 The next act of business is a statement by the First Minister, Alex Salmond. The First Minister's statement will be followed by a debate, so, of course, there should be no interventions or interruptions. First Minister. Presiding Officer, I'm glad that you decided to do time for reflection today because the burden of your remarks, which I very much support and agree, actually chime in exactly to the first point that I was going to make in this statement, because you rightly identify that last week's referendum was the most extraordinary, empowering and exhilarating experience, and huge credit in that is due to both sides in the referendum campaign. When we reflect on that, it's worth comparing it with our previous experience of constitutional referendums. At the vote of 1979 was a bot's job, where the side which gained most votes was unable to have its wishes put into effect. In 1997 referendum was an altogether different experience—it was a great experience, actually—but we should remember that turnout in that referendum, however successful, was 60 per cent. Last week, as you correctly identified, the turnout was 85 per cent—the highest for any vote on this scale ever held on these islands. In my estimation, with the exception of a handful of miscreants, both sides of the debate conducted themselves in an extraordinarily democratic, civilised and engaged manner. Therefore, to every single campaigner and voter, whatever your view and whatever your vote, I want to say thank you. This has been the greatest democratic experience in Scotland's history, and it has brought us great credit both nationally and internationally. Overwhelmingly, positive side to the referendum experience is now generally recognised. It's a shame that a few largely metropolitan journalists concentrated on negative and minor elements, because the true story to emerge from the referendum is that Scotland has had the most politically engaged population in Western Europe. For both sides, that is a significant and positive fact to be reckoned with. We need to retain and encourage the people's engagement, vitality and spirit. Nothing is more important for the future than that. I am going to add a couple of caveats to that point towards the end of my speech, but right now I want to focus on that positive. I will concentrate on two points in particular that arise from this referendum. The first is that there is not a shred of evidence for arguing now that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. Their engagement in this debate, this great constitutional debate, was second to none. They proved themselves to be the serious, passionate and committed citizens that we always believed they would be. Everyone in this chamber should be proud of this chamber's decision to widen the franchise. There is an overwhelming and unanswerable case for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in all future elections in Scotland and, indeed, across the United Kingdom. All parties in this Parliament should make a vow to urge Westminster to make this happen in time for next year's general election. The second point or second question is one that is already asked by many people. Where do we move forward from here? From the moment the referendum result became clear, section 30 of the Edinburgh agreement came into effect. That means that both the UK Government and the Scottish Government are committed to accepting the outcome of the referendum and working together in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. I believe strongly in that section 30. I put it into the Edinburgh agreement. It was the red-line issue for the Scottish Government in the same way that the red-line issue for the UK Government was not to have Devo Maxx on the ballot paper. Therefore, the Scottish Government will stick to section 30, the clause that we insisted in being in the agreement. That means that the Scottish Government will contribute fully to a process to empower the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. We will bring forward constructive proposals for doing exactly that. I relayed that intention to the Prime Minister within minutes of the result being confirmed. That is how the Scottish Government intends to proceed. I welcome the appointment of Lord Smith. He is a trusted person who, in recent months and in recent years, has given great service to Scotland and whose oversight of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee was outstanding, indeed exemplary. I should say that David Cameron surprised me and I suspect others in this chamber with his statement on Friday morning, less than an hour after the outcome of the referendum was confirmed. He said in that statement that change in Scotland should be in tandem. In case we did not understand what that meant, he repeated at the same pace as change in England and the rest of the UK. That condition, as all of us will know and recognise, would risk throwing the entire process into delay and confusion. It would directly also contradict the clear commitments made during the campaign. I should say that the briefing from Downing Street yesterday afternoon was very different from the Friday morning statement. That suggests that the UK Government has started to understand the importance of meeting its commitments during the campaign. It is crucial that it does have that understanding. However, for this Parliament, we, all of us, have a responsibility to hold Westminster's feet to the fire to ensure that the pledges are met. That is not just a job for the Scottish Government, it is one for all parties in the Parliament. Indeed, we might well argue that there is a special obligation on the Unionist parties. They promised further devolution. It is essential that they deliver it. However, all parties should understand and understand this well that the true guardians of progress are not the political parties at Westminster or the political parties here in this chamber or Lord Smith. They are the energised electorate of this nation, the community of Scotland who will not brooke or tolerate any equivocation or delay. I was struck yesterday by the statement of Graham Smith of the Scottish Trade Union Congress. I suspect that, in that statement, he captured the feelings of many people in Scotland. That is what Graham had to say. The vast civic movement for meaningful and progressive change that has built up in the past two years is impatient for change and will not accept minimalist proposals developed in a pre-referendum context, handed down on a take them or leave them basis. They are not going to be passive participants in the process or tolerate political obsercation or compromise. The sooner that politicians recognise this and get down to working with civil society and the communities and the people of Scotland to deliver a comprehensive new devolution settlement, the better. What Graham Smith said is absolutely correct. The referendum debate engaged people in every community of our country. Its final outcome cannot be a last-minute deal between a small group of Westminster politicians. Lord Smith has already recognised the need to capture the energy of the referendum debate. All of us should support his commitment to genuine consultation. After all, one thing that we now know is that proper consultation and debate energises people rather than distracting them. It is worth remembering that, since the end of agreement was signed in 2012, the number of people unemployed in Scotland has reduced by 40,000. We now have record employment in Scotland, the highest in Scottish history. We have record female employment in Scotland. We have the fastest-rising female employment ever in Scotland. The economy has come out the great recession ahead of the rest of the UK. Scotland has outperformed every part of the UK outside London and the south-east for foreign investment. Visitor spending in Scotland has increased. Exports have grown. The Scottish Government has introduced 30 new bills into this Parliament, and we have delivered the most successful common wealth games in the history of the common wealth games. I mention that in passing because, in the last parliamentary debate before the referendum, Johann Lamont expressed concern about quote the way in which Scotland has been on pause on the big decisions facing our country. Scotland was not on pause for the referendum. It was on fast forward on the economy as every statistic indicates. Of course, as Parliament rightly has also occupied its attention in introducing measures to alleviate the effects of Westminster legislation, such as the council tax reduction scheme to help 500,000 of our fellow citizens, or the bedroom tax alleviation to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax. Asking ourselves as a country what sort of nation we want to be isn't something that's separate from good government. It's part of good government. Political confidence and economic confidence gang together. All of us have a responsibility to maintain that political confidence and self-belief to enable our empowered and engaged electorate in delivering meaningful changes to devolution. Any improvement of the devolution settlement will require a legislative consent motion here in this Parliament, so there's a clear role for this Parliament in considering what new powers should be delivered. There will doubtless be a range of views and proposals. The Scottish Government's view on enhanced devolution settlement should pass three key tests. It should enable us to make Scotland a more prosperous country. The job test, in particular, genuine job-creating powers, is important. It should allow us to build a fairer society. We need to address the deep-lying causes of inequality in Scottish society, and it should enable Scotland to have a stronger and clearer articulated voice on the international stage. The Labour Party lessened two weeks before the referendum promised home role for Scotland inside the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the powers delivered to this Parliament match not just rhetoric, but also the ambitions of the people of Scotland. It's also vital that new economic powers do not, in any way, disadvantage Scotland. The vow made by the Unionist Party leaders was absolutely clear that, quote, because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation of resources, the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final stay and how much is spent in national health service will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. However, the delayed Westminster parliamentary motion and further devolution released over the weekend failed to repeat that promise on Barnett. The Barnett formula promise is essential, as the Unionist vow acknowledged, until or unless Scotland has control of all of our own resources. We need clarity that the UK parties will say true to their promises and vow about Barnett. We need to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is entrenched in legislation. It can never be therefore abolished or diminished by Westminster. That was clearly promised before the referendum, but again is missing from the parliamentary motion at Westminster. While making that important change, the United Kingdom Government should finally give a statutory basis to the Sule convention of legislative consent motions. Overall, there is a great opportunity for this Parliament. We can work together to help the UK Government to deliver its promise of significant extra powers for this chamber. We can do so in such a way that deserves sustains and courage, which is the interest and engagement of the Scottish people. I did say earlier that there were two caveats that I wanted to add to the hugely positive nature of the referendum process. Both involve the criminal law and therefore are worth including in this statement. There is the outstanding matter of the treasury briefing of the evening of 10 September, 45 minutes before a Royal Bank of Scotland board meeting finished. We need to establish the full circumstances and justification for this briefing and how it can be anything other than contrary to section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1993. Secondly, the scenes that we saw in Glasgow around George Square on Friday night cannot be tolerated. We expect and know that Police Scotland will take proper and necessary action against those who indulged in prearranged thuggery against the peaceful demonstration. The full force of the law will be enabled and be expected to make sure that we eradicate such behaviour from Scottish life. When the late Donald Dewar, and what I believe to be the final speech of his life, spoke at the opening of this Parliament in 1999, he reflected at one point on the discourse of the Scottish Enlightenment as an echo from the past which has helped to shape modern Scotland. What we have seen in these last two years is a new discourse of democratic enlightenment. Scotland now has the most politically engaged population in Western Europe and one of the most engaged of any country anywhere in the democratic world. This land has been a hub of peaceful, passionate discussion in the workplace at home in cafes, pubs and on the streets of Scotland. Across Scotland, people have been energised, enthused by politics in a way that has never happened before, certainly not in my experience and I suspect in the experience of anyone in this chamber. We have seen a generational change in attitudes towards independence and greater self-government and also in how politics should be carried forward. We have a totally new body politic, a new spirit abroad in the land and one which is speaking loud and clear. All of us must realise that things will never be the same again. Wherever we are travelling together, we are a better nation today than we were at the start of this process. We are more informed, more enabled and more empowered. As a result of that, our great national debate in my estimation will help us to make a fairer, more prosperous and more democratic country and in all of that, all of Scotland will emerge as the winner.