 Ysgonydd, mae'r ystafell rhywbeth beth yw un logo o'r ALP ond brexit yn ninnyddau y D cuántoandrau Suttel, das i fynd ichi yn ein bodor사�ro localwbod Mawr Cysri i gyd yn ein ddalfrath a droi chi i d woundsацию' ar Maewyr F Visual-Dual ythgyrch cyhoeddiol, so bach darlion eiswyddiar swyddfaethol fel ans 앞으로 yn directed Caernegwyd. Mae'r dddズhydd iawn i'r dyfod fathers. Siac hon i gcharged signedurlining wrth yn gafod Kryniabeth i'i dwoch sydd hynny of chlinnw sydd gafod hawdd ymy spring- falls에id oً에서는 yw Llyrra McHe who was killed in Northern Ireland last week and whose funeral is taking place just now. I didn't know Llyrra, but everything I have read by her and about her makes me wish I had. Talented, passionate, courageous, she was a symbol of hope for Northern Ireland's future. Her death is a harsh reminder of the fragility of peace in Northern Ireland and of how important it is that that peace is nurtured and protected. I would also like to express my shock and sadness at the horrific attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday. Senseless loss of life on such a scale is difficult for any of us to comprehend, and my heartfelt condolences go to the bereaved and injured, including, of course, the British citizens so tragically affected. To launch indiscriminate attacks on innocent people as they attended Easter services or enjoyed a holiday is barbaric beyond words. Christian churches such as mosques, synagogues and all places of worship should be sanctuaries of peace and safety. As we condemn unreservedly the acts of terrorism, we must again express our determination that hatred and violence will be defeated by love, compassion and by our common humanity. My statement today will consider the implications for Scotland of recent Brexit developments. As members know, two weeks ago the European Council extended the UK's membership of the EU until 31 October, with a right for the UK to leave earlier if the House of Commons agrees in terms of withdrawal. The extension granted by the EU rescued us from the nightmare scenario of a no-deal Brexit on 12 April. As a result, I can advise Parliament that the Scottish Government has for the time being scaled down our no-deal planning. My thanks go to all those across the Government and the public sector who have worked so hard to make sure that Scotland is as ready as we can be for what would be a catastrophic outcome. However, I also want to express my regret and anger at the money and effort that has been spent preparing for an outcome that the UK Government should have ruled out. As things stand, if an agreed way forward is not found quickly, the risk of no-deal will rise again as we approach the October deadline, with the potential for yet more money, time and effort to be wasted. The UK Government could remove the risk now by making it clear that, if the only alternative is a no-deal exit, it will choose to revoke article 50 instead, and I hope that members across the chamber will join me today in calling on the UK Government to do exactly that. However, the extension afforded by the EU presents the UK with an opportunity to find a positive way forward and an opportunity for me to update Parliament about the implications for Scotland. The view of the Scottish Government is that the best way to break the deadlock for the UK is to put the issue back to the people with an option to remain in the EU. The euro elections will also give voters a chance to back a party, like the SNP, that wants to keep Scotland in the European Union. Of course, almost three years on from the referendum in 2016, it is impossible to predict with certainty what will happen next. The UK might still leave the EU before October, it might leave in October, it might seek another extension or it might not leave at all. This chaos was not an inevitable consequence of the vote to leave the EU. It is down to a toxic combination of dishonesty and incompetence. Those who campaign for leave in 2016 failed to set out what Brexit would mean in reality. To the extent that they made any attempt at all, they must lead people. The UK Government triggered article 50 before it had answered that question. The Prime Minister then boxed herself in with a series of self-defeating and contradictory red lines. Instead of trying to build consensus across Parliament or country, she claimed the right to interpret the result in the most hard-line way possible. As a consequence, those who voted to remain question the legitimacy of the whole process, those who voted leave, feel with justification that promises made to them have been broken and faith in democracy has been damaged. Throughout all of this, the Scottish Government and our party colleagues at Westminster have worked tirelessly to help to find the best way forward for all of the UK. Whatever Scotland's constitutional status in future, it will always be in our interests for all of us on these islands to have the closest possible relationship with the EU. We proposed the compromise option of single market and customs union membership. We backed a public vote to break the deadlock, even though that offers no guarantee that Scotland will not be outvoted all over again. We are working with others in an effort to remove the risk of a no-deal Brexit. In fact, we have done everything possible to help to avert the Brexit crisis for the whole UK. We will continue to do so, but we must also consider the best way forward for Scotland in the event that the UK does leave the European Union. To ensure that all options remain open to us, the time to do that is now. Of course, as we do so, we must learn the lessons of the Brexit mess. Whether we like it or not, the continued lack of clarity around Brexit has implications for Scotland's decision making—a point that I will return to later. However, there is surely one point of clarity that has emerged over the past three years, even for the most ardent opponent of Scottish independence. The Westminster system of government simply does not serve Scotland's interests. The devolution settlement in its current form is now seen to be utterly inadequate to the task of protecting those interests. In other words, the status quo is broken. Scotland's 62 per cent vote to remain in the EU counted for nothing. Far from being an equal partner at Westminster, Scotland's voice is listened to only if it chimes with the UK majority, if it doesn't, we are outvoted and ignored. The Scottish Government's efforts to find a compromise that might mitigate the damage to our economy fell on deaf ears. Cross-party votes of the Scottish Parliament have been disregarded time and time again. The agreed constitutional principles, which have underpinned devolution since its establishment 20 years ago, have been cast aside by the UK Government, and vital powers were effectively taken from the Parliament without our consent. Even our financial settlement, which already leaves us vulnerable to austerity with too few levers of our own, was openly breached with the UK Government's bribe to the DUP. There is, Presiding Officer, no denying that Brexit has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the heart of how Scotland is governed. Whatever our different views on independence, it should persuade all of us in this chamber that we need a more solid foundation on which to build our future as a country. The consequences of inaction would be severe. If we are unable to stop or even mitigate Brexit, we will find it harder to export our goods and services across the single market. Scotland will become less attractive to inward investors, a risk that will be compounded if the Northern Ireland backstop takes effect. The result will be fewer jobs and an economy that is smaller than it should be. The Tory—I am sorry to say—UK Labour obsession that drives the desire to leave the EU ending free movement will restrict the opportunities of our own young people to live, work and study across Europe, and it will send our working-age population into decline. I know that the issue of migration is not an easy one for politicians to address, but I am proud that parties across this chamber are willing to take on the many myths that surround it. In Scotland, we know and understand that the Westminster approach to migration, as well as being deeply inhumane, poses an almost existential threat to our future prosperity. The Brexit outlook for Scotland is this—a smaller economy, restricted job growth, fewer people, narrowed horizons and greater pressure on our ability to fund the public services and social contract that we value so highly. Let me put it in simpler language. Brexit and all that flows from Brexit will affect the ability of Scottish Governments now and well into the future to do the day job—to support businesses, combat poverty, fund the NHS in public services and work with other countries to tackle the defining challenges of our time. At a time when I think that most people in Scotland would want to see this Parliament having more influence on the decisions that shape our future, there is a risk of the reverse. As the UK scrambles to do trade deals with Donald Trump or whoever, the inclination to impose uniformity even in devolved areas will lead to more Westminster centralisation. It is my judgment now that, for the first time in 20 years, there is a risk of devolution going backwards, not through blatant wholesale removal of powers. Although, on recent experience, more of that cannot be ruled out but by an increasing use of Westminster's powers to override the decisions of this Parliament and constrain devolved decision making. The question that confronts all of us now is this one. If the status quo is not fit for purpose—I know even some of the most committed believers in the union find it hard to argue that it is—how do we fix that? Can we do so in a way that maximises consensus rather than amplifying our differences? Those are not easy challenges, but those of us who sit in this chamber—all of us who sit in this chamber—are elected to represent the national interest. We have a duty to rise to that challenge, to stand in each other's shoes and find a way forward. No one expects any of us to abandon deeply held beliefs. Just as Labour and Tory MSPs will continue to believe that remaining in the union is the right option for Scotland, I will argue that independence offers the best future. That case for independence is even stronger now, given the profound changes that have taken place in the UK since 2014. In that time, we have seen the limits of Scotland's influence within the UK and, in sharp contrast to that, the power independent nations have as members of the EU. Although Scotland's interests have been ignored by Westminster, independent Ireland's have been protected by the EU, and of the 27 independent countries that decided the UK's future at the EU council two weeks ago, around a dozen or smaller than or similar in size to Scotland, many of those countries are also more prosperous than Scotland. With all of our assets and talents, Scotland should be a thriving and driving force within Europe. Instead, we face being forced to the margins, sidelined within a UK that is itself increasingly sidelined on the international stage. Independence, by contrast, would allow us to protect our place in Europe. It would enable us to nurture our most important relationships, those with the other countries of the British Isles, on the basis of equality. It would mean that decisions against our will and contrary to our interests cannot be imposed on us by Westminster. It would put our future into our own hands with the decisions that shape our future and determine our relationship with other countries taken here in our own Parliament. That is the essence of independence. Let me turn to the issue of when I think people in Scotland should be offered a new choice of independence. My party was elected with a mandate to offer that choice within this parliamentary term, should Scotland be taken out of the EU against our will. There is also a majority in this chamber for that position, and polling evidence suggests that a majority in Scotland want a choice on independence, though opinions vary on timing. There are some who would like to see a very early referendum, others want that choice to be much later. My job as First Minister is to reach a judgment, not simply in my party's interests but in the national interests. In doing so, a key priority is ensuring that we learn the lessons of Brexit. To rush into an immediate decision before a Brexit path has been determined would not allow for an informed choice to be made. However, if we are to safeguard Scotland's interests, we cannot wait indefinitely. That is why I consider that a choice between Brexit and a future for Scotland as an independent European nation should be offered in the lifetime of this Parliament. If Scotland is taken out of the EU, the option of a referendum on independence within that timescale must be open to us. That would be our route to avoiding the worst of the damage Brexit will do. Of course, that intention does not mean that we should cease trying to build as much agreement on the best way forward as we can, nor should we cease our efforts to avoid any Brexit at all. We must also try, in all of our actions, to avoid the mistakes that have caused so much division over Brexit and instead bring people together to focus on finding the common ground that exists between us. Our aim must be to act in a completely different manner to the UK Government and Parliament. The fact is, based on the evidence of the last three years, that Westminster has failed. It has failed to protect Scotland's interests, it has failed to reach consensus and it has degenerated into utter chaos. It is now time for this Parliament, for all the parties that are represented in this Parliament, to take charge. There are therefore three specific steps that the Scottish Government intends to take now. First, I can confirm that the Scottish Government will act to ensure that the option of giving people a choice on independence later in this term of Parliament is progressed. We will shortly introduce legislation to set the rules for any referendum that is now or in the future within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We will aim for the legislation to be on the statute book by the end of this year. Mike Russell will set out the details next month. We do not need a transfer of power, such as a section 30 order, to pass such a framework bill, though we would need it to put beyond doubt or challenge our ability to apply the bill to an independence referendum. Of course, as members are aware, the UK Government's current position is that it will not agree to transfer power. I believe that that position will prove to be unsustainable. However, by making progress with primary legislation first, we will not squander valuable time now in a stand-off with a UK Government that may soon be out of office. We will seek agreement to a transfer of power at an appropriate point during or shortly after the bill's passage on the basis that it will be exercised when this Parliament and no other considers it right to offer the people of Scotland a choice. In 2014, the Scottish and UK Governments and Parliament to our collective credit set the gold standard. Two Governments, with very different views on the outcome, came together to agree a process that allowed the people to decide. That is what should happen in future, too. It is how we will secure unquestioned legitimacy, not just here at home but crucially within the EU and the wider international community, too. It respects the principle enshrined in the claim of right that the Scottish people are sovereign. Those who oppose independence are, of course, entitled to argue that case, but it must be for the people to decide. Lastly, on this point, let me offer those words. With public sentiment, nothing can fail without it, nothing can succeed. Those are the wise words of Abraham Lincoln, an ardent defender of a union, albeit in a great moral cause. For those of us who support independence, his lesson is obvious. If we are successful in further growing the support and the demand for independence—and I will say more later this week about how we build that case—then no UK Government will be able to deny the will of the people or stop that will being expressed. Let me now turn to two parallel processes that I want to outline today. The first is directed to the parties in this chamber who do not support independence. I may not, as you may have noticed, agree with that view, but I do respect that view. However, what I hope we might all agree on after the past three years is that serious change is needed. To those who believe that independence is not the right change for Scotland, I say this. Bring forward your own proposals to equip our Parliament with the powers that we need to better protect and advance our interests. For example, more powers to boost trade and strengthen our economy. More powers to tackle poverty and inequality. Powers to protect the public finances that our NHS and public services rely on. Powers that will allow us to grow our population. Powers that will give us a stronger voice in the UK enable us to determine our own future and better protect our interests here at home and internationally. I welcome, for example, the recent signals from the Scottish Labour Party that they now support the devolution of employment law. This Parliament was almost unanimous in opposing the Brexit power grab. I know that many share our deep concerns on migration and recognise that we do not currently have the tools to solve this problem. Perhaps, Presiding Officer, there is already more common ground than we like to admit there is, a starting point that we can build and expand upon. The fact that we do not agree on Scotland's ultimate destination should not stop us travelling together as far as we can. I have therefore asked Mike Russell to explore with other parties, perhaps with the help of a respected and independent individual who could broker such discussions, areas of agreement on constitutional and procedural change, and to take the views of stakeholders about such issues. I will write to party leaders today and Mike Russell will be in touch with their nominated representatives thereafter to consider how those discussions might be progressed. That should be an exercise. If parties can find it within themselves to do so, it should be an exercise that does not start with the fixed positions of any of us, but one that considers openly the challenges that Scotland faces and what solutions might help us to address them. If serious and substantial proposals emerge, this Parliament could then present them to the UK Government in a unified and united way. If other parties are willing, I give an assurance today that the Scottish Government will engage fully and in good faith. The last aspect of my statement today is also about how we confront the change that our country needs, but in a way that does try to build agreement. None of us can fail to be concerned about the polarisation of political debate caused by the Brexit experience. The answer, though, cannot be to ignore or to suppress the differing views about the best future for our country. However, we should try to find ways of debating our choices respectfully and in a way that seats maximum areas of agreement. We should lay a foundation that allows us to move forward together whatever decisions we ultimately arrive at. I have been struck recently by the Irish example of a citizen's assembly to help to find consensus on issues where people have sharply divided opinions. Of course, the circumstances here are different, as are the issues under consideration, but the principle is a sound one, and I believe that we should make use of it. I can confirm that the Scottish Government will establish a citizen's assembly. It will bring together a representative cross-section of Scotland with an independent chair and be tasked with considering, in broad terms, the following issues. What kind of country are we seeking to build? How can we best overcome the challenges that we face, including those arising from Brexit? What further work should be carried out to give people the detail that they need to make informed choices about the future of the country? Again, Mike Russell will set out more details shortly and seek views from other parties on the operation and remit. Brexit was not the choice of this Parliament, nor was it the choice of our country. As I said at the outset, the immediate opportunity that we now have is to help to stop Brexit for the whole United Kingdom, and we should seize that opportunity, and my party will certainly seek to do so. However, if that cannot be achieved, dealing with the consequences of Brexit and facing up to its challenges will be unavoidable. I am aware that the debates that flow from that will provoke differences of opinion. I believe that the case for independence is now stronger than ever, and I will make that case. As I have set out today, I will also do all in my power to protect Scotland's right to choose. To do anything less would risk consigning the next generation to the damage of Westminster decisions that are not in our interests. However, I know that others take a different view, so as the necessary legislative steps over the next few months are taken, I will also seek to open up space for us to come together and find areas of agreement, as mature politicians should do. In so doing, I will try to set an example of constructive, outward-looking and respectful debate. In recent times, we have seen in Westminster what happens when parties fail to work together, when leaders take a my way or the highway approach, and when so many red lines and inflexible preconditions are set that progress becomes impossible. Tensions rise and tempers fray. Twenty years on from the establishment of this Parliament, I believe that we can do better than that. Brexit makes change for Scotland inevitable, but our fellow citizens will judge us on how we lead debate on the best way forward and the efforts that we make to come to a common mind about it. This place was established with the hope that it would be a new type of Parliament. I think that we are, but we can approve it anew by the way in which we respond today to the challenges that lie before us. We can show that we have already begun to learn not just the lessons from Westminster's failure but also those that Scotland has taught us as devolution has grown and strengthened. We can show that we are able to put the interests of the people first. If others across the chamber are willing to move forward in that spirit, they will find in me an equally willing partner. However, if all they have to offer the people of Scotland is a failed and a damaging status quo, then the process of change will pass them by and support for independence will continue to grow. It is time, in my view, to look to Scotland's future. Let us do so together with confidence in the potential of our country and with confidence in the potential of all those who live here. I commend this statement to Parliament. Thank you very much. The First Minister will now take questions from Jackson Carlaw. Presiding Officer, let me begin by adding my condolences and those of all Scottish Conservatives to the family of Lira Mackay. Her death at the hands of the IRA is a tragedy and a waste of a talented young life. We all stand united to condemn the cowards who took her life and to ensure that peace in Northern Ireland prevails. Following the shocks of Pittsburgh and Christchurch, we yet again joined our voices with all those appalled at the horrendous attack in Sri Lanka and our sympathies with all those horribly affected. That was an outrageous attack on us all. Perhaps the First Minister could confirm later whether we know of any Scottish citizens caught up in those events. Turning then to the substance of today's statement, whatever the First Minister claims, and for all the warm words about being inclusive, her statement is inherently divisive. Astonishingly, the way that the First Minister thinks we come together is for the people of Scotland to be plunged into another divisive referendum within the next 18 months. First Minister, this is just absurd. It is a ridiculous, even disgraceful skewring of your priorities with the real priorities of the country. Frankly, my first reaction when told of its delivery today, as Scotland was enjoying the Easter celebration, was to ask why on earth the First Minister felt it necessary to float a dark cloud over Scotland's sunny spring by updating us on our plan for a second independence referendum. Then, of course, I remembered that there is another SNP conference coming this weekend. The only thought of the SNP, amplified today, is how to justify their plans to divide families, workplaces and communities all over again and for the foreseeable future, while not in the name of the majority of Scotland. Whether you voted to remain or leave in 2016, the last few weeks have fallen far short of what we all wanted to see. In a Westminster of minorities, competing interests have prevailed. There is, of course, a way to sort this. It is to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and support an orderly Brexit. I want that to happen. I urge everyone at Westminster to now work on a spirit of compromise and co-operation to achieve that. That way, the country can move on. But yet again today, we see a First Minister who once again focuses instead on our own priorities, rummaging around to create a shopping list of continued constitutional initiatives, however weak and divisive. There is a big difference between now and 10 years ago. The request for a section 30 order then, which led to our once-on-a-lifetime independence referendum in 2014, was supported in this place with the votes of all the political parties here represented. We all agreed then that the question deserved to be answered. That was the process then, but no such coalition exists for more constitutional politics today. For the majority of Scotland, the last decade of constitutional politics and division has been more than enough. For the majority of the parties here, we believe that by using the existing powers of this Parliament and the potential of our people, we can succeed. We believe in disavowing more constitutional division and focusing all our energy on things that all of us agree are important, delivering better education, health and existing economic growth for Scotland now. I am afraid that the depressing reality is this. For the SNP independence and the means to try and deliver it is its central purpose. For them it is a prerequisite, the essential step to Scotland being all it can be. It simply does not believe that we can succeed as we are. Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed that again today, when her own words she boldly states that the devolution settlement is utterly inadequate. No, First Minister, it is not, but it makes the choice clear. Scotland has had enough of constitutional politics and division, with the SNP more of it is now utterly and clearly inevitable. We say no more, enough is enough. I fear that that was a lot of sound and fury signifying not very much at all. Jackson Carlaw referred to a dark cloud. Can I point out to Jackson Carlaw that there is right now a dark cloud over Scotland? It is not in the name of the majority of the Scottish people and devolution is incapable of protecting Scotland from it, and that dark cloud is called Brexit. I can understand why the Tories want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that this Brexit mess is not happening, because it shines a very harsh light on the ideology and the incompetence of the Conservative Party. It is not fair or good enough to expect Scotland to pretend that Brexit is not happening. It is not good enough for Jackson Carlaw to effectively say to Scotland, whooshed about it all, don't say anything, because we have a duty, Presiding Officer. Given the damage that all of us know, even the Tories in their hearts know, Brexit is going to do to this country, we have a duty to those of us living in Scotland now and for generations to come to protect Scotland from that and to find a way of building a future that is better, more prosperous and keeps us at the heart of Europe. That is what my statement today is focused on doing. Jackson Carlaw seems to say that there is nothing wrong with the status quo, although it has not protected and cannot protect Scotland from Brexit. Murdo Fraser seems to take a different view. It is only a couple of days ago that Murdo Fraser was saying that the current system had to change and putting forward proposals. Proposals, as it happens, that I do not agree with, but credit to him, proposals for change. I will end this answer again on a note of attempted consensus. The Scottish Conservatives, and I respect that, take the view that independence is not the right way of fixing what is broken about our current system. If that is not their view then, bring forward the proposals for change that you think would be right. That is the open offer that we make to the Conservatives today. Over the days, weeks and months that lie ahead, we are going to find out whether the Conservatives really have any interest in protecting Scotland or whether all the Scottish Conservatives will ever do when their Westminster bosses tell them to jump is to ask how high. Richard Leonard I begin by adding the support of the Scottish Labour Party to the First Minister's comments on Lyra MacKee and on the Sri Lankan terror attack. Timing is everything in politics, and the timing of this statement is nothing to do with where we are in the chaos of Brexit. It has nothing to do with where the polls are on the creation of a separate Scottish state. In other words, it has nothing to do with where Abraham Lincoln's public sentiment is on the falling demand for a rerun of the 2014 referendum. However, the timing of this statement has everything to do with the First Minister's party conference taking place in just three days' time. The First Minister is using this parliamentary platform for a party platform, and in that she is devaluing the office that she holds. Responsible political leadership means that I will work with the First Minister on stopping a no-deal Brexit. It means, in the event of Brexit, of acting to ensure that powers are repatriated to the right level of government, and I will continue to argue for more powers for this Parliament. However, responsible leadership also means that, getting out of Parliament and listening to and so better understanding the daily lived experiences of people across Scotland, the First Minister should know that this debate is a distraction from the real and serious problems that Scotland faces, a low pay economy, exhausted public services, one in four children living in poverty. What is worse is that the First Minister knows fine well that there is no evidence whatsoever that the people of Scotland want another independence referendum, and no wonder when the chaos of Brexit throws into sharp relief the challenges of leaving a political and economic union. Despite her protestations, is not the First Minister today plainly putting the interests of her party before the interests of this country? I am prepared to bet that, given that the European Council agreed an extension to the UK's membership at the week after this Parliament went into recess, that if I had not offered to make a statement about the implications of Brexit, the Opposition would have been demanding that I did. Equally, had I chosen to go to my party conference and say what I have just said here today to them, the Opposition would have been queuing up to accuse me of disrespecting Parliament. That is the reality. On the substantive issues, I understand, as I said a moment ago, why the Conservatives want to pretend that this Brexit mess is not happening. I do not understand why that is the case for Labour, nor do, as an aside, nor will I ever understand why Labour seems to support independence for countries all over the world but oppose it so strongly for their own country here in Scotland. When I agree with Richard Leonard on two things, first I absolutely agree about testing public opinion. The last test of public opinion in Scotland, of course, was a by-election in this city just a week or so ago. SMP won it with an increased vote, Labour's vote went down, independent supporting parties won a majority of the vote, so there are plenty of tests of public opinion that I am happy to trade with Richard Leonard. On the substantive issue about powers for this Parliament, that comes back to the heart of my premise today. Nobody with the interests of Scotland at heart, and I believe that that is everybody in this chamber, has the interests of Scotland at heart. Nobody can look at the situation and conclude that it is working for Scotland. We face being taken out of the European Union against our will with all of the consequences that flow from that, so surely we must come together and decide what to do in response to that. My view, as everybody knows, is that we should become a normal independent country, like the other independent countries of the European Union, and come together to work with them on the basis of equality. However, if Richard Leonard believes that that is not the best future, then come forward, not just with a vague call for more powers, but sit down and talk to us about specifically the powers that we think this Parliament should have. That offer is open to Richard Leonard just as it is open to Jackson Carlaw and the other parties in this chamber. The question for the other parties who oppose independence as they have every right to do is whether they are going to rise to the challenge of bringing forward real proposals about how we put things right and ensure that this country in future cannot have decisions that damage our interests imposed on us by Westminster. That is the question, and we will see over the coming weeks whether the other parties in this chamber can rise to that challenge. With fellow members, the Scottish Greens pay our respects to Leera McKee, our thoughts are with her family and friends and to all affected by the shocking bombings in Sri Lanka. Greens believe that Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands as an independent nation at the heart of Europe. The Brexit shambles confirms our belief that we would be far better governing ourselves, so we welcome the First Minister's statement today. Support for independence grew over the course of the last referendum, in part due to the breadth of inspiring visions of what our nation could be. The economic vision that is currently being considered by the SNP looks more like the failed model of the UK than the bold vision for independence that the Greens believe in. Will the citizens assembly, which we welcome, inform the prospect that is put forward by the Government in the referendum, and will the offer put to the people of Scotland be one-shaped by the people? Can I welcome the green support for the statement today? Can I welcome the green support for Scotland becoming an independent country? What has just been demonstrated, there is the essence of independence. People can have different views on policies, different views on the direction of the country, but the key point that unites us is that those decisions should lie in the hands of the Scottish people and not be imposed upon us by Westminster. That is the reality that independent countries all over the world take for granted. In relation to the citizens assembly, we will discuss the remit, as I said in my statement, and the operation of that with other parties, if other parties are willing to have that discussion. That is very much about opening this process to people who are not politicians, to those across Scotland, a representative section of the Scottish population, to start to look at and consider those big questions about the future of our country. I hope that the Greens will take part in that in the spirit in which it is intended, and then we can try. Those are things that are not easy and there is no inevitability about it, but all of us can try notwithstanding the differences of opinion that we have that are valid in any democracy to come together and see if we can find areas of agreement and consensus. I think that, particularly now, given all that has happened in the past three years, there is a real responsibility in politicians not to put aside those things that we believe in passionately, but nevertheless notwithstanding those passionate disagreements to come together to find that consensus. I am willing to do that, I trust that the Greens will be willing to do that, and I hope that the other parties, once they have had some opportunity to think about it and reflect on it, will be willing to do that as well. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Keith Brown. My thoughts are with the friends and family of Lerar Mackey and those affected by the atrocities of recent days across the world. The First Minister pleads for consensus, but how can we take her proposals on consensus for more powers seriously? When John Swinney, sitting right next to her, a member of the Smith commission trashed that commission within minutes of the report being published, how can we take her pleas for consensus seriously when they treat a well-established process like that? In our statement today, the First Minister has not done the one decent thing that people in Scotland want her to do, which is to make it stop and take her campaign for independence off the table. With all the division and chaos with Brexit, with all the wounds still open from the last independence campaign, with all the problems with schools, hospitals and social care, the last thing that this country needs is to repeat the mistakes of Brexit. The last thing that this country needs is more division and chaos that would surely come with another independence campaign. Will the First Minister listen? Will she listen to Scotland? Will she just make it stop? In terms of the first part of Willie Rennie's question, it is just such an utter mischaracterisation of what John Swinney said and did that. I am not going to engage particularly seriously with that, but there is a real contradiction—some would say hypocrisy, but I am going to stick with contradiction at the heart of Willie Rennie's position. I know that he opposes independence. That is absolutely fine. The issue is not about his view or my view, but about who decides. Willie Rennie thinks that the people of the UK should have the chance to change their minds on Brexit. I agree with that, but Willie Rennie is adamantly opposed, no matter everything that has changed in the past few years, adamantly opposed to the people of Scotland getting the chance to change their minds on independence. Willie Rennie says that it is because he opposes independence and opposes Brexit, but that is like a Brexiteer saying, I do not want people to have a second referendum on Brexit because they might take a decision that I disagree with. Willie Rennie, the Brexiteer, strikes in this chamber. It is not about the views of politicians, it is about the views of the people. I have to say to Willie Rennie that, until he can somehow reconcile that contradiction at the heart of his argument, I am not sure that many people across Scotland are going to take his views on this particularly seriously. I will repeat the offer that I have made to other parties to Willie Rennie. You do not think that independence is the right way forward, but Willie Rennie, surely even more so than Jackson Carlaw, cannot defend a situation in which Scotland faces being ripped out of the European Union against our will. Mike Rumbles is shouting federalism, we are fine. Come forward, sit down with us and let's discuss. Federalism has been getting talked about in the UK for 100 years and more. We have not yet found the UK Government that is going to deliver it. That is the difference between federalism and independence. Federalism depends on a UK Government delivering it, independence depends on the people of Scotland taking that decision for themselves. All the party leaders have had a chance to make their contributions, so if we can make speedier progress through the remaining 26, 25 or so members who wish to ask a question, Keith Brown, to be followed by Adam Tomkins. In the context of the statement by a former Tory MP that if a union of free members sought to punish one of its members for wanting to leave it, it would lose its claim to moral legitimacy, and the statement of a Tory minister that once you have hit the iceberg, the iceberg being brexit, you are all in it together. Does the First Minister agree with me that Scotland has bigger things to deal with and that the parties in this Parliament need to rise above the vicious and vacuous party in fighting that we see at Westminster and the unfolding disaster of the UK's handings of Brexit, and not least among those things to deal with is the stability and prosperity of Scotland and its future as an independent nation within the EU? I have to say that the comment from an unnamed Tory that we should all hit the iceberg together does say a lot about the mindsets of the Conservatives about Scotland. I do not think that anybody in the UK should want to hit an iceberg, and I think that Scotland should do everything that we can to prevent any part of the UK from hitting an iceberg. However, if the only option is to hit an iceberg, then what we in Scotland should be considering is how we get off the boat not sailing to the iceberg. There is, I believe, surely a view that should extend across all parties here that we can do better than this right now. We may have different views on how to do so, but we should not be accepting a situation where Scotland's fate is decided by Westminster against the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland. I simply say to those on the Tory benches, but to Labour and the Liberal Democrats as well, if you believe that the Scottish people do not want independence, why are you so scared to ask them the question? That really is the question. Let the Scottish people decide—if that is the case, I am confident—that what the Scottish people will decide is to become a normal, equal, independent country that is able to play our full part in the EU and stop the damage to the future generations that Brexit will undoubtedly do. Adam Tomkins, before by Neil Findlay. We will not squander valuable time, the First Minister said. She also said that her government will shortly introduce a framework bill into this Parliament, paving the way for an unwanted second independence referendum and that her government will do this without first seeking a section 30 order. A section 30 order, as she says, would be necessary to put beyond doubt the legality of any future independence referendum, yet she proposes now to act without one. My question to her is this. How is plunging Scotland into yet more constitutional wrangling about legislative competence and constitutional process, a sensible use of parliamentary time? We lost weeks over the failed continuity bill, and now we face losing months over an indie ref to framework bill. How is this doing anything other than squandering valuable time? Adam Tomkins argued that the continuity bill was not within the legislative competence of this Parliament when it was introduced. The Supreme Court, of course, took a very different view to that. It was only because Westminster subsequently changed the law that parts of that were then found to be incompetent. I am not sure for all his undoubted expertise on those matters that we should be listening too closely to Adam Tomkins on legislative competence. I have no doubt that the bill that we will propose will be within legislative competence. If there is to be an independence referendum, we require to legislate for that, as we did in 2014. In 2014, we got a section 30, then we legislated. This time, I am proposing that we do it the other way around. Why are we doing that so that we protect the ability of Scotland to avoid Brexit? If we cannot do that through our efforts to stop the whole of the UK leaving the EU, Scotland must have the opportunity to protect itself from the damage that Brexit will do—damage to our economy, to our public services, to the opportunities and horizons of this and future generations. I do not call that squandering time, Mr Tomkins. I call that standing up for vital Scottish interests. Neil Findlayden, followed by Jenny Gilruth. Not a single patient will be treated better or quicker as a result of this statement. Not a single family will be lifted out of poverty. Not a single child will receive a better education. The issue that is supposed to be the First Minister's top priority is that we have the powers over all those areas currently. When will we hear a half-hour statement and see rushed legislation from Nicola Sturgeon on those issues? What has been sidelined from the planned legislative programme to deal with Nicola Sturgeon's real priority, independence? I will be here again for 45 minutes tomorrow at 12 noon answering questions on health education just as the economy, anything that the Opposition wants to ask me about. I disagree with Neil Findlayden on his central premise about the impact of the decisions that we take now on patients who rely on our NHS, on children who rely on our schools. If we allow the damage of Brexit to happen to this country, what we are facing is a smaller economy, reduced revenues, a shrinking population and narrowed horizons for this and the next generation. That will hamper the ability not just of this Scottish Government but of Scottish Governments to come to protect our health service, to protect our economy and to protect our public services. That is why we must act. It is not this Government that needs to be reminded about the day job. We do that day in and day out. Substantial policy work more than a dozen substantial pieces of legislation before this Parliament. By contrast, the Westminster Government is not one single piece of non-Brexit legislation, a Queen's Speech that is indefinitely postponed. The only policy ideas in recent times, the one about no-fault evictions in housing, this Government has already implemented. We get on with the day job every single day and we will continue to do so. Jenny Gilruth, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. As the First Minister has already mentioned, so broken is the Westminster system that even Murdo Fraser this week admitted that big parts of it should now be abolished. Given that most of this chamber will be in agreement that the current system is not working for Scotland, does it not demonstrate how important it is for all parties to come forward with ideas as to how to fix it? Yes, I do. There will be a lot of sound and fury in this chamber tomorrow and no doubt on many occasions about those issues. That is as it should be in a democracy, but I repeat the point that I made in my statement. We all also have a duty to try to come together to get over those disagreements and to see if there is common ground. It will be very telling in the next days and weeks if any of the other parties are prepared to do that, because that offer is there, it is open, it is sincere. Bring forward your proposals if you think that my prospect is for Scotland is wrong. Bring forward your proposals and let us see how much common ground can emerge from that. However, if all you have to offer people in Scotland is a broken status quo, where Scotland can be ripped out of the EU against our will, with all the damage that it does, then you should expect the process of change to completely pass you by because support for independence will continue to grow. Murdo Fraser has been followed by Annabelle Ewing. The First Minister mentioned in her statement the 62 per cent of Scots who voted for the UK to remain in the EU, a figure that she describes as an overwhelming majority. Yet the latest poll on support for independence, commissioned by her party colleague Angus Robertson, shows an even more overwhelming majority of Scots support the union and reject independence. Given that the First Minister is previously on record as saying, she would not pursue another referendum unless there was demonstrable public support for independence. Why is she now proposing to take us down the route of further division? Party manifesto in 2016, the manifesto in which I was elected as First Minister, said that if Scotland was taken out of the European Union against our will, the people of Scotland should have the option to choose independence. We are not yet out of the European Union, and I hope that we do not get taken out of the European Union, but if we do, the mandate in that manifesto, in my view, should be honoured and people in Scotland should have the right to choose. If Murdo Fraser is so sure that Scotland would choose not to be independent, then again it begs the question that I asked earlier on why the Tory is so reluctant to allow people in Scotland to have that choice. On the wider issues, I have mentioned Murdo Fraser a couple of times today and I am going to praise him again, which will be utter death to his career prospects if it had not already probably pretty much died some time ago. Credit to Murdo Fraser, because Murdo Fraser accepts that things as they are are not acceptable, they are not good enough. As it happens, I do not think that his answer to put more powers in some new chamber in Westminster is the answer. I think that the answer is to bring powers to this chamber here in Scotland, but that is fine. We have different views, but given that Murdo Fraser does accept that constitutional change is needed, I hope that he will persuade his party to take part in the process that I have set out today and to come forward with their own proposal. Murdo Fraser has already put forward and others. In that way, perhaps we can build some consensus. How does this Parliament get equipped with powers that allow us to grow our economy, that allow us to better protect our public services and, crucially, to grow our population? The Tory approach to migration at Westminster is the biggest threat to this country's prosperity that we face. Murdo Fraser, for once, will prevail in his party and get some common sense into it over the next period. Annabelle Ewing will be followed by Rhoda Grant. In 2014, Ruth Davidson said that it is disingenuous to say no means out and yes means in when, actually, the opposite is true. No means we stay in. We are members of the European Union, First Minister. That has been shown to be completely untrue. Is it not simply the case that we cannot stand by and watch the dysfunctional Westminster system ruin Scotland's future? The reality that those in the no campaign in 2014 do not like pointed out to them is that they told Scotland that the way to protect our membership of the European Union was to vote against independence. Here we are finding that, because we are not independent, we face being taken out of the European Union and our future is being determined by a dozen countries the same size or smaller than us with the UK out of the room. That is the reality that we face. Adam Tomkins is not listening right now, but it was him in 2014 who said that there was very, very little chance of the UK voting to leave the European Union. That is the material change in circumstances that has happened since 2014. That is why people in Scotland should have the ability to choose. Do they want to be part of Brexit, Britain, with all the damage that comes with that, or do we prefer to have a future as an independent country, as part of the European family, building those relationships on the basis of equality and building our prosperity on that basis as well? I think that the people of Scotland, when given the choice, will choose the latter to become a normal independent country. Rhoda Grant is followed by Bruce Crawford. The First Minister cannot ask for genuine dialogue when she is already setting her direction of travel. That is a my way or the highway statement. She cannot expect people to engage in honest dialogue within a citizens assembly when she has already stated that she will hold an independence referendum before the end of the Parliament. She is ignoring the settled will of the Scottish people and creating further chaos and uncertainty. Will she remove that threat in order to allow all parties to engage openly and honestly in what is best for our country? I am going to respond to Rhoda Grant in a very genuine way, because if she would listen to my statement, and I will say it again today, we need to, if we are to protect the ability, the option for Scotland to choose within this term of Parliament, we have to put the plans for that in place. That is why I have set out the plans for legislation today. However, I have always, in an open way, invited other parties to come forward with their proposals. I will be open-minded to that. If we can agree change that can be made more quickly and in a different way, I am open-minded to that. That is an offer that is made in a genuine way and it is for other parties to decide whether they wish to engage with that. I hope that the Labour Party will engage. I am less confident about the Tories. I hope that the Labour Party will engage. I am pretty confident that the Greens will engage, and I hope that the Liberals will engage in that as well. In a democracy, we should not expect any of us to put to one side or to abandon the principles that we hold dear. However, as politicians, the public should expect us notwithstanding those deeply held convictions and differences between us to try to come together and see where the common ground is. I am willing to do that, but we will only make progress on that if the other parties are willing as well. Time, I have to say, will tell. Bruce Crawford will be followed by Maurice Coulton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The very welcome announcement from the First Minister would confirm that the significant point on all of this is that, while we await any remote sense of clarity over Brexit from a Tory UK Government at Westminster, in contrast, here at Holyrood, we can begin the preparations now for a referendum in Scotland's future in order to keep our options open. Should that be just what any sensible and reasonable Government of any persuasion would do in such circumstances? It is incumbent on any Government to act in a way that best protects the interests of the country that they serve, and that is what my Government will continue to seek to do. Brexit situation is not of our choosing, it is not of the Government's choosing, this Parliament's choosing or the country's choosing, but we have to respond in a way that protects our interests as best we can. What I have set out today keeps the option of this country having the right to choose a different future to the Brexit one within the life of this Parliament in line with the mandate that we have, but it also opens the space for others to come forward with different suggestions. I hope that all of us in this Parliament will move forward on that basis. Maurice Golden is followed by Sandra White. Presiding Officer, the First Minister wants to establish a citizens assembly to help to find consensus. Does the First Minister really think that this is possible when her nationalist agenda is driven by grievance and division? I have to say that there was a sense of grievance and division dripping from every consonant that came out of Maurice Golden's mouth. We will find out over the next period whether there is any willingness on all the parties in this chamber to come forward and try to find some agreement. I am willing to do that, and as I have said many times before, the offer is there to other parties. The citizens assembly is something that all parties should be enthusiastic about and should be prepared to discuss the details of that, because it is involving people across Scotland in helping us to shape the decisions that we take on behalf of the country. I hope that the Conservatives, when they have had the time for some calm reflection and got over having to talk again about Brexit, which I know they hate so much for obvious reasons, we will find the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats coming to the table to see whether we can find common ground amidst the disagreements that we have. Unlike some others, I very much welcome the proposal of a citizens assembly, and I echo the comments that came from Ireland where it said that it got balanced and truthful information out among the people of Ireland. Can I ask the First Minister to give us assurances that this will be the case in the assembly and ensure that lessons will be learned in how not to conduct ourselves as so disastrously demonstrated by Brexiteers in this collapsing Westminster system? First Minister. Yes, I would give those assurances. We will seek to discuss with others and with Parliament as a whole the remit in the operation of the citizens assembly. I will not surprise the chamber to hear that I think that the experience of the 2014 referendum was very different to the 2016 referendum. We had a prospectus that people agreed with or disagreed with, but a wealth of detail that people had to inform themselves before the decision in 2014 was taken was completely absent from the Brexit referendum. However, I think that we can go even further and use a citizens assembly among other things to really understand the detail and the information that people want to have to make truly informed choices about the future of the country and to lay a foundation so that whatever decisions we ultimately take as a country, people feel a sense of engagement and buy-in so that we can then move forward in a unified manner. It is about trying to do things in a markedly different way to the whole Brexit process, which has caused so much division and angst. I think that we can rise to that challenge in Scotland and I hope that all parties will help us to ensure that we do. James Kelly to be filled by Rona Mackay. Thank you. People in Scotland do not want a second independence referendum, so why is the First Minister making the pursuit of independence her number one priority, when there are record numbers of children in poverty in the country, when people are working in two and three jobs because of low pay and patients are stranded on NHS waiting lists waiting for treatment? James Kelly asserts that people in Scotland do not want the choice of independence instead of Brexit. I do not think that he has the evidence for that claim, but he also asked me why I think that that is important. He says that when children are living in poverty, there are increasing numbers of children living in poverty because of the welfare cuts being imposed by a Tory Government that Scotland did not vote for. That is one reason for independence. He talks about people on low pay. Of course, employment law remains reserved to a Government in Westminster that the people of Scotland did not vote for. Bringing powers back to this Parliament is partly how we resolve and address the challenges that James Kelly has outlined. I hope that, although James Kelly and his colleagues do not support independence, I hope that in the spirit of the question that he has just asked me, we will see Labour come forward with proposals. They have already said and I have welcomed that already today that they now favour the devolution of employment law. They have favoured that during the Smith commission. We might already be some way forward on that, but let us hear more proposals from Labour. We might find that there is more agreement between the SNP and Labour than any of us would like to admit. For the Labour Party, siding with the SNP in a few things would make a welcome change for its supporters from seeing them side with the Tories on most things. Rona Mackayde, by Donald Cameron. Even Mary Tories are alarmed about the prospect of an extreme brexiture such as Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister. Is this not another example of why it is essential that this Parliament keeps Scotland's options open in the face of a clearly broken Westminster system that could inflict even more damage? When I set out the implications and consequences of Brexit for Scotland, I did not factor in the prospect of somebody like Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister. If that happens and there is apparently now a distinct possibility of that happening, then the consequences that I outlined today would get even worse for Scotland. Yes, I do think that that makes the case for Scotland being independent, taking charge of our own decisions, being in control of our own future, all the stronger. Interestingly, I have read voices from within the Scottish Conservative Party saying that, in the event of Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister, the Scottish Conservative Party should become independent from the UK Conservative Party. So it seems that independence is good enough for the Scottish Conservative Party. Why on earth would they want to deny the people of Scotland the same opportunity? Donald Cameron, to be followed by Ross Greer. Given that the Brexit vote will lead to more powers being transferred to this Parliament, and in light of the fact that the Scottish Government is not currently using all the powers that it already has—for example, handing back welfare powers to the DWP—how can the First Minister seriously contend that the status quo is broken and one answer is further devolution? Powers have been taken away from this Parliament as a result of the Brexit process. And frankly, it really, it will behoves the Tories to deny that that is the case. This Parliament, with the exception of the Tories, was unanimous in opposing that Brexit power grab. So I take the view that we should have more powers in this Parliament so that we can take our own decisions in this Parliament, and that is better than having those powers in the hands of Conservatives that Scotland, by and large, does not vote for. So I hope that we will hear proposals to that effect from the Scottish Conservatives. Ross Greer, to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. The Westminster Government, in its desperation to stay in power, has proven itself profoundly unworthy of trust in negotiations. Considering the recent direct attacks on devolution and the deep inadequacies of the joint ministerial council structure, what safeguards and conditions has the Scottish Government considered to ensure that talks with the UK Government are conducted reasonably at respectfully and without the risk of their undermining Scotland's interests? First Minister. Right now, there are no assurances of that, I am sorry to say. You can have talks with the UK Government and if the Welsh First Minister was standing here, I do not want to speak for him, but I am pretty sure that he and his predecessor would say the same thing. We can talk to her blue in the face, but they do not listen and they do not act in a way that protects or advances Scotland's interests. That is one example of the democratic deficit that I spoke about, not just the views of the Scottish people on Brexit but the views of this Parliament on Brexit, the views not just of the Government but of a cross-party consensus in this Parliament about the best way forward have been completely cast aside. In my view, that has underlined and illustrated strongly the need for this Parliament to have more powers, to have more control over the decisions that shape our future and, ultimately, of course, to be an independent country. Kenneth Gibson, to be followed by Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister confirmed that, if Scotland is taken out of the EU by a failed Westminster system, we will progress to an independence referendum before the end of this Parliament in 2021. Can the First Minister say how she will take forward the mandate given to this Government in 2016 to ensure that Scotland can vote to secure its re-emergence as an independent sovereign state? First Minister. I have set those steps out in my statement today. We will introduce legislation to protect the right for Scotland to have that choice within this Parliament. At an appropriate time, we will seek the transfer of power from Westminster that allows us to apply that to a choice on independence. Whatever our views on independence are, the fundamental point is this. If Scotland is faced, as we are, with Brexit against our will, then Scotland should have the choice as to whether it wants that or whether it wants to choose an alternative. An alternative being is a sovereign independent country that is able to play our full part in the European Union. That is the fundamental issue here. It should not be for any of us in this Parliament to determine that issue. It should be for the people of Scotland. Miles Briggs, to be followed by Ian Gray. The First Minister has said that she is open-minded and looking to build consensus in agreement. If she is genuine in her sentiments, will she be open to drop this bid for a second independence referendum during this Parliament? I have said that I am open-minded to people coming forward with proposals for change if we can have serious and substantial proposals that deliver, perhaps not all of the change that I want to see but the change that will help to protect this Parliament, then I am open-minded to that. I say that without precondition. The onus is really on the Conservatives. Will they come forward in good faith and have that discussion? If they do, they will find me willing to have that in good faith. It is less than five years since I spent weeks on the Smith commission exactly engaging in good faith with all parties here finding agreement on constitutional and procedural change. That agreement included significant tax and welfare powers, yet the First Minister has handed some of those powers back and refused to use others to tackle poverty and inequality. If the First Minister can organise another independence referendum by 2021, why will it take until 2022 to pay low-income families the income supplement that she promised them? Shouldn't the First Minister rise to the challenge of using the powers that we all agreed in 2014 before we trust her to sit down and discuss what new powers we might need and want now? The First Minister will bring forward our proposals on the low-income supplement in June. That is what we said we would do. It does not do Iain Gray's case any good, I think, for him to stand up here and say things that we have handed powers back when that is not true. There are carers across Scotland right now who have extra money in their pockets because of our use of welfare powers. There are low-income families getting the best start grant when they have a child because of our use of the welfare powers. The process of completing that will benefit low-income individuals and families the length and breadth of this country. On the issue of the Smith commission, Labour has changed its mind since the Smith commission. Labour opposed the devolution of employment law firmly in the Smith commission process, and now—I welcome this—Labor has changed its mind. We are in changed circumstances. One of the biggest risks facing this country now is Westminster policy on immigration, which threatens to put somebody saying Tory policy. Jeremy Corbyn seems to agree with Theresa May on ending free movement. That will send our population into decline. We are in different circumstances. That is why we have to look afresh at the powers that our Parliament has. I believe that Labour, when it says that it has ideas on that, let us bring them forward and see what consensus we are able to build. Angela Constance, to be followed by Liz Smith. As the First Minister will be aware, the desire for independence is not born out of Brexit alone, but an anger at decisions taken at Westminster by a Government that we did not elect, decisions that are increasing poverty, increasing food back use and increasing inequality in Scotland. Will the First Minister agree that it is those issues, along with Brexit, that underlie the need for Scotland to have all the powers to end poverty and Scotland to be independent? Yes, I agree very strongly with that. Brexit has illustrated many of those points very sharply. It has illustrated that democratic deficit that Scotland can vote overwhelmingly to stay in the EU and yet still faces being removed with all the consequences that flow from that. The essence of independence is not just about Brexit, it is about putting decisions about the future of our country into the hands of people who live here in Scotland. That is what happens in countries all over the world. That is what should happen in Scotland, too, so that we can work with other countries in the British Isles on the basis of equality, but we do not have to have decisions that damage children and interests of this country imposed on us by Westminster. That is why I want to see Scotland becoming an independent country. Liz Smith says very clearly in her statement that the politics of Brexit have been highly divisive. Does the First Minister accept that one reason for that division is the fact that the public feels that the result of its vote has not been implemented and that, by trying to run a second independence referendum, the First Minister would be falling into exactly the same trap about trying to overrule what was a very decisive vote in 2014? I am slightly confused at Liz Smith's question when she says that, because we have not yet left the EU, the decision of the country has not been implemented. The decision of Scotland, the country that all of us are here to represent in this Parliament, was to remain in the EU. So far it is being implemented and I hope that it continues to be so. It is a legitimate point that I have heard the Conservatives make many times, including Liz Smith, that, although the majority in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, more than 30 per cent voted to leave the EU and that we should do more to understand and respect it. I agree with that and I think that that is a responsibility on all of us. What I never hear the Tories saying is that there is a need to understand and respect the 45 per cent who voted for Scottish independence, the growing numbers of people in light of Brexit who want Scotland to be independent. Things have changed and they have not changed for the better for Scotland within the UK. That is why I think that it is right to look again at the powers of this Parliament. I think that it is right to become an independent country, to give people in Scotland that choice and not simply to sit back passively while Brexit, a policy that we did not vote for, does untold damage to the interests of the country now and for many, many decades to come. Mark McDonald, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I welcome the First Minister's proposal for a citizens assembly. I believe that it is a concept that could have a wider applicability in future. What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that the assembly captures the widest possible voice from within Scotland, particularly from minority communities and communities of disadvantage and poverty, whose voices are all too often not heard loudly enough in the debates that we have in this chamber and in the country as a whole? First Minister, it is an important point to raise. The model of a citizens assembly by its very nature works if it is as representative of the country as possible. It is important to stress this point, not simply representative of different sides of a constitutional argument but representative of the diversity of the country, the glorious diversity of the country. That will be an important part in constituting the citizens assembly. I do not want to say any more about the detail of that, because I think that it is important that we take time to discuss with other parties, stakeholders, how that is best taken forward, but I will give an assurance that that diversity will be very much at the heart of what we seek to do. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Liam Kerr. I am saying also that, ever since it was announced that the First Minister is going to be making this important statement, both the Tory Labour benches have been squawking about getting on with the day job, but, for the avoidance of doubt, could the First Minister set out what actions the Scottish Government is doing and getting on with delivering for the people of Scotland? First Minister, we do the day job every single day. Just in this month alone, we have extended free personal care to the under 65s. We have introduced the new groundbreaking world-leading domestic abuse act. We have signed contracts for the Lawrence County Junction, the Mable Bypass. We have invested millions of pounds and schemes to tackle fuel poverty and low-carbon initiatives. Just in recent days, we have invested money to make sure that children do not go hungry during the school holidays. Just this week, we have extended free tuition to European students living here in Scotland. The list goes on and on and on. That is the responsibility that we have and will continue to discharge on a day-to-day basis, but this debate is about the day job. When you listen to the Tories and Labour and the Liberals, it is almost as if we should somehow be oblivious to the Brexit jerk or not that is coming towards us. If we sit passively and allow that to hit us, the implications for our economy, for our population and for our revenues as a country will affect all that and the ability of this and future Scottish Governments to do that day job effectively. That is why it is so important that we do not let that happen and allow people in Scotland to have the choice of a better, more prosperous future. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Clare Baker. On that day job, a few weeks ago, we learned that Scotland's police officers are chasing criminals in cars held together with duct tape. I asked the First Minister why endless constitutional wrangling and using resources to draft legislation, which might not even be competent and hinges on an event that might not even occur, more important to the First Minister than resourcing police constables on the front line. The Government is increasing the police budget. We have agreed a pay award for our police officers that, according to the Scottish Police Federation, is the best pay award in 20 years in Scotland. The commissioner of the Met in London described the UK Government's pay award to the police officers as a punch on the nose. There is a bit of contrast. It is not this Government that needs to be reminded of the day job. At Westminster right now—this is a point that Tories should reflect on—there is not a single piece of non-Brexit legislation before the House of Commons right now. There is no policy agenda on any issue except Brexit, and they are making a complete and utter hash of Brexit. The Queen's speech apparently is not going to happen because they do not think that they can get it through. By contrast, the policy reform programme that we have under way, the dozen or more pieces of substantial legislation before this Parliament right now—we will get on with delivering on health, on education, on the economy, on justice, but we will also do everything we can to protect the interests of Scotland from the actions of an incompetent Tory Westminster Government. Presiding Officer, there is a contradiction in the First Minister's statement. She talks about so much division over Brexit. Does she recognise it for many that this was the experience and legacy of the 2014 referendum? When there is little appetite in the country for another referendum within the term of this Parliament, is she really prepared to cause greater division in our public discourse by pursuing this bill? I said to Claire Baker that that was not my experience of the 2014 referendum, but I accept that other people felt differently about that. Somebody is saying that it is because others were on the receiving end that anybody would only have to go into my social media on a daily basis to say that I am on the receiving end of a fair amount of abuse. However, the more important point here is this. We all of us should try to do things better and differently in a way that accentuates the agreement rather than the disagreement. The answer to worrying about division or disagreement cannot simply be to ignore the Brexit juggernaut or to suppress the differences of opinion about the future of the country. The answer has to be for all of us to rise to the challenge to see if we can confront the challenges that our country faces in a more unified way. That is why I have made the offer that I have made today. I hope that people like Claire Baker in the Labour Party who I know wants to look at how we do things more consensually, I hope that she will prevail upon her party leadership to ensure that they enter into those discussions in the spirit in which they are offered. Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister may have seen comments from the Prime Minister's office today that crumbling waste minister has bigger things to deal with than Scotland. Would the First Minister join me in reaffirming that the interests of Scotland are and always will be the top of this party's agenda? I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister and the UK Government, because there is no denying that the utter mess that they have made of Brexit is a pretty big thing for them to be having to deal with right now. They are certainly not dealing with anything else in the UK on health, education, justice, the economy or anything. It is a big thing for them to deal with. If I was in the Scottish Tories, I would be despairing at that comment this morning because it drips with contempt for Scotland. For the idea that Scotland might not be entirely happy with the direction that we are taking in by this Brexit-obsessed UK Tory Government, I think that that is a big problem for the Tories. What it says backs up the experience that we have had for the past three years. The Tories just want Scotland to whist and to keep quiet and to go along with whatever they want. I do not think that that is right for Scotland. That is the difference between those of us in those benches and the Conservatives. We think that Scotland should stand up for its own interests and that Scotland should have the right to choose its own future. The First Minister said that, if the status quo with Westminster is not fit for purpose, how do we fix it? She asked the question, does the First Minister not understand that the Liberal Democrats and others in this chamber support a renewed federal democracy for our United Kingdom? Her insistence on legislating with the aim of breaking up and dividing our United Kingdom totally undermines her siren calls for reaching agreement with other parties across the chamber. I respect the long-standing view of the Liberals of federalism. I often wonder why, in the years recently, when the Liberals were in government at Westminster, they did not lift a finger to deliver the federal Britain that they claimed to have backed. I am absolutely willing to sit down with any party in this chamber and to talk about those different visions for how we fix what is wrong with our current system. The answer to those who propose federalism, or rather the question for those who propose federalism, is where is the UK Government that is going to deliver it? We cannot unilaterally turn the UK into a federal country. That requires the UK Government to act, and no UK Government in the history of the UK has shown any interest in delivering a federal Britain. The difference with independence is that, within our own control, if the people of Scotland choose to be independent, we do not have to rely on a Westminster Government. That is a decision that we can take for ourselves. I will leave my rumbles to continue to beaver away, trying, at some point, to persuade a UK Government to deliver federalism. If he ever manages it, I will be the first to congratulate him for it. I welcome the ordinary and inclusive path outlined towards a second independence referendum here this afternoon. Given deprived areas still tend to have lower electoral turnouts, will the First Minister consider the opportunities that assistance assembly made to boost democratic participation in some of our most deprived communities? I think that the assistance assembly model is not the case that we have no experience of in Scotland. If we look at the work that we did in advance of establishing the social security agency, we use a model that is not dissimilar to that, but we do not have the same experience that Ireland, for example, does. The model could be very powerful in trying to engage people in all of our communities in the democratic process and how they can influence the democratic process. It is one of the reasons that I look forward to discussing with parties how we take that forward. Graham Simpson Thank you. The First Minister talked about a busy legislative programme, but if she wants this framework bill on the statute books this year, as she said she does, there will bound to be an effect on that programme. Can she tell us which bills or proposed bills are likely to be delayed? The First Minister I do not expect that to have an effect on any of the other bills before the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that all MSPs across the Parliament are capable of working hard enough to deliver the legislative programme that is before us just now with an additional bill added in. Thank you very much, and that concludes this afternoon's statement. We are going to move on shortly to portfolio questions. We will just take a second or two for ministers and members to change seats.