 The statement by Michael Russell on a Brexit update is an item of business. The Cabinet Secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Russell—15 minutes, please, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When this statement was first agreed by the bureau, it was intended to give the Scottish Government's response to the outcome of the so-called meaningful vote in the House of Commons right up until early Monday, even in the face of press reports to the country. The UK Government was adamant that such a vote was going to take place. On Sunday, the Brexit Secretary said, the vote is going ahead. On Monday morning, the Scottish Secretary, the always loyal and always straightforward David Mundell, speaking from Peterhead fish market, was adamant that the vote was on. And that paragon of plain speaking, Michael Gove, when asked directly on Monday the question, is the vote definitely 100 per cent going to happen, answered with a single word, yes. Yet, just minutes later, the press was being briefed by other cabinet ministers that the vote was off. Presiding Officer, Monday morning was a watershed moment. It revealed for all to see that what is now in office in the UK is a government in a state of collapse. The Prime Minister, who could not command the support of the House of Commons on Tuesday, does not now command the confidence of many in her own party. It is a government out of ideas, out of talent, out of time and needing to be put out of office. Most seriously of all, it is a government whose word from any minister cannot be trusted and indeed isn't trusted by anyone who has to work with it. That is why the EU is insisting so strongly on a watertight backstop. It simply does not trust the UK Government to honour its commitments no matter what any minister says. Moreover, it is a government that makes crucial decisions, decisions affecting business, commerce, investment, health, public services, food security and the fate of all its citizens. On the basis of what that decision will mean, not in terms of the public good but in terms of what is good for the Conservative party. As a Prime Minister herself confirmed outside Downing Street this morning. Later this afternoon, my colleague Derek Mackay will deliver his budget statement against that backdrop—a backdrop of uncertainty and insecurity in the public finances caused by the Tory Brexit chaos. That is an intolerable situation in which the UK Government is placing the people of Scotland and it cannot go on. Scotland and the UK must not continue to be blighted by this never-ending Tory civil war, in which we are now all merely collateral damage. The Speaker of the Commons described the decision to delay as discourteous, but it is more than that. It is disgraceful and it is contemptuous. But why should that surprise us? That has been the UK Government's attitude for months, perhaps even years, and the Scottish Government has experienced it regularly at first hand. The Prime Minister and her Government has persistently proffered false choices and absolutist positions in self-defeating red lines to the EU and to the devolved administrations. That approach does not, could not and would never, in the Prime Minister's hypocritical words, bring the country back together. Nothing she or her Government have done in the last two and a half years has achieved that. Nothing they are doing today will achieve that. Nothing they can offer could achieve that. Not least, because by removing Scotland and the UK from the single market and the customs union and adopting with relish a hardline rhetoric and practice on migration, the deal will make every one of us poorer, will deprive us of the company and contribution of many of our fellow EU citizens, especially in key areas such as health, research and agriculture, and lead to many more years of uncertainty than protected negotiations. Not just this deal, but this Tory Government is divisive, damaging and must be defeated. The first step to resolving a political and constitutional crisis, the like of which none of us has ever seen, is for the Prime Minister to get out of the way. Her backbenchers and her payroll vote might not agree tonight, but there is no doubt that she is entering the end game of her time in office. However, we need more than that. What happens now is about much more than who leads a single political party, and the decision about where we now go has to be taken by more than a single political party. The second step is for all of us who recognise the huge dangers of this moment to coalesce around a way forward that can resolve the crisis. At the same time, we must strain every sinew to avoid what the extremists want—time to pass so that no deal is the only possible outcome—that must never happen. As Atisha indicated yesterday, it does not need to happen. Speaking in a dial, he said this. The option is there to revoke article 50. The option is there to extend article 50. Although there may not be a majority for anything, or at least any deal at the moment in the House of Commons, I do believe that there is a majority that the UK should not be plunged into a no-deal scenario. He said that it is in their hands, at any point in time, to take the threat of a no-deal off the table, either by revoking article 50 or, if that is a step too far, by extending it. It is incumbent on those who desire a better alternative—one that protects jobs, livelihoods and communities—to come together, first of all, to remove the threat of no-deal, then in a determined but realistic way to consider and choose the best way forward. Let me set out the alternatives and indicate the Scottish Government's preference. People in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. In line with their wishes, the Scottish Government has always said that the best option is to stay in the EU. Of the available alternatives, the one that needs to be the top of that list, is therefore a second EU referendum with the option to remain on the ballot paper. As we know from the European Court of Justice, it would be for the UK Government to decide to revoke the article 15 notification. That judgment makes clear—and of course subject to referral for final decision back to the Scottish courts—that, under EU law, a member state, which has notified its intention to leave, can, in layman's terms, change its mind and think better of it. It is no longer an option for the UK Government to claim that no such process is possible. With that certainty in place, putting the choice back in the hands of the people must now be taken seriously. The Court of Justice said that notice of revocation must be made in accordance with the constitutional requirements of a member state and must be unequivocal and unconditional. It therefore seems likely that, consistent with the process for notification in the first place, a referendum followed by an act of Parliament would be a sensible way forward. First, though, the Prime Minister must go to Brussels and make a request to extend article 50. She could actually do that at the European Council tomorrow, presuming that she is still in office. As we have seen, Matisha and others have said that they would consider that if the request was made for reasons of significance, rather than just to save her political scalp for a few more days. Those reasons would include a referendum with a clear choice to remain. That approach is possible. It is likely to succeed to create the space that is needed for calm thought and wider agreement. By contrast, renegotiation on which the Prime Minister is now fixated is not possible, nor will it succeed in producing a majority in favour of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. That way lies more confusion, more insecurity and more constitutional chaos. An extension would be needed, as the UK Parliament would then go on to pass legislation to set the rules for a referendum and agree a timetable, which, while truncated, would probably mean nothing earlier than the late spring or early summer. I trust that those in the chamber across all parties who campaign to remain in the EU will agree with me that a second referendum resulting in retaining our EU membership would be a good outcome for Scotland. However, short of the best option of staying in the EU, the only acceptable other compromise that the Scottish Government has advocated for two years is for continued membership of the single market and the customs union. I stress that that would only be acceptable if there was absolutely no chance of staying in the EU. That option of the single market and customs union membership could only be achieved if the UK accepts all of the obligations and benefits that go with it, including the four freedoms. That, of course, would allow the continuation of freedom of movement, which is essential for Scotland and for almost every sector of our economy. The UK Government could request an alteration to the political declaration to make clear that the UK wishes the basis of the future relationship to be in the EU and the customs union, with all the rights and obligations that go with that. In such circumstances, the Irish backstop would never need to come into force. We could then use the transition period to negotiate the detail of the UK's EU Association agreement, including in those areas that do not come as part of the existing EU agreement for after-countries. The third possibility is a general election. I suspect that this would be harder to pass in the House of Commons, but the SNP would support such an option arising out of a successful vote of confidence. Such a vote of confidence needs the votes of the principal opposition party to succeed. I want to say two final things. The first is on preparedness for all eventualities. No responsible Government should allow the UK to fall out of the EU in a disorderly way or even in a managed way, as some of the Brexit fanatics are now talking up. As we have seen, the UK Government could remove that threat this week. Unfortunately, that is not a step that the Scottish Government can take unilaterally, so we must, as a responsible Government, continue our preparations for such an outcome. As previously indicated, I intend to make a further statement next week on those preparations. I assure the chamber that the Scottish Government is doing everything it can to repair for such an eventuality, but, equally, I must make it clear that no Government will be able to do everything required in such circumstances. Secondly, I want to make it clear that it is not just the Brexit clock that is ticking. For two and a half years, the Scottish Government has proposed compromise after compromise and spent hundreds, probably thousands of hours, in discussion and negotiation. I believe that we at ministerial and official level have shown tolerance in the face of sometimes willful ignorance of devolution, the flouting of the norms of co-operation, the withholding of information and the refusal to discuss and negotiate in the positive spirit, which we, and I have to say the Welsh Government, constantly have brought to the table. However, we have not been treated as partners, still less as equals. I believe that most MSPs in this chamber have similarly tried to save the UK from the worst excesses of Brexit, but, so far, to no avail. We continue to offer solutions, as I have done again today. However, if those outcomes are constantly ruled out and arrogantly dismissed by Westminster and the Prime Minister herself, we in this Parliament must ask ourselves this question. Why should people in Scotland, the people that we are here to represent, have to pay the price of such a catastrophic policy that they do not support and which will harm their life chances and opportunities for generations to come? Put bluntly, Presiding Officer, if we cannot save the UK from itself, we must find a way to save ourselves from the UK. Scotland does deserve better. No reasonable person looking at the cluster of bureaucats at Westminster this week could deny it. Finding a way to do things better will, it must, inevitably, become an increasingly important task for everyone, as we all should in this chamber, who believes in our country, in its potential and in our future. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement, and I intend to allow around 30 minutes for that. I would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press a request to speak buttons. I have a lot of requests. I will do my best to allow everybody to ask the question that they wish, but would members bear in mind that questions and answers should be succinct to allow that? The first is Adam Tomkins. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. Presiding Officer, everyone here will understand that today is a difficult day with the Prime Minister under unprecedented pressure. Whatever the limitations on what they may be able to say in public, I know that there are members right across this chamber who privately admire the Prime Minister, her resilience and her tenacity. Excuse me, Mr Tomkins. We have just started this session. Can we at least start off with a bit of good behaviour? Thank you. Adam Tomkins. Whatever our differences, most of us would concede that she has worked tirelessly to secure from the European Union a deal that she genuinely believes is in the country's best interests. For my part, I wish her well, and she continues to have my support. My role in the on-going Brexit saga has, I suppose, been twofold. First, I have sought to resist the SNP's attempts to use Brexit as an excuse to launch a second independence referendum campaign, and whatever happens, I will continue to do that. Second, I have tried, as I hope that the cabinet secretary would acknowledge, to ensure that Brexit is delivered compatibly with our devolution settlement. That is why I and colleagues resisted clause 11 of the withdrawal bill and ensured that it was replaced and amended before that bill was enacted earlier this year. The cabinet secretary and I have crossed swords on Brexit many times in this chamber, and I am sure that we both wish that we could be talking about something else. Today, I find myself in agreement with much of what he has said—not everything, but with much of what he has said. In particular, I agree that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that we do not crash out of the European Union on a no-deal basis. Does the cabinet secretary not agree with me that one means of achieving this result would be to back the Prime Minister's deal and to support her on-going attempts to get that deal through the House of Commons? Michael Russell I am sure that this is going to surprise Mr Finlay, but when I listened to Adam Tomkins, I am reminded of John McLean's famous speech from the dock in his trial. I know that Mr Finlay looks surprised at that, and the reason is those words. I read them the other night, because McLean decided in his last paragraph to say that he was satisfied that he had squared his conduct with his intellect. I have to say to Mr Tomkins that I am not satisfied that Mr Tomkins has squared his conduct with his intellect on this matter, because, as I said last week, I do not believe that he believes a word of this. The way to get a solution to this problem is not to back the Prime Minister, but to refuse to accept Brexit. That is the way to do it. Indeed, that is the position that Mr Tomkins took during the referendum. Indeed, that is the position that Scotland still takes. An increasing number of people across these islands take that to be what they wish to do. It is bizarre that Tory MPs can get a second vote, that in this case on who should be leader of the party. Nobody else can get a second vote on the issue of Brexit. I think that that needs to change. Let me also say this to Mr Tomkins, because I respect him. I have to say that some of what he has said today I would agree with, just as he would agree with some of what I have got to say, but I would not agree with him about admiration for the Prime Minister. My thoughts are not with the Prime Minister and her suffering today. My thoughts are with EU nationals who have had months of agony over this matter. My thoughts are with the farmers of Scotland. I met some of them yesterday who have no idea what is going to happen next. My thoughts are with the fishermen in my community, the fishermen in our Gail and Bute, who have been left with no defence and no prospect of selling their product because of the ridiculous nature of the sell-out that they have done. My thoughts are with the businesses of Scotland, who are facing endless insecurity as a result of that. I am afraid, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, if I may quote Shakespeare, that tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye. I fear that I feel the rumblings off my claim having been compared in the same sentence to Adam Tomkins, I am afraid. The cabinet secretary in his statement mentioned the Welsh Government. Can I first of all begin by congratulating Mark Drakeford on his election as First Minister? Those are very dangerous times for our country, our economy and our communities. Businesses are in a state of flux with no idea how to plan for the future. The pound has fallen and jobs are at risk. For the first time in a thousand years, the Government has been held in contempt of Parliament. The Prime Minister is weak, incompetent, shambolic, embarrassing and utterly hopeless. The Tory party has taken us to the brink of a chaotic departure from the European Union with the Prime Minister, existing only in the fantasy world of her own mind. Her level of delusion is only matched by her level of incompetence. However, she can always rely on the supine sheep in the Scottish Conservative Party, even following the humiliation of David Mundell on Monday at Peterhead fish market. On the one hand, she spends weeks warning a diminishing band of people who pay any attention to her that the deal cannot be changed, only then to pollute the atmosphere, flying around Europe in a vain attempt to change the deal that she said was fixed. The Prime Minister has zero credibility as sidelined in Europe, as in contempt of Parliament loathed within her own party, the DUP has bailed out, her time is up and the country is crying out for change. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the deal goes way beyond Brexit? For those who are affected by universal credit, for those who are affected by poverty and pay cuts and the impact of a broad sweep of Tory policy, we need the general election now to end this shambolic paralysis. Michael Russell. I have indicated that I would support a general election and I think that the points that the Neil Findlay makes are well made. It is not simply the Prime Minister, but the Tory Government. Brexit is the huge symptom of a Government that is completely out of ideas, out of time and operating against the national interests. Of course, if the opportunity exists to remove this Government of general election, the SNP will support that. I want to associate myself with Neil Findlay's remarks about Mark Drakeford, whom I am pleased to call a friend. I have worked with him over the past two and a half years in very difficult circumstances. I congratulated him privately on Thursday when he was elected leader of the Labour Party in Wales, and I am pleased to see him as First Minister in Wales. I hope that I will have the opportunity to go on working with Mark because I regard Mark's contributions. That has been very significant. It shows that you can work across party on those issues and manage to maintain a constructive and positive working relationship and an effective one. You may not agree on the final destination, but you certainly agree on the road that we have to take. Ross Greer Presiding Officer, on behalf of those of us who took the case to the European Court of Justice, can I thank the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government for their support of word since the ruling came in? We always knew that article 50 could be revoked. We now have absolute legal clarity that that is an option, that this crisis can be ended and that a people's vote is the most likely way to achieve that. What are the Scottish Government rather than the SNP as a party? What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure not just that a people's vote becomes more likely, but to ensure that, were it to be passed in the House of Commons, it can be facilitated as easily as possible here in Scotland? Michael Russell I congratulate Ross Greer for his part that he has played in it. He had a faith in the confidence in the outcome, which some of us did not have. Therefore, I am always pleased to be proved wrong in such propitious and happy circumstances. I pay tribute to those who were involved yesterday in an answer to a question from Mr Crawford. I gave Ross Greer a name check and I do it again here today. In terms of our role, of course, if we have a role to play in facilitating a referendum, we will play that role. That would be presently, as I understand it, a United Kingdom referendum. It would therefore be run according to United Kingdom electoral law, but there would be a role for returning officers, for example, within Scotland to be involved, wearing another hat with my responsibility for elections. I would be glad to do everything that we can to help and facilitate that, and should the referendum bill be passed, we will, of course, ruin to make sure that that takes place. We have some experience in referendum bills, so if people would like some advice on the referendum bill, I would also think that we would be happy to give it. Tavish Scott The one thing that the Prime Minister refused to do at Prime Minister's questions earlier today was remove the threat of a no-deal Brexit. I am sure that the cabinet secretary noted that, given that Jeremy Corbyn seems so reluctant to propose a motion of no confidence in this chaotic UK Government, what is the Scottish Government going to do to try and make that happen with other parties at Westminster? Michael Russell I think that I have tried to indicate my statement. I think that it is important that we continue to have dialogue, we continue to talk about how we can get things forward, so I am not going to use this opportunity to attack Labour Party on this. I know that will disappoint some, but what I am going to do is to say, as I have said in my statement, I do not think that the motion of no confidence could succeed without the support of the principal opposition party. That is to finish out of the DUP. I think that there are circumstances where that might not be the case, but what we need to do is to make sure that we continue to find a way to work together. I go back to what I said about Mark Drakeford. I have been very struck over the past two and a half years of the possibility and the potential that comes from trying to work with people across parties, even if you do not agree on the final constitutional destination. I have tried very hard in this chamber to do the same, but we did it on the continuity bill. I hope that we will continue to do it as those issues arise. I would be keen that the item moves on in the House of Commons. The SNP stands ready to help to move the item on in the House of Commons, but equally we have to do it. We have to find a way to do it together. May I remind everyone that we will have to have brevity if we are going to get through those questions? Bruce Crawford, followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I wonder, like me, if you have businesses that lengthen the breadth of your constituents, you are deeply concerned about the huge level of uncertainty that surrounds Brexit. Businesses like McQueen's, Gin and Callander, who are just trying to get on with growing their businesses, do you agree with me that the Prime Minister has just made the uncertainty worse by postponing the promised meaningful vote in a doomed attempt to save our bad deal? Now we will wish us civil war taking part in the Tory party keeping uncertainty upon uncertainty. Cabinet Secretary, can you tell me when will all this uncertainty end? Surely now is time to put the people in charge and hold another EU membership referendum. I am tempted to pack a date out of the air and just give it and see what happens. Nobody can, unfortunately, say when this will end regrettably. There is a heavy irony, but it is a very distressing one, particularly to businesses such as the member has mentioned in his constituency. When the Prime Minister stands out and says that people want us to get on with Brexit, having only 48 hours before cancelled a vote that was meant to conclude the matter, the reality is that this is all about the Tories, it is about this internal division that has bedevilled the Conservative party to start with and now the whole of the country for far too long. I do feel very sorry for those people who were, of course, trying to back the Prime Minister's deal, not because they thought that it was good, but because they thought that it would bring an end to uncertainty. I regretted that we had to say to people that it would not have brought an end to uncertainty. The uncertainty would continue and grow, but the Prime Minister proved that herself by our actions on Monday, by pulling the vote. We will do everything that we can to offer support to reassurance and assistance to companies in these circumstances, but what would really help them would be to get this nightmare over with by deciding that we were not leaving the EU and then we could get on with life. Donald Cameron, followed by Emma Harper. The cabinet secretary set out a hierarchy of alternative outcomes that he would prefer to see. The second of which was for continuing membership of the single market and customs union described elsewhere as the Norway plus proposal, a proposal that has its pros and cons. Does he accept that one of the benefits of that proposal is that there would be no requirement to negotiate a bespoke set of arrangements, so it could be agreed upon straight away and thus deliver the referendum result on schedule? Michael Russell Yes, I broadly agree with that. I think that it has been an offer for a long time. There are issues in terms of after membership, not unnaturally. Norway, looking at the prospect of having to get into bed with the UK Conservative Party, is balking very substantially at it, but it would be possible to construct a bespoke deal. It has the advantages that the member has, interestingly, raised. It is clear, it is obvious how it would work, and it also, in Scotland, has the enormous advantage of continuing the four freedoms and particularly freedom of movement. The member knows, because he is a Highland and Islands list member, he knows perfectly well that that is absolutely essential for the Highlands and Islands. Without freedom of movement, there will be continuing depopulation in the constituency that I represent, which the member sought to represent at the last election and may seek to represent again. Who knows? In that constituency, the depopulation is chronic and is getting worse and will only be accelerated by what is taking place in cancelling freedom of movement. I agree with the member, and I am grateful to him for his enlightened question. Emma Harper, followed by Pauline McNeill. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, under the Prime Minister's current withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland will effectively be in the single market, and Scotland will not. That is extremely concerning for ports such as Cairnryne in my south Scotland region. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary to give me assurances that the Scottish Government will continue to fight against the boorach of a Brexit deal, which surely will put Scotland at a competitive disadvantage. Michael Russell Yes, the details of how the Northern Ireland situation would work really would still require to be fleshed out, but certainly there would be substantial problems in terms of the ports on the western side of these islands when they were looking towards Ireland, particularly towards Northern Ireland. That has not been thought through. I heard when the member asked a question some dissent from the Tory benches about whether Northern Ireland would continue in the single market to all intents and purposes, it would. That is absolutely clear from what has been said, and it is quite clear from the answers that ministers have given. There was an attempt by David Littington when he gave evidence here to the joint committee meeting to play this down. When he saw the list of areas that are involved, to all intents and purposes, this is membership of the single market, it would disadvantage Scotland, but it would create issues in terms of a border down the Irish Sea. I seem to remember that there are prominent Conservatives in Scotland who said that they would resign in such circumstances, but I do not remember seeing their resignation letters. Pauline McNeill, followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you. Notwithstanding the level of despair that is across the country today, does the cabinet secretary agree that there is still common ground to fight for amongst the remaining parties, especially if we were to be part of a customs union that should negate the need for the backstop to protect the interests of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland? Is it worth, cabinet secretary, reminding people that we do not really have a deal, what we have as a withdrawal agreement, with the detail of a future deal still to be negotiated? A very important point. The withdrawal agreement is a legally binding agreement about how you get out of the EU. It says nothing about what happens next. The political declaration is not legally binding. It is vague and insubstantial. It is a language of aspiration and nothing beyond that. That is why there is no security or confidence in Theresa May's deal, because there is no certainty about what will happen next. That is another reason for saying that it should not be supported. I am happy to remind people that what we have just been through was meant to have been the easy part of the negotiation. We are not to go into a part of the negotiation over a number of years, which is much, much more difficult. As it has not been able to manage this with any ability, who knows how bad it could come when it has started to manage the hard part. Tom Arthur, followed by Jamie Keane. The cabinet secretary is absolutely right to quote Shakespeare, because for the Tories, the native resolution has been sickly do. I cannot believe in this position that we are in today. Can you get your question please, Mr Arthur? The cabinet secretary agrees that the European Court of Justice judgment, but article 50, which was revoked by the UK, is all the proof needed that the Tories' barely credible claims have been blown out of the water. Michael Russell. I agree with that. Thank you, Mr Russell. You caught me, anyway. Jamie Greene, followed by Jenny Gory. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister made prudent reference and statement to preparations for all potential exit outcomes, and I appreciate that we will be updated on that next week. In addition to the papers that his Government has already produced, in that statement he will provide specific details on any further scenario planning that his Government has done, including any potential legislative consequences for this Parliament. Michael Russell. Well, the member will have to wait for my statement next week, but allow me to say that, given that the way in which the Tory party has behaved has created these difficulties, that it is resulting in an enormous amount of additional work for civil servants, for ministers and for public officials all over plus businesses, I think that the minister that the member would be wise to accept that when doing our best, we will also bring to this chamber as much information as we possibly can. To simply ask for more and more information would simply add to the burden to create a problem that he has helped to create in the first place, so I think that it would be quite useful if he just read the statement, listened to what we were going to say and perhaps regretted his role in this complete mess. Jenny Gilruth, followed by Claire Baker. Thank you. My constituent Dr Petra McLey has lived in Scotland since 2003. She is married to a British citizen. Both her children were born in this country. Dr McLey is a faculty head and has taught in our schools for over 14 years. What assurances can the cabinet secretary provide my constituent, who now faces a settled status fee as the direct result of the callous actions of the UK Government? Michael Russell. I have the most enormous sympathy for those who find themselves in that situation. I read a tweet this morning from somebody who admitted that they were standing trying to fill in the form on their phone in the HR department of their company, and they suddenly burst into tears in distress at the experience that they were going through. I think that the chamber would want to make it clear that I hope that every single member would regard what EU nationals are having to go through as utterly unacceptable. We apologise for them having to go through that. It is not of our making, but we are deeply sorry about those circumstances. We, as a Government, are doing everything that we can to help our own employees, so that is not being made easy by the UK Government with this matter. However, I hope that we might get to the stage where this is simply a bad memory and that we have moved into a situation—we go back to a situation where freedom of movement, which is so valuable to Scotland, and the contribution of those people who have come here is so valuable that we go back to that situation and we say to those people, honestly, that this will never happen again. Claire Baker, followed by Stuart McMillan. Presiding Officer, I am going to an actual pantomime tonight, but first I will deal with the pantomime of Brexit and the current Conservative party. Can I ask if the cabinet secretary has more detail on the court of justice ruling as to what actions would be in accordance with constitutional requirements, and if he believes that it is possible to live out a process that is unequivocal and unconditional, given the divisiveness of this debate as it currently rages across the UK? Michael Russell The member raises a good point. The reality is that the court of judgment ruling is clear. It is quite obvious that there is a process to be gone through. Interestingly, I saw a Tory MP denouncing the court of justice ruling as attacking the UK. Actually, one of the biggest losers on the ruling was the European Commission, whose interpretation of how article 50 should be rescinded was rejected by the court. There is a simple process to be gone through. The insistence on constitutional due process is not unexpected or unusual. Quite clearly, that is actually how article 50 should be implemented. Article 50 refers to the constitutional due process that would be required to give notice of withdrawal, so it is quite obvious that the court would say that if you are going to withdraw that, you must go through the same process. That process is clear. I think that constitutional due process in a country that does not have a written constitution would be variable, and there would be a number of ways that you could do it. However, I would have thought that a resolution of the House of Commons would be one, and I therefore think that a people's vote informing the resolution of the House of Commons might be a double lock on it. Stuart McMillan, followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Has the cabinet secretary received any assurances from the UK Government about when this vote will take place, or does he consider that this is just a cynical attempt to run down the clock, forcing a choice between Theresa May's shambolic deal or a no-deal Brexit? Michael Russell. We have no indication. There is an indication that the UK Government regards itself as bound by the previous resolution that says that there should be something by the 21st of January, but given that it changes her mind all the time and it changes her promises all the time, that might mean absolutely nothing. In those circumstances, I have to say that I do not overthink the motivations. It seems to me that Theresa May wanted to continue, as Prime Minister, and that allowed her to do so. I do not think that it is any greater than that, but it is a shameful thing to reflect that the damage that is being done because of that individual ambition. Liam Kerr, followed by George Adam. In the interests of clarity, the cabinet secretary says that any notice of revocation must be made in accordance with the constitutional requirements of a member state. What does the cabinet secretary understand those requirements to be? Could the Prime Minister do that under a prerogative? Does it require an active Parliament or a referendum? Michael Russell. I do not like to correct a lawyer, but it is in actual fact the court that says that. It is the court judgment that says that. I think that any and all of those would do, as I have just said in answer to a previous question. The real issue in here is the determination to do it. Once you are determined to do it, you will find the right way to do it. You could do it by resolution of House of Commons, you could add an additional element to that by having a referendum. If the member is keen on making it happen, he might even bring a resolution to this Parliament to say, advising the UK Government that this is what should happen. I do not think that that would be enough, but it would be a start. Now that the Tories seem so fixated upon it, could I encourage them to follow through their interests by some actual action? George Adam, followed by Joan McAlpine. After a chaotic week in Westminster, Theresa May has become the first Prime Minister in the UK for the last 70 years to cancel a vote in a major international treaty. Having ceased to govern in Westminster, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is time that all parties unite to remove the Prime Minister and pave the way for her people's vote? I really, if ever, disagree with George Adam on this occasion, I agree with him absolutely. Can I ask the Scottish Government what the financial implications would be for the NHS in Scotland of a no-deal Brexit? There are financial implications for all parts of the public sector in terms of a no-deal Brexit. I will try to give some indications next week when I make a statement on preparations for a no-deal. It is important to say that, as I do not want to pre-empt anything that my friend Mr Mackay will say in a few moments, it is important to say that, as I said in my statement, that this budget is in the shadow of Brexit. Were there to be a hard Brexit, there would require to be a different set of budgetary figures and requests made, and that that is a very serious situation. I will do my very best to give as much information as I can next week, but I do not think that we will go down to the level of detail of finances on each portfolio. For example, the stockpiling of drugs, some of which will have to be stockpiled in Scotland, and the stockpiling of consumables within the health service will cost the Scottish Government money. That money will have to be brought forward from future years in order to stockpile this year, so there would be implications. John Scott Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary says that the first step must be to rule out a no deal. Given that the cabinet secretary also objects to the deal that would do so, can he tell me what mechanism he proposes to ensure that that could not happen? Michael Russell I have a good deal of time for John Scott, but clearly he wasn't paying much attention this afternoon when I was speaking. Let me go back and quote a much greater authority than I am on these matters, which would be the t-shirt that, speaking in the Doyle yesterday, laid out exactly what would take place. He said, and I quote him again, the option is there to revoke article 50, the option is there to extend article 50. It is in their hands, talking about the UK Government, a Government that is familiar with which I understand he would still support. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. It is in their hands at any point in time to take the threat of a no deal off the table, either by revoking article 50 or, if that is a step too far, by extending it. Now, I am fascinated by the interest in this, the detailed interest in this that has come from the Tory benches. There may be some hope on this darkest of days that they are beginning to realise the absolute mayhem that they are wreaking upon the country. In those circumstances, were they to approach me and seek a common front and trying to find a way to give that message to Westminster, I would work with them. The Deputy First Minister That concludes questions on the Cabinet Secretary's statement, and we will move on to the next item of business.