one third of Scots thought a further referendum was any kind of priority or response to the failing domestic record of the SNP Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon asserts that Westminster should be bound by her Scottish election manifesto, just as she asserted that she would stop trident in the same campaign. The pledge to hold a second referendum is increasingly now seen for what it was. A pledge to deliver something over which the First Minister of Scotland does not have the power or authority. She seeks comfort in her majority losing 2016 manifesto as a justification. A manifesto, which, by the way, at a stroke renders the SNP MPs elected in our 2015 Westminster manifesto in a moment without any mandate to campaign for a referendum whatsoever. After all, the MPs were elected on a manifesto and in a campaign where Nicola Sturgeon explicitly said that independence is not an issue in this election. Mr Arthur has been desperate to get in all afternoon, he has tried to intervene and everyone is going to have a speech coming up, but I will give him his moment. Welcome, Mr Carlo. I thank Mr Carlo for that generous introduction. Mr Carlo references manifestos and commitments. There was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto, the same manifesto that promised the EU referendum to commit to the single market. Mr Carlo and I both have the great honour of representing East Renfrewshire, where over 74 per cent of people voted to stay within the single market. Mr Carlo, please outline to the chamber what actions he has taken to realise that democratic wish. What the people of Eastwood did is they turned out in record numbers in September 2014 and voted for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. In June 2015, with one of the 10 highest margins anywhere in the UK, my constituents voted for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union and they lost. My constituents and I respect the result of both referendums. Mr Arthur and the Scottish National Party respect the judgment of neither. The First Minister's own compromised mandate, to which she regularly refers, rests on an election in which, uniquely, she remained in office despite losing her majority, something that no Prime Minister has successfully sought to do in over 100 years at Westminster. Despite that compromised authority, Nicola Sturgeon asserts that Westminster must abide not just now by any vote tonight, but has been repeatedly demonstrated that this is a Government enduring defeat after defeat in this place and ignoring every argument, every resolution that has confronted and then lost the support of this chamber. Earlier this afternoon, the First Minister actually advised us that she expects the Prime Minister to respond to the will of this Parliament by the end of the Easter recess. When this Parliament has waited weeks and months for the Scottish Government to respond to the defeats that is endured at the will of this Parliament time and time again, once again it is a case of this First Minister saying, do what I say, not what I do. In 2014, the referendum that took place finally enjoyed the support of 92 per cent of the people for its being held and the support of every MSP—a supermajority—from all five parties in this Scottish Parliament, representing every shade of opinion. Today, barely one-third of the public support such a poll and only two of the five parties do so. Neither the political nor the public consent exists. There has been no significant number of those who voted no, changing their minds. In the 15 days since the leader of the SNP plunged Scotland into this unwanted and unnecessary debate, opinion has shifted, but not as the First Minister imagined or planned. There are no silent unionists now. It is the First Minister's hubris that now drives this effort to kickstart a campaign that Scotland does not want. When we voted in 2014, Scotland's voice was clear and with strength and resolution the people of Scotland spoke. We said no and we meant it. Before Britain has left the EU and the arrangements thereafter are transparent and until there is a clear and sustained evidence of public support among Scots for a referendum, there will be no second referendum. That is our pledge and the people of Scotland can trust us on this point. We actually can and we will deliver on it. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Paulie McNeill up to six minutes, please, Mr Arthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I also express my condolences to the victims and my solidarity with the survivors of last week's attack in Westminster? It is a privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Scotland's choice. A debate fuelled by competing passions that has at points exceeded the scope of the motion before us. That motion is concerned not with whether Scotland should be independent. Rather, the question that we face is whether this Parliament believes the people of Scotland to be sovereign and endowed with a right to determine the future of our country. I believe that the people of Scotland to be sovereign. It is a belief that, consistent with the claim of right, power lies with and is derived from the people who live in Scotland. It is a belief that the people and their loan have the right to determine the future governance of this country. It is a belief shared by many who worked for the reconvening of this Parliament. It is a belief whose legitimacy was accepted by successive UK Governments. However, the actions of Theresa May and Scottish Conservatives have compromised and undermined that long-standing consensus. Indeed, the Tory amendment is the only amendment that seeks to remove any acknowledgement of the sovereign right of the Scottish people from the Government's motion. Although the Supreme Court ruling on article 50 reconfirmed the legally subordinate status of this Parliament to the UK Parliament, the Tory response to the EU referendum result in Scotland and its refusal to meaningfully consider a differentiated settlement demonstrates the Tory belief, but in matters of fundamental importance to the very governance of Scotland, the will of the Scottish people is subordinate to the will of the UK Government. That signifies a fundamental and material change, not only in the circumstances of 2014, but in decades of a shared understanding of Scotland's relationship with the other nations of the United Kingdom. Theresa May told the people of Scotland that the UK is a partnership of equals. However, a partnership where one partner forces another into actions against their will is no longer a relationship of equals and not a partnership. However, UK Governments and transitions towards Scottish aspirations should be deeply disturbing for any Democrat. It suggests a view that would seek to diminish Scotland from the status of a nation to that of a regional polity. In the referendum of 2014 and 2016, the people of Scotland shows not to endorse fundamental change, yet, as a consequence of the actions of the UK Government, change of the most profound kind is coming to Scotland. All that we can now do is determine the nature of that change. Should Scotland remain an open, an outward-looking nation, and chart its own course and forge its own partnerships, or should we permit ourselves to be locked into an increasingly insular, intolerant and backwards-looking Britain, only the sovereign people of Scotland can make a decision of that magnitude. That choice is not for public decisions or for parliaments to make, it is for the people of Scotland alone. Before concluding, Presiding Officer, I wish to address two specific points raised by the Opposition amendments, namely timing and the fear of division. The timetable set out for a referendum in the Government motion is predicated on both the UK Government and the EU's chief Brexit negotiators assessment of when Brexit negotiations will be concluded ahead of ratification. A referendum between autumn 2018 and spring 2019 will empower the people to make an informed choice on Scotland's future. Crucially, that will be before any regulatory divergence between the European single market and the UK can take place, which would compromise Scotland's existing fulfilment of the Aarkey community. Any attempt by the UK Government to significantly delay a referendum beyond the proposed timescale will be seen as cynical and grossly undemocratic, not only by people in Scotland, but crucially by our European partners at a time when the UK will be relying upon the goodwill of many small independent European nations. Finally, Presiding Officer, on the issue of division, we must not allow the broader debate over Scotland's future to descend into recriminations and personal attacks. For those of us who seek to persuade a majority to choose independence, we must empathise with, understand and show respect to our fellow Scots who take a different view. There are many who look upon the prospect of a referendum with anxiety, fear and even anger. Those are our fellow patriotic citizens with genuinely held views, beliefs and principles. They are not misinformed individuals who have yet to be persuaded. Just as one side has a right to make a case, so the other has a right to reject and be treated with courtesy and respect, regardless of our views on Scotland's future, our differences are far outweighed by what we have in common. Those who oppose independence, particularly in public life, have equal responsibilities to resist cynically employing inflammatory language for political gain. Such techniques of political rhetoric are a false economy for which all sides inevitably pay. A robust and passionate debate is a hallmark of a civilised society and a dynamic democracy. To describe such a process as fratricidal conflict does all politics a disservice. Letters not debase ourselves or democracy in our country with such a pernicious approach to politics. Rather, letters have a great debate equal to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Scotland. On that, surely we are all united. Thank you. Before I call Collin McNeill to be followed by Edwin Mountain, Edwin Mountain will be the last speaker in the open debate. We moved to closing speeches and everyone who has taken part in this debate last week and today should be in the chamber for closing speeches. Collin McNeill, please, up to six minutes. I believe in self-governance for Scotland within the United Kingdom. I have always believed in the sovereignty of the Scottish people. I thank Ben MacPherson for not calling me a unionist, but I have to say in every debate that I have ever been in. That is what I have been called. Self-determination allows me to say that I am a socialist first and internationalist, a feminist, and a trade unionist, like Johann Lamont. I refuse to be defined by the constitution. I will respect everyone's views. I will respect the outcome of the vote tonight, but I will continue to argue against an independence referendum as Scotland's answer to Brexit. I believe in the vision that I have for Scotland within the United Kingdom and I will passionately continue to argue for that. I believe that the people predominantly, and including many yes voters, are not with the SNP on the self-made push for a second referendum, nor are the people with the SNP on the timing of it. In my experience, even in the last few days in the local government elections, I have spoken to people who are committed to independence, but they tell me that they do not believe that now is the time, and they do not believe that, until they see the full implications of Brexit, it is fair to put that question to them. The country is nervous, and the country is cautious. They are cautious because the rise in the cost of living, the prospects of separating from two unions at the same time without a clear promise that it would be an independent Scotland in the European Union is an offer, and that is reflected in the polls. The First Minister said that people will know in two years' time that they will know their choices. I do not believe that they will. Alex Neil in an excellent speech last week set out his view that the terms of Brexit will not be fully known and that the terms and implications of international agreements will take some time to assess and understand. Anton Muscatelli at his lecture last week said that he still believed that a differentiated settlement for Scotland was possible, but that the long-term outlook for the United Kingdom will take some time to assess the full implications of Brexit. I argue that a choice is only fair if people have a clear idea of what the prospects are and in what basis an independent Scotland is predicated. My clear party talks about, and rightly so, and I am with her on the question of the waspy women, but it says nothing about what those women can expect in an independent Scotland, because it is equally fair that people when they have a choice know what the shape of an independent Scotland is going to look like. Andrew Wilson leading the growth commission was at least honest enough to say that there might be up to a 10-year period of recovery, but, without that clarity, it is not a fair choice to put to the people in a referendum. I am glad that at least one member, whom I know will be voting differently from me tonight, recognises that the 2014 referendum had elements of deep acrimony, and it was difficult for many families who were split different ways. It is not a reason in itself to argue against the independence referendum, but I think that recognition of that fact has to be something that we consider. However, what astonishes me most about the logic of the SNP position the last few days is that I do accept that there is a mandate, I accept that there is a material situation that has brought about the argument at least. However, the astonishing inconsistency leaves me quite staggered because, if the material breach is the fact that Scotland has been dragged out of Europe against its will, then the logic of that must mean that the question to the people on whether they want an independent Scotland has to be an independent Scotland within Europe. Clearly, in the last few days, that is not on offer. I do not really think—I think that you undermine your own case by arguing that there is a mandate when you are not going to put that to the people. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Shortly after the result of the EU referendum, the member's leader in this Parliament said that people had voted to remain in the UK and in the EU, and that was what the Scottish Labour Party wanted to secure happening. Can the member give us any other route to EU membership other than putting this question back into the hands of the voters? Is there another path to full membership? Ms McNeill, you are in your last minute. Well, as the member well knows, the argument that I am making, Patrick Harvie, is that, surely you would want the question to be put to the people at independence in Europe was the only logical extension of the mandate that you claimed to have. I finish on this point. The biggest mandate that the SNP has in this Parliament is to reduce child poverty, which, last week, was up to 4 per cent. I plead with the front bench. I plead with the First Minister. Please, whatever happens tonight, do not give us two years of this. Recognise that there is a job to do, and in some of that job, we will be with you, but please do not give us two years of this. The people demand something else. Thank you very much, Edward Mountain. Four minutes, please, Mr Mountain. Presiding Officer, thank you very much, and I realise that time is short. I would like to concentrate on four areas, if I may. My experience of the 2014 referendum does not follow the joyful experience that some seem to portray. Whilst there was without doubt political engagement, there was an undercurrent of pent-up frustration from those who sought to divide. They and indeed their leaders saw 2014 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, a one opportunity to gain independence. Clearly that, along with many of the facts promoted in Scotland's future, was not quite true either. In May 2016, I was privileged to be elected to this Parliament, and I arrived ready to start work, full of enthusiasm, ready to tackle the issues that were clearly evident—problems with the NHS, problems with schools, issues with infrastructure projects, dysfunctional national computer projects and the personal concerns of worries of constituents in the Highlands and Islands. That is what I am doing. I am doing the day job, and I am passionate about those, and that is the reason why we all should be looking at them, because it is the reason why we were elected to this place. I am amazed that there are some in this Parliament that think that independence will solve all those issues, thus trumping everything else. It does not, it will not, and it never will. What will make a difference is tackling the issues, and I will accept the invitation of the First Minister to judge her and her Government on their performance on education. Ten years down the line, and almost a year into this Parliament, we have to ask what difference have you made. We will let you be given your report. This Government seems distracted by previous decisions and concentrates too much on trying to distract others to hide the failures of its administration. Here is my message. There are five things that will not make Scotland better. Those are disarray, distraction, discord, disharmony and ultimately division. What will make the difference is getting on with the day job, with diligence, drive and devotion. That is what is needed to ensure that we deliver for Scotland. I would like to talk also about a self-evident truth that has been reinforced to me in every job that I have done, whether it be a soldier, a surveyor, a businessman or a farmer. Success is seldom achieved by one person. Success is achieved by teams, teams that support each other, teams that know when the going gets tough they can stand together, teams that know when somebody has got their back, teams that know when they have to ask for help, their neighbours will just come. I am sorry that I have four minutes. I would really like to take interventions, but I have no time. Those are the cornerstones that make successes, whether you are on the battlefield and in the office. That is what the union brings. As one of my sergeant majors was constantly reminded me by sharing the pain, you share the gain. Scotland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom, whether it is in defence contracts, bailing out the banks, helping the oil industry or ensuring the pain of economic downturns are offset across the whole team. Let me be clear that we are better together. There was some that think that standing together with other parties is wrong. In the 2014 referendum, I stood beside Liberal Democrats and Labour activists. I even stood beside Mr Finlay and campaigned with him in Inverness. He and I must be politically and polar opposites. Let me suggest today, and if you listen, that if you took the majority of our political beliefs, put them in a jar, shook them up, they would still curdle and separate. By promoting things that we do best together and standing by the union, we can actually help Scotland. I am proud to be able to say that I will stand behind anyone that does that. I would like to conclude by saying that I support the motion of Ruth Davidson. I will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those who seek to protect the union. It serves Scotland's well, and I am happy to continue to serve it as I have done in the past. I move to closing speeches. I call on Mike Rumbles to close for Liberal Democrats. Eight minutes, please, Mr Rumbles. I said at the beginning of this debate that the country is divided. This is an undisputed fact. It is divided. Well, I see the First Minister shaking her head already. Obviously, it is not that undisputed, is it? The duty of the First Minister should be to heal this division, not laugh at it or exacerbate it. Unfortunately, the First Minister is making a bad situation worse. It is clear that, by any and all measures, most people do not want to be faced with another independence referendum. We have heard that from contributions from right across the chamber. We had a referendum just two and a half years ago. It was fair, legal and with a clear result. Both the UK and Scottish Governments accepted the result or so we were led to believe. The Liberal Democrats do not expect nationalists to give up on their support for a separate Scotland, just as we do not give up on our support for the UK in Europe. What we should expect, however, is that the Scottish Government honours the signature that Nicola Sturgeon herself put on the Edinburgh agreement, of course. Can he then explain why the Liberal Democrats are proposing a second referendum on the question of EU membership? The referendum that we had two and a half years ago was supposed to close this whole issue down. It has not done so, has it? The vote that we had just recently has opened this whole process of Brexit up, and the people have to make a decision on that rather than the Conservative Cabinet. That is our position, and the First Minister knows it. I want to make this absolutely clear. We were elected on a manifesto last May that said to voters that we would vote against any move from another independence referendum, and that is exactly what we will do. Because Nicola Sturgeon says that she wants the support of the Scottish Parliament for her unilateral demand that the UK Prime Minister give her the power to call a referendum on Nicola Sturgeon's own timescale. I have no doubt that she will win the vote tonight. It is obvious, thanks to the Greens, and I did mention them. She has the numbers, but she has not won the argument in this debate. I thought that one of the most useful contributions came from her most unlikely source, and I hope that Neil Finlay will forgive me for suggesting that it was an unlikely source. He asked the First Minister—I thought it was that one of the best speeches made in this debate—a series of questions, and then gave her the opportunity to intervene. Members from across the chamber, if you recall, called for the First Minister to respond to Neil Finlay asking those questions, and not only the First Minister but every member of the front bench, including Mr Russell, who I see taking great interest, kept their heads down and buried and would not respond. I thought that was the turning point in this debate. This debate has shown that, unlike the last time, the First Minister does not have the country with her, and I have to say that my friend Alex Neil was the other great contributor I thought to the debate. I really thought that his contribution was excellent. He had the courage alone amongst the SNP members to argue that an independence referendum should be separate from any re-entry to the European Union. He was honest in his position, and I respect that, and I thought that he spoke extremely well. However, he did shoot the fox that the First Minister had set running. Does he not have the country with her? Because, as Jackson Carlaw said, she has shown that she is more interested in leading the campaign to secede from the UK rather than run a Government for the benefit of the people of Scotland. What I particularly found astounding is that our First Minister says to our UK Government that it must acknowledge the will of the Scottish Parliament. I say that I am astounded because our First Minister must, like St Paul, have had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Nicola Sturgeon said in this debate that the will of the Scottish Parliament must be adhered to. Is this the same Nicola Sturgeon, though he has repeatedly ignored the will of the Scottish Parliament five times in the last 10 months? Last week, Fiona Hyslop in the BBC live debate denied that this was so, and yet we have heard it repeatedly across the chamber. For the sake of accuracy, Deputy Presiding Officer, five votes, which to date have still been completely ignored by the Scottish Government. On 1 June, what has happened? Nothing. On 28 September, the Parliament instructed the Government to call in the NHS closures. Did it do so? No. On 22 November, Parliament instructed the Government to start to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. Any action? No. On 18 January, save Highland and Island Enterprise, what action have we had there to date? Nothing. On 1 March, save the Scottish Funding Council, ignored. Parliament said that we want action from the Scottish Government, but they have studiously ignored their instructions from this Parliament. So much for the will of the Scottish Parliament. I will. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Would he accept that and say on offensive behaviour at football, it is up to the Opposition parties if they are against this bill to bring forward their own bill? The will of Parliament, I thought, needed to be upheld. Now, in the Parliament's business bureau, I warned the SNP's Minister for Parliament that the First Minister couldn't keep ignoring the will of the Scottish Parliament on the vote she keeps losing and then expect this to turn around when they win a vote and demand from the Prime Minister that she respects the will of Parliament. When the Government repeatedly ignores the will of Parliament, they expect the Prime Minister to jump to it. Either this is the height of hypocrisy on the First Minister or she has in the last two weeks seen the light on the road to Damascus, but unfortunately I don't think that the First Minister is anything like Saint Paul after all. She has decided that this is her opportunity to try again to achieve her life's ambition. Never mind the will of Parliament. No one should be surprised by the way this debate has turned out. The SNP and green members will vote the Government's motion through and be opposed by the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative MSPs. But one thing is sure. The First Minister may have the votes in this chamber tonight, but she has failed to bring the people with her. Deputy Presiding Officer, in Scotland, the First Minister represents the state, and the state is trying to push this yes vote through. The state is saying yes, but we are on the side of the people and the people say no. Thank you. I call Ross Greer to close the Green Party. Mr Greer, eight minutes please. In closing for the Greens, I would like to echo the comments made by Ruth Maguire and Bruce Crawford at the outset of this debate, who called for it to be passionate but respectful. We are all political opponents, but we are not enemies. We disagree profoundly on the future of Scotland, but disagreement is healthy and essential to democracy. Disagreement does not need to lead to lasting division. If nothing else, that is something that we should all agree on today. None of us, I hope, want to see a repeat of the Brexit referendum in which voters were asked to choose, with little information and sometimes outright lies, in an environment of hostility and anger. That was, on the whole, not comparable to the successful and engaging debate that we had here in 2014, although, as Andy Wightman has mentioned, we accept that either case was not the case for everyone in either of those votes. If we want to see such a high turnout, such engagement that we had in 2014 again, we should strive to replicate its successes and not the failures of 2016. The Scottish Greens believe that it is the right for the people of Scotland to choose between the two futures that are on offer to us, and that we should be able to do so at both a time of optimal information and opportunity. We expect the Brexit deal to be known by the autumn of 2018. The European Commission's chief negotiator, Michelle Barney, has said as much. The UK Government has previously confirmed that his timescale was realistic. Given the people's choice at that point, when the details of the deal are known, we would give us the time to begin extracting Scotland from this mess before the Tories hurl Britain off the hard Brexit cliff. If that is what the voters choose, I would not presume to guess what the outcome of the referendum would be, though I would obviously hope for an independence outcome. I would not suggest for a second, though, that this path is free of challenges. Colleagues are right to raise them, but it is incumbent on those who question the challenges of independence to defend their position, that of the Tories' hard Brexit. Adam Tomkins, for example, raised a number of valid questions in regards to an independent Scotland's EU membership, such as that of Euroadoption. On that point specifically, I would cite examples from Sweden to Poland of nations that have joined the EU since adoption was nominally a criteria that has not been compelled to do so. However, when Mr Tomkins poses those questions, I cannot help but wonder when he thinks that the Westminster Government drew its hard Brexit mandate from. No questions in relation to Brexit were answered in advance of the vote. As has been mentioned, on the very same page of their manifesto, as they pledged to hold an EU referendum, the Conservatives declared their support for the single market. Not only did Scotland not vote to leave the single market, the UK as a whole did not vote to leave the single market. Others mentioned the challenges of Scotland's transition to a fully EU member state. The former chief for the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lame, said last week that there would be zero technical problems with Scotland joining the EU. Gever Hofstad, the European Parliament's lead negotiator, has been explicit in his belief that our membership would not be a challenge, going as far as saying that Europe cannot afford to lose Scotland. We have heard welcoming words on the record from—yes. Anas Sarwar. Can he therefore confirm that if we were to have an independence referendum and Scotland was to vote to leave the United Kingdom, that would be guaranteed continued EU membership? Can he give that cast and guarantee yes or no? Ross Greer. The very argument, Mr Sarwar, that we are making is that either option is uncertain, but with independence the people of Scotland would be in the driving seat rather than a Conservative Government that we did in the left. We have heard welcoming words on the record from both governing parties in Germany and from others across the continent. Jenny Marra mentioned a Spanish veto, but only fortnight ago the leader of Spain's governing popular party in the European Parliament said that Scotland and Catalonia are not the same and that Spain would not veto Scottish EU membership. I do not claim to speak for the Spanish, but the assumption of an automatic veto is simply incorrect. Colleagues across the political spectrum have in recent months said much about this Parliament's right to call for a referendum. Alex Rowley, who gave a measured and substantial contribution to this debate, said just a few months ago that he would not oppose a new independence referendum. Ruth Davidson, while making clear her opposition to independence, said that it would be constitutionally wrong for Westminster to block a referendum. In an interesting turn of phrase, Nick Clegg said that it would be wrong for Westminster to impose a fatwa on another referendum. The question for colleagues from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives once this Parliament is voted today is, who will you defend? A Parliament that the people of Scotland elected or a Westminster Government that they did not. Miles Briggs, John Lamont and Donald Cameron said that the First Minister should be striving for unity, but where has their leader been in striving for unity? Instead of seeking unity or at the very least a compromise with the majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Theresa May has barreled ahead with a reckless approach to Brexit. For a party that seeks to divide us on the basis of class, of country of origin, of disability between refugees and the rest, I have little time for Tory condemnation of division. Members have been keen to discuss the will of the people. In 2014, the will of the people was to stay in the United Kingdom. I was disappointed by that, but I accepted it. In 2016, the will of the people was to remain in the European Union. Now, the Scottish Government offered the UK Government compromise proposals that could have tried to recognise and resolve both those votes, compromises that went further than the Greens would have been comfortable with, but they have been roundly ignored. Those two positions are now irreconcilable, and it should be our responsibility, as the representatives elected by the people of Scotland, to fight for their right to choose their own future. When 27 EU nations and a number of regions, sub-state parliaments, will have their say on Scotland's future, it is only right that the people who live here have their say as well. It should be all the people of Scotland who have that say. I would urge Labour and the Liberal Democrats, even if they intend to vote against the final motion, to support the Green amendment, to support the right of young people and European citizens to play their part in deciding our future if a referendum is to happen. I understand that it would be futile to make this request to the Conservatives. Douglas Ross went to great lengths to state how he would be voting against the SNP and the Greens, and I am sure that his constituents are delighted that there is not a match on today to keep him away. I am a linesman, so I have trouble with cards, which is why I use a flag. I thank Ross Greer for giving way. He tells me that my constituents would prefer that I was not here today, voting against the SNP and the Greens, pushing through for a second independence referendum. Would you tell that to the hundreds of people who turned up in Forrestown Hall last night for my meeting against a second independence referendum, because the people in Murray and many people across the Highlands and Islands are annoyed that they are going to be forced into another independence referendum because the Greens and the SNP are joining up forces? As Mr Ross is well aware, his constituents in Murray voted no in 2014, but they voted remain in 2016 as well. I do not presume to speak for them in either or both of those votes. I presume to give them a choice between the two irreconcilable options that now face us. The Greens were proud in 2014 to make the case for progressive internationalist independent Scotland in Europe, and Andy Wightman explained this afternoon what drew us to this position from the four key pillars of Green politics—peace, equality, ecology and grassroots democracy. We will be proud to run that campaign once again. For members who have raised concerns about what we are not discussing, I echo the point that was made by Jenny Gowryth. Constitutional politics, where power lies, is critical to tackling the big issues. It is critical to tackling child poverty, to creating a sustainable, healthy economy and a compassionate society. It is a more than legitimate position to believe that we can and we should do more with the powers that this Parliament already has and to believe that we can only truly tackle the causes of poverty and inequality with the full powers of a normal nation. Our cause in this debate is a simple one—it is to give the people a choice. Early in the debate, and later on, we almost got there from Mike Rumbles, some adaptions have been made to that famous quote from Cannon Kenyon Wright, but I think a more apt summary would be, what if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, we say no and we are the state? We are the Parliament elected by the people of Scotland and we say, let the people choose. The debate has been about leaving the European Union and leaving the United Kingdom, about the will of the people and the majorities in Parliament, and about the accountability of ministers here and elsewhere. As far as Europe is concerned, Alex Neil's contribution is a good place to start. I do not share his constitutional objectives, but he demonstrated a clarity of analysis largely missing from his own party's front bench contributions. A yes vote in an independence referendum, Alex Neil said, cannot be interpreted as a dual mandate for independence and for an independent Scotland to join the EU. Equally, a vote to leave or remain in the EU tells us nothing at all about a voter's views on Scotland leaving the UK. It may be an obvious point, Presiding Officer, but it is not the approach that has been taken in this debate by SNP ministers. Fiona Hyslop was typical. I quote her, the people of Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote against independence. They were later told to vote remain to achieve the same outcome. The truth is that people did not vote in two quite different referendums on two quite different questions in order to achieve the same outcome. It may be too painful for some in the SNP to contemplate, but the largest democratic vote in Scottish history was not on the issue of membership of the EU explicitly or implicitly. It was a vote to remain in the UK plain and simple. To imply otherwise, as the Scottish Government has done, seems to me to be neither honest nor transparent, nor does it respect the sovereign right of the Scottish people to reject independence inside or outside the EU, as it has already done. Much has not been said about the Scottish Government's proposals in Scotland's place in Europe. It is important to stress that those proposals were not endorsed by this Parliament nor by any committee of this Parliament despite comments attributed to a Scottish Government spokesperson in the press of the weekend. MSPs did not vote in favour of market ceiling measures to limit trade within the UK nor for rules of parallel marketability inspired by the relationship between Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Those suggestions were endorsed by the SNP alone. We did vote for Nicola Sturgeon to seek agreement with Theresa May on a common approach to Brexit to protect Scotland's interests, and many of us were dismayed when the UK Government made a unilateral decision to walk away from the single market and the customs union. Two weeks ago, the First Minister took her own unilateral decision to write off her proposals for staying in both the UK and the single market by demanding a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom instead. So much for seeking to influence article 50, so much for any serious alternative to Britain leaving the single market, so much for the First Minister's existing mandate from this Parliament. The SNP's wanted commitment to the EU relegated to second place and cast into doubt. Last week, I asked Stuart Stevenson whether he would be urging fishermen in Banffanbuckin to vote to leave the United Kingdom in order to rejoin the European Union. His answer was to point to paragraph 127 of Scotland's place in Europe, where it says that we would not remain within the common fisheries policy. I understand Mr Stevenson's point of view entirely, but leaving the common fisheries policy means not joining or remaining in the European Union. There are no circumstances in which a Scotland that refused to be part of one would be able to be part of the other. To pretend otherwise would not be honest and would not be fair. Stuart Stevenson, in the spirit of consensus that affects some of this debate, can I congratulate the Labour Party in not joining the Tories in deleting from the motion? Acknowledges the southern right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. The Labour Party clearly supports that. Will you be voting for the Tory amendment tonight, which would delete that from the motion before us? We will not be voting for the Tory amendment and we will not be voting for the SNP's proposition. We do respect the sovereign right of the Scottish people to make these judgments, and the Scottish people have made precisely that judgment already in 2014. A few days ago, Alex Salmond extolled the virtues of the SNP's strategy on radio5 live. The idea, he said, is to have continuous membership of the European economic area. That is a lot easier to achieve very, very quickly. It is not something that has anything like the difficulties of securing full European Union membership. If that is indeed the SNP's strategy, then this debate is not about finding a way for Scotland to get into or remain in the EU, because Alex Salmond says that now is not the time. This debate is about a decision to call for a second referendum on leaving the UK, regardless of the consequences in relation to Europe. Nicola Sturgeon wants to have that vote in the next two years, as we have heard. She said earlier this afternoon that the future relationship between Britain and Europe will be clear by then, but the only person who can quote in support of that view appears to be Theresa May. EU chief negotiator Michelle Barnier said last week that all the terms of the UK's withdrawals must be settled before trade talks can even start. Pascal Lammy, former director of the WTO, said also last week that I do not think that it can be done within two years. Of course, a few weeks ago, former British ambassador Sir Ivan Rogers summarised the view in Brussels that agreeing a trade deal with the UK may take until the early mid-2020s. I suspect that Michelle Barnier, Pascal Lammy and Sir Ivan Rogers are more likely to be proved right than either Nicola Sturgeon or Theresa May. We cannot yet know what Brexit will look like and nor do we know what the SNP's prospectus will be for leaving the UK. We have heard over the last two weeks that they have no answers on Europe, the currency, the economy or the fiscal deficit. Instead, they insist that a vote in favour of this choice between two unknowns will represent the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Most people would assume the phrase democratic will had something to do with the will of the people, yet neither Nicola Sturgeon nor Patrick Harvie, when asked, could point to any evidence that another referendum is what the people want. All the available evidence says it is not. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will he acknowledge that, consistently throughout this debate, the Greens have acknowledged not only the contradiction between the 2014 and 2016 results in Scotland but that none of us, however we voted in either of those referendums, should be here because the UK Government has taken the result of the UK-wide EU referendum for a mandate for something that it was never supposed to be. Here to implement the democratic will of the Scottish people, we need to listen to the Scottish people. I am listening very hard and I am picking up no demand at all for another independence referendum. The First Minister promised in the heat of the last referendum campaign that she would respect that result but now says that it is trumped by the reference in our party's manifesto. The Greens manifesto said that it should come about by the will of the people and not be driven by calculation of party political advantage. It is a pity that she chose to abandon that view once the election was over. I expect to be a parliamentary majority for another referendum, which the people of Scotland do not want on a question that the Scottish people have already answered. However, the use of that majority for that purpose is a party political choice. It should not be dressed up as somehow representing the people's democratic will. Of course, we would all wish votes in this place to be treated with respect even when we do not agree with him. However, it is surely for Scotland's Government itself to lead on that by example. Speaker after speaker in this debate has asked the First Minister why she has chosen to ignore parliamentary majorities on issues as important as health and education, highland control of highland development and university funding. She will not say, yet she expects others to treat this evening's vote as an expression of the will of the people of Scotland when there is no evidence that it is what the people of Scotland want. Therefore, I would encourage the First Minister to listen to the people of Scotland, to treat all votes of this Parliament with equal respect and, above all, to spare the people of Scotland an independence referendum that the people do not want. Murdo Fraser to wind up for the Conservative Party Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is normal when winding up a debate to say how excellent it has been and paid tribute contributions on all sides. It is very much to my regret that I do not feel that that is appropriate at the end of this debate, because although we have had some very good speeches, overall this has been a disappointing and at times depressing debate. It is a rehash of old arguments on an issue that we believe was settled less than three years ago. If ever there were an argument against a second independence referendum, it has been the last eight hours of parliamentary time that give us a flavour of what the country would have to go through for years to come if the SNP were successful. For this debate has literally been a waste of parliamentary time. Eight hours that could have been spent on education, on the health service, not just now, on our underperforming economy, and at the end of eight hours of debate no one is any the wiser and the arguments have not advanced one iota from where they were previously. One of the few bright spots in this debate was the contribution that was made last Tuesday by Bruce Crawford, who made what I thought was a very important point about tone and language. It is a pity that some of his party colleagues who contributed later in that day seem not to have paid much attention. It is also an issue here for the SNP leadership, not just now. A few weeks ago, I raised with the First Minister the language of the SNP deputy leader of Perthinconross council, Dave Duggan, who went on an extraordinary rant in the council about quizlings and occupying forces. The First Minister at the time condemned such language in general terms, but there has been no explanation, no withdrawal and no apology from Councillor Duggan. Yesterday, he was pictured on the steps of the council headquarters in Perth as an SNP candidate for the coming elections, standing beside a grinning John Swinney. The First Minister called earlier this afternoon for a respectful debate, but it seems that the use of offensive language in her own party is rewarded with an endorsement from her deputy. If the First Minister is serious about taking Mr Crawford's sage advice, then she needs to start leading by example in her own party. Let me respond if I can. Yes, I will give way. I thank Mr Fraser for taking my intervention. A young family member of mine on Twitter asked the Scottish Tories, will you be guaranteed that my partner will be able to return to Scotland after Brexit negotiations are complete? He happens to be in love with a French national. The response from Conservative candidate Linda Holt was, how on earth can guarantee that? There are no guarantees in life, grow up. Does Mr Fraser want to apologise for that comment, or has the Tory mask of respectability just slipped? Myrda Fraser. There she goes again. If the member thinks that there is any comparison with that sort of remark and talking about quizzlings and redcoats and occupying forces, then she is on a different planet from the rest of us. Let me get on to responding to the number of points made in the debate, starting with the First Minister's opening speech. I would like to start, if I can, by congratulating the First Minister on what I think is a remarkable success for her. Within the past two weeks, she has managed to achieve something that no previous First Minister or SNP politician has been able to deliver. For years, members of this party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, have deliberated and agonised over the issue of how we make a Conservative Prime Minister in London popular in Scotland once again. For decades, we have faced a situation where, despite our best efforts, it has been difficult for the Scottish people to warm to a Conservative Prime Minister. Much sweat and tears have been expended, vast sums have been spent on speechwriters, on focus groups, on opinion polling, on style consultants to try and turn around the state of affairs to make a Conservative Prime Minister truly popular in Scotland. All that effort could have been saved if only we knew then what we know now. For all that it takes to make a Conservative Prime Minister popular in Scotland, it is for her to say no to Nicola Sturgeon. For that has been the outcome of the events of the past week. As Jackson Carlaw told us earlier, the First Minister had a plan. She would go to Theresa May and demand the power to call a Scottish independence referendum. Theresa May would say no, and such would be the outrage in Scotland at this slap in the face for Scotland's First Minister. We would see a surge in support for independence. There has indeed been a surge in support, but it is not a surge in support for independence. It is a surge in support for Theresa May, because Nicola Sturgeon has achieved something remarkable for an SNP politician and for the First Minister of Scotland. She has boosted the popularity of a Conservative Prime Minister with the people of Scotland. She has created a situation where the First Minister is not just less popular than Ruth Davidson, but she is now less popular than Theresa May, where the people of Scotland. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives Unionist Party, I sincerely thank the First Minister for her efforts on her behalf and keep on the good work on her behalf, First Minister. Much of this debate has centred around the question of mandates for a second independence referendum. In 2014, the First Minister and her deputy and the former First Minister all promised that the 2014 referendum would settle the issue for a generation. Alex Salmond seems to have forgotten that promise despite all the evidence to the country, but that is what we were told at the time. I do not believe that there is any clear mandate in the SNP manifesto for a referendum, but in the Green manifesto there is what he might call a cast iron block to a second referendum. At that manifesto launched back in April last year, if press reports are to be believed, the party's co-convener, Maggie Chapman, said that it would take 100,000 signatures on a petition to trigger a vote for a second referendum. 100,000, but that was not enough, because party managers then changed that figure to 1 million. That is the commitment that green MSPs were voted on. 1 million signatures were required before they were back in the independence referendum. Mr Harvey will now dissence himself from his co-convener. Patrick Harvie. I am sure that Mordo Fraser is quite capable of reading what is in our manifesto rather than misrepresenting what is not in our manifesto, but can he answer, as several of his colleagues have been given the chance and none of them have yet done it, can he answer where on earth the UK Government takes a mandate for leaving the single market on the basis of a manifesto that promised to commit to it on the very same page as committing to an EU referendum? Mordo Fraser. Mr Harvey is trying to rewrite history. He pledged that he would get a million signatures to be seen, because he did not need a million signatures. He was only one signature that the Green Party needed, and that was Nicola Sturgeon's signature on the bottom of the letter instructing him to vote with the SNP at the vote tonight. The people that I feel sorry for are those well-meaning Green Party voters of Scotland. All those earnest folk—we know them all with their homespun woolens and their recycled bicycles and their vegan diets—are all coming out to vote for the Green Party, because they are concerned about the environment, about climate change, about pollution, about the birds, about the bees and about the beavers. All of them voting green for a myriad of reasons, but not once thinking that they were handing a blank check to their group of MSPs to do the SNP's bidding at every turn. For it is beyond doubt, despite Mr Whiteman's protest, that the Greens have departed from the position that they set out at the election last year, and no wonder so many of their voters feel betrayed by the current shower of green MSPs. The First Minister argues that, if Parliament votes this afternoon for the section 30 powers to be transferred from Westminster, it will be a democratic outrage if it is refused by the UK Government. However, we have heard time and time again in this debate from members across the Parliament that this is not followed by the SNP when it comes to votes in this Parliament. When this Parliament voted against NHS closures, did the SNP Government act? When it voted against the abolition of the board of HIE, did the Government act? When the Parliament voted against the scrapping of the Scottish funding council board, did the Scottish Government act? And when this Parliament voted to abolish the ludicrous and discredited offensive behaviour of football acts, did this Government listen? No, they did not. They ignored this Parliament and they treated the views of its members with contempt. So what breathtaking hypocrisy for the SNP now to claim that the Westminster Government must listen to the will of this Parliament, whether it routinely dismisses votes in this Parliament and treats them with contempt? Presiding Officer, let us be clear what happens if the SNP get their way on this issue. It means campaign teams on the streets by the weekend, unionists and nationalist camps, back out knocking doors, demanding your vote. A vote to support the SNP motion is a vote to put your school and your local hospital to the back of the queue from tomorrow because the Scottish Government would start working immediately on beginning another unnecessary and divisive campaign. And rather than getting back to work after this debate to sort out the mess that she's made of your children's education, Nicola Sturgeon will be going into the office tomorrow with a campaign for independence at the top of her to-do list. The countdown would begin tomorrow, which is utterly unfair to voters, given that we don't know how our new relationship with Europe will play out and we still have no idea whether, after independence, we keep the pound or we go back into the EU. Presiding Officer, I expect tonight's vote will be narrowly in favour of the Government's motion, with the Green Party MSPs betraying their own manifesto and their own voters. However, let us be absolutely clear that if that is the vote of this Parliament tonight, on this issue, the Parliament, the SNP and the First Minister do not speak for Scotland. Presiding Officer, the SNP might be turning their backs on the people of Scotland, but we will not. We will continue to speak up for them and say boldly and clearly to the SNP, just as we as a country did in 2014. No thanks. The First Minister opened this afternoon's part of the debate by recalling the horror of last Wednesday's events in Westminster. I opened the conclusion of this debate with those same sentiments and the reminder of the significance of the democratic process that beats at the heart of our community. That is what this debate has been about. It has been about a democratic discussion and the difference of opinion. Democracy cannot thrive unless there is a difference of opinion. There must be contending propositions that people put forward. That difference is at the heart of the democratic choice that every citizen has to make and every politician has to consider and wrestle with. Of course, those sentiments were anchored in the debate by three very strong contributions from Bruce Crawford, and Murdo Fraser paid one tribute to Bruce Crawford's speech, but chose to ignore most of the sentiments in the speech that he delivered to Parliament just now. On the speech by Ruth Maguire, which I thought was a really considered reflection on the need for there to be respectful debate about issues of significance to the future of our country, on the beautiful speech that Kate Forbes made, which drew together the great Gaelic tradition of our country and expressed it so powerfully to Parliament about the importance of fair and open discourse within our country. That is the debate that we have to have. I appreciate and I am on the receiving end frequently of social media comments and political comments that are hostile and aggressive, and I know that other people are too, but we have a duty in this Parliament to try to lead by example about the quality and the depth of the debate that we take forward and to wrestle with the genuine choices that face us all. That brings me on to the crux of the starting point of this debate, which is about whether or not there is any mandate for the Scottish Government to take forward the proposition that we are putting before Parliament this afternoon for there to be a second referendum on the question of independence. I go back to the wording of our manifesto in 2016, which I would remind Parliament, was supported in the constituency ballot by 46.5 per cent of the electorate in Scotland. The largest share of the vote that any Government has been elected in the United Kingdom with since the mid-1960s is a huge mandate, larger than the mandate that returned us in 2011. That manifesto said that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstance that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. The reason why that is significant is because we all know whatever side of the argument that we were on in 2014, we all know that the question of EU membership was a fundamental question in the debate in 2014. The no campaign made the point clearly and firmly in my own hearing around the country that the way to guarantee Scotland's membership of the European Union was to vote no. Scotland voted no, and our membership of the European Union has been taken away from us against our will. Of course, I give way to Pauline McNeill. Based on that logic, there has been a material breach and you have a mandate, but surely the question that you would want to put to the Scottish people then is an independent Scotland within the EU, and I do not hear you saying that. That is the position of the Government, and that is my position, and it is the position of my party, so I hope that that clarifies the matter for Pauline McNeill. That brings me on to the reconciliation of the outcomes of the two referendum in 2014 and 2016. In that respect, if Johann Lamont would allow me to make a lot more progress on this question, that brings me to the contributions of Andy Wightman and Jackson Carlaw, because they wrestled with the same question. Andy Wightman said that the outcome of the 2014 referendum and the outcome of the 2016 referendum are incompatible without a further choice being exercised, and I think that there is the rationale that supports that. Jackson Carlaw made a contribution in response to an intervention from my colleague Stuart McMillan. In 2014, his constituents had voted no. In 2016, they had voted remain, but they had somehow lost. They were not to get the outcome in 2016 that they voted for in Mr Carlaw's constituency, Orange Scotland. The point is that there is an incompatibility, as Mr Wightman said, between the outcome of the 2014 referendum and the 2016 referendum, which, for me, is the rational justification for us to ask this question again to the people of Scotland. Jackson Carlaw. In wrestling with that incompatibility, I have said that I have taken the decision and the constituents have taken the view that we will respect the outcome of both referendums. It seems that the Scottish Government's response is to accept the outcome of neither referendum. What we have acknowledged is the incompatibility of those two outcomes and seek to give the people the choice to determine their own future. That brings me on to the efforts that we have gone to as an administration to try to resolve those questions. When the Prime Minister came to meet with the First Minister in July 2016, the First Minister made it very clear that she wanted to secure an agreed UK position before she triggered article 50. Parliament, essentially, argued for many of those aspects when Parliament on 28 June argued for us to explore a relationship that would maintain Scotland's place in the single market with the social employment and economic benefits that flow from that relationship. The Joint Ministerial Committee has, in its remit, the desire to seek to agree a UK approach to objectives in the article 50 negotiations. The Scottish Government published Scotland's place in Europe, I would say to Parliament to very, very wide endorsement across many, many views outwith the Government and supporters of the Scottish National Party as being a very strong and legitimate approach to trying to secure compromise and pillar by pillar. That agreement was pulled down by the UK Government, single market on migration on the customs union. We are left with a situation in which we as a Government have, in good faith, gone through a process of trying to secure agreement that would maintain the benefits of EU membership, accepting that we are leaving the European Union within the United Kingdom and the UK Government as evidence from the fact that we have got absolutely nowhere in the process of joint ministerial discussion to get to a conclusion. Ruth Davidson I would like the Deputy First Minister to comment on good faith when any efforts that were made post Brexit from this Government became, after his leader and the First Minister of this country stood up in Bute House and said that, within three hours of the last vote being counted in the Brexit referendum, she had already instructed Scottish Government employees to draw up the requisite legislation for another independence referendum. She was always coming to this point and nothing was going to stop her. The First Minister That might suit Ruth Davidson's narrative but it is not the case. It did not stop the Prime Minister coming to Bute House after that statement and inviting the Scottish Government to make its contribution to the UK Government process. However, what has not protected us has been the decision of the UK Government to go for a hard Brexit in which many, many leave voters did not actually want to happen. What we have seen is, stage by stage, the opportunity for the Scottish Government to make progress on this question being ruled out by the decisions and the actions of the UK Government. Why does all this matter, Presiding Officer? Why does this matter? Because of many of the experiences that I went through as a member of the Smith commission and a number of other members around the Parliamentary Chamber. We spent hours of our lives agreeing the importance of improving inter-governmental relationships so that there would be a better way to get to an agreed UK position and what this process has shown is that that was not possible with the way in which the United Kingdom Government embarked on this process. Finally, we come to the issues, Presiding Officer, about what lies, for me, is at the heart of the debate about whether or not the referendum should take place or not. That is about whether or not the country, about what type of country we want to live in and what type of society we want to be part of, has been lots of accusations made against my party about the fact that we apparently are people that divide others. That has been the accusation that has been made across this chamber. Claire Adamson made a remark in the debate about the way in which the term othering has been used in UK debate. Of any of us, all of us have heard many individuals dividing our country with the accusations against migrants and EU nationals, people that today we need to work in our public services and in our companies in our country who provide invaluable contributions to our economy. Division has been sown by those who have spent years arguing against the forces of migration that have been beneficial to Scotland, and we should be grateful for that. Alex Rowley made a very fine speech in the debate. You can take it at one more intervention. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would share my concern in the othering that is going on in this country right now that implies that everyone right across the United Kingdom, apart from Scotland, is uniquely unconcerned about the question of refugees and EU nationals. There are plenty of people right across the United Kingdom who would agree with us, and it is unhelpful to redefine the rest of the United Kingdom as somewhere beyond the pale. I am absolutely certain that there are people across the United Kingdom. I read their comments in the news media and the social media, deeply dispirited by where debate in the United Kingdom has got to. The question, and this is where I come to Mr Rowley's fine contribution to the debate, is what do we do about it? Mr Rowley said that we cannot allow the Tories to dictate the terms of a hard Brexit, and I unreservedly agree with Mr Rowley in that respect, but we are being marched step by step to a hard Brexit and over the cliff by a United Kingdom Government that is not representing the values and the aspirations that brought me into politics. I make no apology for defending those values and those aspirations because they matter deeply and personally to me. The crucial thing is that I want to do something about it. I want to make sure that my country has the opportunity to shape its future, devoid of that awful agenda that has contaminated political debate in the United Kingdom, that has been fuelled by the Conservative Party in its determination to see off UKIP, and I want to make sure that we build in this country the best possible future for our country and that we can best do that with the powers of independence. That concludes our debate on Scotland's choice, and we move to decision time. There are five questions to be put today. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Ruth Davidson is agreed, then all other amendments fail. The first question is that amendment 4710.2, in the name of Ruth Davidson, which seeks to amend motion 4710 in the name of the First Minister on Scotland's choice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4710.2, in the name of Ruth Davidson, is yes, 31, no, 97. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. If the amendment in the name of Kezia Dugdale is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvey and Willie Rennie fail. The next question is that amendment 4710.4, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Kezia Dugdale is yes, 28, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 4710.5, in the name of Patrick Harvey, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland's choice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4710.5, in the name of Patrick Harvey, is yes, 69, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 4710.3, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4710.3, in the name of Willie Rennie, is yes, 28, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 4710, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland's choice, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 4710, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, as amended, is yes, 69, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll now move to members' business in the name of Graham Day. I would ask members to leave the chamber quietly.