 That concludes topical questions. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a statement by the First Minister on Scotland's place in Europe. The First Minister will take questions at the end of the statements, so there should be no interruptions or interventions, as Colin Diggas has said. Siding officer, let me begin today by expressing my condolences and sympathies to all those affected by last night's appalling attack in Berlin. Our thoughts are very much with all those who lost their lives, those who sustained sydd wedi'i gwthio'r brifentau neu ddechrau'r ddechrau'r lyf yn i gyfriedigau, a'r ddechrau'r bobl ond rwy'n ydwi'n ddod. Felly, mae'r niwed i'r gymhau yng Nghymru. Rwasgwyl i dystafell sydd fyddwn i gyflwynt ddiweddol, ysgolenedd, yn eu yw eu rhai. Dyma'r cymdeilio'r cyllidau, yn ymddiannau, i ddim yn agorau amser yn ei bethau, i ddod iddo i gynnwyslernosio celytionol, ond itpau—i rhaid i wneud ofeth y deallus cyfan—o eu meidio. Rydyn ni'n rhoi wrth eu prifsgwyr. Brachysau yn y bydd, ac yn ffraeg yng Nghymru i'w prifsgwyr oedd ymddangosidd gyda'r iawn. Rydyn ni'n rhoi'n eu hwnnw gan ynghymru, ac rydyn ni'n The paper is actually the first and only detailed plan for dealing with the implications of Brexit to be published by any government in any part of the UK. Six months on, the fact that there is still no clarity, no plan, no direction and no leadership from the UK Government on an issue of such profound importance to every individual and every business across our country quite frankly beggars belief. This should be of particular concern to MSPs in this chamber, as there are many here who believe and who argued that the case for leave was sold on a false prospectus. As everyone knows, I believe that Scotland should be an independent country. As an independent country, we should be full members of the EU. Indeed, if we were independent, we would not now be facing the situation of being taken out of the EU against our will. The manifesto on which I was elected as First Minister just eight months ago said expressly in relation to independence that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. That change of circumstances has occurred and there can therefore be no question about the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people considering afresh the question of independence if that is necessary to protect our interests. I have made clear and I do so again today that the option of independence must remain on the table. Without this option, Scotland would simply have to accept the inevitability of whatever decisions the UK Government makes, no matter how damaging they are to Scotland's interests. That is not a position, in my view, that any serious politician or party should ever be content for Scotland to be in. As First Minister, it is my duty to ensure that all options are open to Scotland in these unprecedented times. However, as I have also made clear, independence is not the focus of the paper that we have published today. The paper that we published earlier today is about fulfilling in full the commitment that I made to the Scottish people in June. The day after the referendum I promised to explore not just my preferred option of independence but all options to protect Scotland's place in and relationship with Europe. The paper also delivers on the mandate that was given to this Government by Parliament on 28 June. I quote, I explore options for protecting Scotland's relationship with the EU, Scotland's place in the single market and the social employment and economic benefits that come from that. I said specifically that we would seek to find a solution that would enable Scotland's voice to be heard and our interests protected from within the UK. That paper fulfills that commitment. Indeed, it goes further and sets out ways forward that I believe would also be in the interests of the rest of the UK and indeed in the interests of other European nations. Scotland's place in Europe sets out practical proposals to keep Scotland in the European single market. It also details the additional powers that the Scottish Parliament will need to serve, protect and promote Scotland's economic and social interests in the post-Brexit landscape. Let me be very clear that those proposals fall short of what I consider to be the best option for Scotland and for the UK, full membership of the European Union. In the unlikely event that the UK Government had a change of heart and decides to remain in the EU, it would have my support, but that is clearly not an outcome in my gift. I am therefore seeking to set out a sensible way forward for Scotland that respects the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in. In that regard, those proposals represent a significant compromise on the part of the Scottish Government, not a high bar for the UK Government to pass. The proposals in that paper are a serious and a genuine attempt to build consensus, to square the circle created by the referendum result and to unify the country around a clear plan to protect our interests. I hope and expect that the UK Government, in considering those proposals, will demonstrate the same flexibility and willingness to compromise. I also hope that Opposition parties will consider those proposals seriously. To those who say that they want to protect Scotland's place in Europe but do not get behind those proposals, the question will be, if not this plan, then what? Simply criticising the Scottish Government's proposals without coming up with alternatives will be tantamount to telling Scotland that it simply has to suck up whatever the Tory Brexit Government at Westminster decides, no matter how damaging. I suspect—they may prove me wrong but I doubt it—that that will be the position of the Scottish Conservatives, but it will be a much harder, I would suggest, impossible position for Labour and the Liberals to explain. Let me turn now to the detail of the paper. It sets out in some considerable depth why keeping our place in the single market matters so much. It matters principally to our economy, to jobs, trade, living standards and investment. It is estimated that being outside the single market could cost the Scottish economy 80,000 jobs. Workers could lose £2,000 a year after a decade of a hard Brexit. Being in the single market also ensures protection for workers and consumer rights. It facilitates the flow of skills that our economy depends on and allows all of us to travel, work, study and live across Europe, if we so wish. It will guarantee the rights of EU citizens already living here—something that, disgracefully, the UK Government has still not done six months on. It provides a platform for co-operation on some of the major issues of our times, like climate change. The paper sets out the primary ways in which Scotland's place in the single market can be protected. It has three principal strands. First, we propose that the UK as a whole should stay in the single market by remaining a party to the European Economic Area agreement and that it should also stay in the customs union. It is important to remember that membership of the EU and of the single market are not one and the same. They are, in fact, two distinct propositions, as the position of three of the four EFTA countries demonstrates. I accept that there is a mandate in England and Wales to take the UK out of the EU. However, I do not accept that there is a mandate to take any part of the UK out of the single market. It would make no economic sense whatsoever for the UK to leave the single market. In fact, it would be economic folly of the highest order. It would be entirely democratically justifiable for the UK to remain within the single market. The Scottish Government will continue to argue and seek to build consensus with others of Light Mind across the UK for continued UK membership of the single market. However, I reluctantly accept that, as things stand, given the rhetoric of the Conservative Government, that seems at this stage an unlikely outcome. The Tories, quite unbelievably in my view, seem intent on placing a higher priority on cutting immigration than on absolutely anything else. The economy jobs living standards all lag way behind on their list of priorities. As a result, the second strand of the paper proposes ways in which Scotland could stay in the single market through EFTA and the EEA, even if the rest of the UK chooses to leave. The paper does not shy away from the challenges associated with such an option. On the contrary, the paper specifically identifies the key challenges that would be faced. For example, how continued membership of the single market could be achieved without Scotland being an independent country, the legislative and regulatory requirements, the issue of financial contributions and the practical implications around free movement of goods, services and people. Crucially, it sets out the basis of how each of those challenges could be overcome if the political will exists to do so. It is also very important to note—I know that many across the chamber have emphasised this point—that the option does not prioritise membership of the EU single market over continued free trade across the UK. Talk of a hard border for Scotland has always rung hollow and will continue to do so from a UK Government that says that no such border will be required between a post-Brexit UK and the Republic of Ireland, a continuing member of the EU and customs union. However, that argument aside, this paper sets out clearly how free movement of goods, services and people would continue across the UK, even with Scotland, in the single market and the rest of the UK not. In that respect, it is worth emphasising that what we propose would not see Scotland having a different relationship with the customs union to the rest of the UK. We hope that the UK will stay in the customs union. If it does so, then this proposal would enable Scotland to be in both the single market and the customs union. However, if the UK opts to leave the customs union, then Scotland, in common with other FDOT EEA countries, would not be in the customs union either. There will, of course, be disadvantages to Scottish business if we are not in the customs union, which is why I argue that the UK should stay in it, although those disadvantages would be minimised if Scotland remained in the single market. However, under this proposal, the border between Scotland and England would not be an external EU customs border. What is in effect of customs union now between Scotland and the rest of the UK would continue. Now, there will be those who say that I know that a differentiated option for Scotland, such as the one that we propose, would be too difficult to achieve. As I have said already, this paper does not underestimate the challenges. However, I think that it is important in response to that suggestion to consider those three points. First, it is the case that there are already today a range of asymmetric and differential arrangements in operation within the EU and single market framework. Denmark, Greenland, the Faroe Islands is one, the Channel Islands another. There are many others. The solution that we seek for Scotland would be different, of course, in detail and scale to many of those arrangements, but it would not be different in principle. Secondly, the UK Government already appears open to a flexible Brexit approach in relation to different sectors of the economy, as we have already seen in their approach to Nissan. It will also be necessary to take a flexible approach in relation to Northern Ireland and to Gibraltar. There is, quite simply, no good reason why such flexibility should not also apply to Scotland. Lastly, as we are now seeing on an almost daily basis, everything about Brexit will be difficult, challenging and unprecedented. The negotiations ahead will be characterised in all respects, particularly if the UK does intend to leave the single market and customs union by a need to find practical solutions to a whole range of complex issues. It is in that spirit that we seek to find solutions that will respect the voice and protect the interests of Scotland. The final strand of the paper deals with the powers of this Scottish Parliament. It is, in my firm view, time for a fundamental reconsideration of the devolution settlement in light of Brexit. The paper argues that, in light of the removal of rights and responsibilities provided by EU law and whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, Scotland's interests within the UK demand considerably enhanced and strengthened powers for this Parliament. The paper that we have published today looks at three broad categories of powers that must now be considered. First, it looks at the power set to be repatriated from the EU, which currently sits within Scottish Parliament responsibility, for example, fishing, the environment, justice and agriculture. I hope that all members will agree unreservedly that those powers must remain firmly and unambiguously within devolved competence. If there is a need to agree UK-wide arrangements on any matter, for example, such as animal welfare, that must be done by agreement, not by imposition, Brexit must not become an excuse for a Westminster power grab. Secondly, powers to be repatriated that are not currently devolved should also now be considered for devolution. Powers in areas such as employment law and social protection would allow this Parliament to protect key rights and avoid the risk of a deregulated race to the bottom by Westminster. Thirdly, a much broader range of powers to protect Scotland's interests and support a differentiated solution of the kind proposed in the paper must also be considered, for example, power over immigration. Indeed, it is worth noting, I think, that growing support across the UK for greater flexibility over immigration is now increasingly being expressed. In short, the proposals in the paper are detailed, they are serious and they are reasonable. They are designed deliberately and unashamedly to respect Scotland's voice and protect our interests, while also acknowledging and respecting the vote in other parts of the UK and the position that the UK Government now finds itself in as a result. Let me now briefly set out how we intend to take those proposals forward. We accept absolutely that the negotiation that will start on the triggering of article 50 will be a negotiation between the UK and the EU. We are not seeking a separate parallel negotiation with EU institutions or member states. That is why those proposals are aimed first and foremost at the UK Government. We want the UK Government to make clear when it triggers article 50 that it intends to stay in the single market and the customs union. If it will not do so, we want the UK Government to seek, as part of its negotiation, a differentiated solution for Scotland as set out in this paper. We will submit those proposals formally to the UK Government through the joint ministerial committee framework for discussion in the new year. I intend that this Parliament will continue to be involved and informed at every step of the way, as it has been already through 11 parliamentary debates to date on different aspects of Brexit. The Prime Minister, when I met her in Edinburgh in July, pledged to fully and fairly consider the proposals that we brought forward. She repeated that commitment without reservation when I spoke to her yesterday, and I welcome that. It is beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Brexit vote, with its different outcomes in different parts of the UK, has raised fundamental questions for all of us. It has raised fundamental questions about our relationship with Europe, but it has also raised fundamental questions about how political power is exercised across the UK. To the Westminster Government, my message could not be clearer. Your response to those proposals will tell us much, perhaps it will tell us everything that we need to know about whether the UK is, in reality, the partnership of equals that you claim it to be. To our European partners, I want today to reaffirm our belief in and our commitment to the core values of solidarity, co-operation and democracy that underpin the European Union. To the people of Scotland, I pledge this. I will continue to do everything that I can to protect your interests as we navigate the challenging times ahead. The First Minister will now take questions. There will be around 40 minutes for questions, so if members wish to ask a question, please press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on Ruth Davidson. We all here want the best deal for Scotland in the Brexit talks that are to come. On this side of the chamber, we believe that that means coming together to negotiate hard in the interests of all of us in the UK, not throwing up more divisions between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is vital that the SNP Government begins to recognise that we achieve more by pulling together and not pulling apart. We believe that there is plenty of scope to do just that. There is plenty of room for agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments, perhaps more than the SNP likes to think. Given that we are all part of the same country, perhaps that is not a surprise. We all want the freest possible trade between the UK and the EU. We all want a deal that will allow our firms to continue to sell and operate within the European single market. We all want a deal that ensures that European companies can still do the same here. I am confident that the Scottish Government and the UK Government can work together to achieve that. However, I have to question many other areas of the SNP Government's approach from today. On its proposals for EEA membership, the Scottish Government's paper in 2013 that such a deal would mean that Scotland's citizens would lose all ability to influence the law and regulations to which they would be subject. The First Minister also said in July that to end up abiding by the rules of the single market but not to be able to set them would be, in her words, giving up control. That breaks one of the SNP's own five tests. Does the First Minister accept that that is the case? On its plan for a separate deal, the First Minister claimed this morning that Scotland could opt to stay in the single market with the UK out without damaging UK free trade. However, many firms such as the head of Scottish engineering are pointing out today that that would mean that Scottish manufacturers having to adopt two different regulatory systems in order to trade in the UK our largest market. He says that that could mean that Scottish firms being ditched for firms elsewhere in the UK. Can the First Minister explain why that would be in Scotland's interests? Lastly, the First Minister insisted this morning that she wanted to find compromise and that she is not using it to manoeuvre for independence. Yet the paper today declares that one of the reasons the SNP supports membership of the European single markets is because it would, in its words, ease the transition to a full independent member state. If she really wants compromise, wouldn't a start be to end all talk of another referendum? Isn't it the time to end the threat of transitioning to something that people in Scotland don't want and have roundly rejected? Ruth Davidson mentioned comments that we made in 2013. We did indeed make those comments about the EEA, but I remind Ruth Davidson that, in 2013, we weren't facing the situation of being taken out of the European Union against our will. In fact, if I can quote Ruth Davidson from around about that period, what she said then was that voting no meant that we stayed in the European Union. Of course, the reality now is that, if we stay in the UK, the choice today is not between EU and EEA. The choice appears to be if we are in the UK between EEA and being out of the single market altogether with all of the damage that we will do. That is why what we are putting forward is a sensible solution. The contempt I hear from the Conservative benches for the views of the Scottish people on this issue, given that the divisions around Brexit were created by the Conservatives, is frankly quite staggering. Ruth Davidson's views might have more credibility if they were remotely consistent with anything that she said either before or in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum. Remember that lion roaring at Wembley stadium about how Brexit would be a disaster and people were not being told the truth, people deserved the truth? That roaring lion has now been replaced by a meek mouse telling Scotland that it simply has to accept whatever damage Brexit is going to do. That is the transformation in Ruth Davidson. However, it was not just before the EU referendum, but after the referendum, the week after, on 30 June, Ruth Davidson came to this chamber at First Minister's question and she said, and I quote, that retaining her place in the single market should be the overriding priority. She asked me what I was going to do to secure it. Today, I have put forward proposals that would secure Scotland's place in the single market. The question for Ruth Davidson is whether she is on the side of the people of Scotland in trying to protect her place in Europe and in trying to stop the damage that Brexit will do or whether she is simply on the side of the hard Brexiteers in London. I suspect that we have got the answer to that question today. I associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister's regards to the atrocious events that we have seen in Berlin over the past 24 hours. Scottish Labour has and continues to be supportive of the Scottish Government's right to be fully involved in the negotiations about our future in the aftermath of the EU referendum. Today, we welcome the starting point of the Scottish Government's approach, and we agree that the best outcome of Brexit would be for the whole of the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy the benefits of the European single market and the EU customs union. We have had, I think, 13 debates on Brexit in this Parliament, and Labour has voted with the SNP on 12 of those occasions. The only time we diverted was when the SNP suggested that the European single market was somehow more important to Scotland than the UK single market, and that is clearly wrong. The First Minister should therefore accept that and end the uncertainty facing our economy by ruling out a second independence referendum. As we work out the future for our relationship with Europe, it is important to recognise that this is not just a decision for the Tory Government in Westminster, as Alex Salmond tried to suggest at the weekend. There are 27 other nations of the EU that also have a say. That is, of course, the very nature of the European project. The Scottish Government document refers to the need for the reshaping of the UK constitution. The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, and we therefore need to start developing a plan for what happens when powers are repatriated from Brussels to Britain. I note that much of the Scottish Government's paper today sits well with what Labour proposed two weeks ago, particularly with regards to powers on agriculture, fisheries, employment law and workers' rights. I therefore ask the First Minister, if she agrees with me, that we need a people's constitutional convention across the United Kingdom to talk about power, where it sits and how it is exercised. No, I do not. I think that what Scotland really needs now is politicians that will stand up for its interests and make sure that Westminster does not walk all over those interests. At the time that people's convention had met, deliberated and decided, we would already be out of the European Union. We would already be out of the single market. Those jobs would be on their way to being lost. We need action now. I welcome some of what Kezia Dugdale has said. There are welcome or support for what we said around more powers, but let us get on with pressurising the UK Government to deliver them. I welcome what she said about the UK staying within the single market, but what she did not comment on was our proposal to try to keep Scotland in the single market. Kezia Dugdale has said to me on more than one occasion that she wants Scotland to stay in the UK and in Europe. We have put forward a plan that sets out a way for us to achieve that. Is Kezia Dugdale going to back that or not? We know that she does not support independence, although I am not so sure if in her heart that is really Kezia Dugdale's position, and I suspect that she knows that I suspect that. I take that that is the position of the Scottish Labour Party. If she does not support independence and she is not prepared to get full square behind the proposals in this paper, she needs to come up with some of her own proposals. The only alternative is to do what the Tories are doing and say that it is all down to Westminster. I hope that we can work together, but it is time for the Scottish Labour Party to get off the fence and start to back Scotland unequivocally. Willie Rennie I think that all our thoughts are with the families and the victims in Berlin. I thank the First Minister also for an advanced copy of her statement, along with the rest of the country, but nevertheless we thank her for an advanced copy of it. It is regrettable that the First Minister has given up on the UK remaining part of the European Union, despite committing to explore all of the options. It is not one of her three options set out in her report today. We will not give up on the United Kingdom in the European Union, even if others have. The First Minister's differentiated option of Scotland in the single market is confused and complex. Independence, however, is at the very front of the document, the very back of the document. It is clear that independence is front and centre, as it has been for the First Minister's entire political life. Is it not the fact that the First Minister does not want any other option to succeed as she only wants Scottish independence? Firstly, to Willie Rennie. I imagine that he would have noticed this by now, because I think that everybody else has. Everything about Brexit is confused and complex, so in a situation where everything is confused and complex, surely our duty is to try to get the best deal for Scotland. To try to navigate the path through that is best for Scotland. I would seriously have hoped that the Liberal Democrats, who are enthusiastic in their support for our place in Europe, would have been able to get behind those proposals. Does Willie Rennie not understand how ridiculous the first part of his question sounded that I have given up on the UK staying within the EU? I would love the UK to stay in the EU. I did not want there to be a referendum on EU membership and I want the UK to stay in. If the UK Government has a change of heart and decides that it wants to stay in the EU, it will have my wholehearted and enthusiastic support for that option. However, that does not appear very likely at the moment to Willie Rennie. I have to set out a path that deals with the reality of the situation that we are in. That is what we are doing—setting out serious, reasonable and sensible proposals. To all the parties in this chamber, I say this and I say it in all sincerity. If you think that there are flaws in those proposals, if you think that there are areas where those proposals can be strengthened, then bring your ideas and suggestions, because simply sitting there in the sidelines criticising the only Government bringing forward a plan for Brexit just is not good enough. So, if you want to bring forward your suggestions, I am all ears. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, do you agree that there are many sectors that are highly dependent on EU citizens who choose to live and work in Scotland? For instance, the tourism and agriculture industry, which rely heavily on workers from other EU countries, or the health and social care sector, where there are about 1,400 doctors working in Scotland who are from other EU countries. Can the First Minister tell me what comfort she can provide to those EU citizens as a result of the proposals that the Scottish Government published today? Does the First Minister agree with me that the impact on our economy and, indeed, on our society as a result of those EU citizens not being able to remain in Scotland would be as dramatic as it would be unacceptable? First Minister. Yes, I agree with that in terms of what those proposals mean for EU citizens already living here. Scotland is staying in the single market, either with the whole of the UK or separately from the UK that chooses to leave the single market, would secure the rights of people already living here. But Scotland being in the single market would do that, do more than that. It would also mean that freedom of movement could continue, because that is important to our economy and that is what is so often missed from much of the debate about immigration. Bruce Crawford rightly talks about the different sectors of our economy, the parts of our public services that are heavily reliant on people who choose to live and work in this country from other parts of the European Union. I want to see that continue, just as I want to see the situation continue, where people from Scotland and the rest of the UK can go and visit or study or work in or live in other European countries. I think that that is good for economies across Europe, but I also think that it is good for our culture, our societies and for increasing the mutual understanding between different countries, and I think that that is something that we should give up very reluctantly. The paper sets out very clearly how that can be continued, and that is one of the reasons why I am sitting here looking through some of the many supportive comments that have been issued today about this paper from stakeholders across Scotland. It is quite striking how many of them, whether in the private sector or in our university sector or in our public sector, specifically mention the importance of freedom of movement. I hope that it is one of the reasons why people get behind this plan. The First Minister and her front bench colleagues have been on a charm offensive across Europe over the past six months. Given that any differentiate deal for Scotland would require the unanimous support of the other 27 Governments within the EU, can she tell us today how many other EU Governments have signalled their in-principle support for her proposal? If Murdo Fraser ever wants any lessons on charm offensives, I would be happy to arrange for my colleagues to provide them. Is barely a serious question from some— Anybody who asked that question hasn't read the serious proposals that we've put forward. What we have said very clearly is that we're not seeking at this stage a parallel negotiation with the European Union. We recognise that for those proposals to work, then in due course, of course they will require the agreement of other European countries, but first and foremost we require to persuade the UK Government to make them part of their negotiating strategy. Another example of how we are doing this in a logical, sensible way that puts the interests of Scotland first. I readily accept that people across this chamber disagree with aspects of the Scottish Government's approach to this, and there is, of course, disagreement on the issue of independence, but surely as we seek to navigate a way through this situation, complex, unprecedented, one that we didn't create, that we try to navigate a way through it that is right for Scotland, then surely we should expect this chamber to get behind us as we do so. Lewis Macdonald, to be followed by Ross Greer. Thank you very much, the First Minister says that if there are flaws in her proposals or different ideas, then she's all ears. It's pity that that was not the ten of our response to our suggestion of a constitutional convention. Even though her own paper says very clearly that it recognises the need for constitutional change across the UK. Let me give her the opportunity to respond in the way that she's described. Paragraph 157 of the paper says that the conditions of membership of the single market would make no difference to trade to and from different parts of the UK, even though the European single market dictates common rules and standards. Paragraph 149 appears to say that the issue of different conditions of sale of goods and services applying to different parts of the UK is merely an administrative matter, even though it is surely the single hardest question that her proposals have to address. Since she clearly does understand that the single market and the customs union are not the same thing, can she explain how Scotland can belong to two different single markets at one time at the same time and make an attempt to build support for proposals rather than simply seeking to divide? The paper sets out much of the detail of this. There will not be a difference of approach in terms of the customs union between Scotland and the rest of the UK under this proposal, so the Scotland-England border will not be an external EU customs border. The customs union that effectively exists across the UK right now would continue. Round the external UK border, regardless of what happens with a differential solution for Scotland, if the UK is out of the single market and the customs union, it will require to be administrative arrangements to assess tariffs and standards. If Scotland was in a different relationship to the single market to the rest of the UK, then those external border arrangements would have to take account of that to make sure that the correct tariffs or arrangements were applied to goods and services depending on where in the UK they originated or where in the UK they were intended to be sold. None of that applies to the border between Scotland and England. The paper sets that out in detail. I am more than happy to engage and have my officials engage with any member of this chamber who wants to discuss those issues of practicality in greater detail. The paper readily concedes that all of those issues will require to be discussed with the UK Government in greater detail. Aside from all of that, I would make the point, and it is probably better directed at this side of the chamber to be fair than to this side of the chamber. We have a UK Government right now that is saying that there will be no requirement for a hard border between a post-Brexit UK and a Republic of Ireland that will still be in the EU and still in the customs union. David Davis went to Ireland not too long ago and explicitly said that Ireland will not have to choose between the EU and the UK. I know that there are obviously different circumstances pertaining to Ireland, but in a practical sense, if the UK Government can say that with such certainty for an independent country that is still going to be in the customs union, then why on earth would we not be able to continue free trade across the UK, where Scotland and the rest of the UK would have a common position in terms of the customs union? Yes, let's continue to discuss the detail, but if there is political will to do that, then those points of detail can be resolved and those challenges can be overcome. Finally, on the constitutional convention, I want to work with others who are willing to work with us across the chamber. I know that there are areas of common ground between the Scottish Government and Labour, and I am genuinely, sincerely keen to work on them. However, on the issue of just putting everything into a constitutional convention, it would be fiddling while Rome burns. We need to address those issues now. We need to get on with it. I do not think that it is a mystery what powers this Parliament needs to protect Scotland's interests. Let's get on with it. That is what the interests of Scotland demand. Ross Greer, followed by Ivan McKee. The Greens welcome that the Scottish Government is proposing options for Scotland's continued relationship with Europe, but today's proposals make a significant compromise. They are not what our electorate voted for and the amount to damage limitation is not a positive solution for Scotland. We recognise that attempt to find a compromise with the UK Government, but will the First Minister confirm that this is the greatest extent to which the Scottish Government is willing to compromise, given that further concessions would result in unacceptable damage to Scotland? In addition, today's publication makes clear the Scottish Government's commitment to free movement of people. The UK Government, on the other hand, seems committed to prioritising free movement of capital over people. Will the First Minister confirm that this is not an area where it is willing to compromise with the UK Government? The First Minister. I do not think that the Scottish Government's position when it comes to free movement of people could be in any doubt at all. I do think that even our sternest critics would have to concede that the Scottish Government, in the face often of criticism and often quite tough challenge, has always stood up for the principle of freedom of movement and has never been prepared to be part of the anti-immigration rhetoric that regrettably we have seen from some, not in this chamber but in other parts of the UK. I hope that that is beyond any doubt. I have said very explicitly—the paper, I think, says it explicitly—that this is a compromise position. This is not my preferred option. I want Scotland and, for the benefit of Willie Rennie, I want the UK to stay in the European Union. That is what I argued for, and unlike some in the chamber I have not changed my mind or my position on that. I think that the best option is Scotland and, indeed, the UK being in the European Union. I will make two further points. First, I have to deal with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in. That is what I am seeking to do. First, I recognise that, as First Minister, not just as leader of the SNP, I have a duty to try to find a way through this situation that is not of our making and that tries to bring as many people across Scotland together in consensus as possible. That is what I am trying to do. It is what I will continue to try to do. I hope that I can persuade people across the chamber, or at least across most of the chamber, to get behind us on this and to be part of the discussion around the detail of this that will be required to take part. However, with this chamber, I will continue to seek to persuade people across the country that this is the way forward that we should embrace. I hope that I will have the green support recognising absolutely that Ross Greer and I share a view when it comes to independence for Scotland. I welcome the proposal from the Scottish Government, enabling Scotland to stay in the single market after Brexit. It will do much to mitigate the economic damage of Brexit to individuals and businesses in Glasgow province and across Scotland. The proposal is also good for businesses across the UK, enabling them to trade in the EU single market after Brexit using Scotland as a base. What evaluation has been done of the economic benefits to Scotland and to the rest of the UK of this proposal compared to a hard Brexit? That is a really good question. It is challenging at the moment to do—giffen that the Tories have put Scotland into this position, frankly they are content for this entire debate—it is quite disgraceful this afternoon. Those are serious issues for every individual and every business across this country, and they are being treated with contempt by the Conservative benches. I do not think that that will be lost on many people. It is challenging to do specific analysis and modelling while the position of the rest of the UK is so uncertain and unknown at the moment, but it is an important point that we should continue to model the economic impacts of the options as they take shape. However, there is a point here. I hope that it is one that is not lost. That is why I said that those proposals, although they are unashamedly motivated by Scotland's best interests, are in the interests of the rest of the UK as well. For part of the UK, even just part of it, still to be within the single market, I think would have economic benefits for the whole of the UK. I would hope that that is something that the UK Government would consider when it gives its wider consideration to those proposals. I think that it is a very important point to have been raised this afternoon. First Minister categorically states within the paper that, in her view, the best option is for Scotland to become a full member of the EU as an independent country. As the First Minister will no doubt be aware for a new member to exceed to the EU, there is a comprehensive approval process, including the adoption of EU standards and rules in 35 different policy fields, known as the Aki, which includes chapter 13, full participation in the common fisheries policy. Fergus Ewing stated on 7 December during a debate on fishing negotiations that the common fisheries policy has not been a success for Scottish fisheries, and I recognise that there are opportunities for industry outside the EU, and I fully intend to press the UK Government to make the most of those opportunities. With this clear contradiction within the heart of Government, and given that the First Minister called new powers to this place a fib and a half during the referendum campaign, how does the First Minister intend to represent our coastal communities, as well as the 1 million Scots who voted leave, including the 400,000 SNP supporters, who currently feel that their voice is being ignored and that they are simply being airbrushed from history? First Minister. I think that all that Ross Thomson has managed to demonstrate in that long and winding question is that he has not actually read the proposals that we have published today. One of the things that is said in here is that the option that we put forward for staying in the single market through EFTA and the EEA would mean that Scotland is not within the common fisheries policy, so giving this Parliament much greater flexibility over fishing policy. I appreciate that Ross Thomson is far too young. I am almost too young to remember what I am about to cite here. It was a Conservative Government, remember, that treated the Scottish fishing industry as expendable. Expendable was the word that they have used. I think that it is really important now that we do not give a Tory Government the free hand to treat the Scottish fishing industry as expendable all over again. Lastly, for any Conservative still to be standing here after everything that has happened over the past two years and talking about the difficulties, according to them, of an independent Scotland getting into the European Union. Remember, it was the Conservatives, joined, I may say, by some of their colleagues across the Parliament who said that voting no was the only way to secure our membership of the European Union. Scotland voted no. We are facing exit from the European Union, and that is why we should never, ever, ever listen to a word that the Conservatives have to say on this matter again. Emma Harper is to be followed by Neil Findlay. I welcome the publication of Scotland's place in Europe. Could the First Minister outline what the reaction has been to this dip document? Secondly, does she agree with me that it is disgraceful that, six months on from the vote, the UK Government has produced nothing but meaningless sound bites on their plan for Brexit? The reaction that I have managed to see so far, and I have to start by conceding—I have not seen it all yet—but the reaction that I have seen from stakeholders across Scotland has been very positive. Not everybody will agree with everything in this document. I would not have expected that to be the case, and there will be many people who, like we do, recognise the real challenges—practical, technical, legal challenges around delivery of some of those options. Across all of the reaction, I have seen quite a warm appreciation of the fact that the Scottish Government alone in these islands at the moment is coming up with some kind of plan to try to get our way through this situation. I look forward to working with those across Civic Scotland, as I look forward to working with others in the chamber as we take those proposals forward. It is the case. Every time I say this, I find myself thinking that it cannot surely be the case. We are six months this week on from the EU referendum, and nobody yet knows any more about what Brexit means than Brexit means than we did on 24 June. If that was just a political debating point, that would be bad enough, but that has implications for the lives and the livelihoods of every single person across the UK. It is an absolute disgrace and the UK Government really needs to get its act together and get its act together soon. Neil Findlay to be followed by Alex Neil. On paragraph 145 of the document, the Government emphasises its desire to stick to current EU rules on procurement, competition law and state aid. Why on earth would we want to stick to rules that prevent industries from being supported by the Government, forces our railways and ferries to go out to tender and prevents the living wage to be paid to all public contractors? Those are three areas of EU law that the Government has previously claimed, frustrated at from taking progressive policy choices. Now the First Minister appears to be preparing to die in a ditch to keep them. How is that stronger for Scotland? At this moment, every member of the Labour front bench is studiously looking at their phone to try to avoid the suggestion that this is the official Labour line. I suspect that it is not. I think that Neil Findlay might feel more comfortable sitting over on this side of the chamber having just expressed. On the substantive question that Neil Findlay raises, it is an important and legitimate question. There are many aspects of the European Union rules and regulations that I do not agree with. He has mentioned some of them that I have long argued should change. We continue to argue should change. From within the European Union, we should argue for changes. There have been some changes to procurement regulations over the past few years. Neil Findlay's approach appears to be that we should throw the baby out of the bathwater because we do not agree with some of those and give up all the benefits of EU membership and single market membership. With the greatest respect, that is just a difference of opinion between us. The real danger of where we are just now is the compromising of workers' rights. We will see if we leave powers that are currently regulated by Europe in the hands of a right-wing Tory Government at Westminster. I do not want to do that. That is why I would rather we stayed in Europe and why I would rather these powers were in the hands of this Parliament, not in the Tories' hands. I am obviously in favour of all those powers coming to the Scottish Parliament with or without Brexit. Can I ask the First Minister a couple of factual questions about the proposed arrangement in the paper? The First Minister is in relation to value-added tax, because, obviously, as part of the single market, value-added tax is the most important taxation aspect to the single market. It is not listed in the list of powers being demanded of the Scottish Government to be transferred to this Parliament. Can I ask the First Minister to look at the issue of value-added tax? The reason it has not been devolved so far, according to the UK Treasury, is because under EU rules we are not allowed to vary it within a state. Under those arrangements, would that rule still apply or would we be able to take full control over all aspects of value-added tax policy in Scotland? I think that there is absolutely no reason now whatsoever why VAT could not be devolved to this Parliament, because the argument is that Alan Neill rightly says about why it cannot be devolved and why we can only be assigned a share of VAT revenues rather than have power to decide is because of European Union. With or without the proposals in this paper, with the UK leaving the European Union, there is no reason why that argument continues. I will look more closely at that and at all other issues that anybody raises if anybody wants to raise issues of detail. However, I repeat again this for all of the undoubted imperfections in those proposals, because there will be, because they are not our ideal solution. In spite of all those imperfections, that is a plan that is about protecting jobs, trade, investment and living standards in Scotland, because the implications of being taken out of the single market for all of those things I think would be devastating. That is why I hope that people, when they have had more of a chance to look at the detail of this, by all means come forward with questions and with suggestions, but I hope that people across the chamber will get behind it. I welcome the document that was published by the Scottish Government this morning. Much of it is a thoughtful piece of work, which I think deserves to be taken seriously. In that spirit, First Minister, I have a question about what the document says about EEA membership. At paragraph 99, the document says that we, as to say the Scottish Government, are advocating that the UK should remain a full member of the EEA. Yet, only three years ago, the Scottish Government said in a document signed off by the then Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that, and I quote, the argument that membership of the EEA is desirable because it allows members to gain access to the single market but without having to adopt all of the regulations that full EU membership requires is simply wrong, unquote. That same document went on to say that the Scottish Government therefore does not consider that EEA membership is a desirable option from a democratic perspective. Not my words, but Nicola Sturgeon's. The Scottish Government was correct about this in 2013, so why has the First Minister you turned, and why is she now advocating membership of the EEA despite the fact that it manifestly fails to meet her own tests of what is in the democratic interest? First Minister, let me be the first to advise Adam Tomkins of a really significant event that has happened in the UK since the time of that quote. There was in June of this year, Mr Tomkins, a referendum across the UK on EU membership. Scotland voted to stay in, but the rest of the UK voted to leave, and now Scotland faces being taken out of the EU against our will. If it was still a choice between the EU and EEA, my view is exactly as he has just quoted, but that is no longer the choice for Scotland if it stays within the UK. The choice is now trying to secure our place in the single market through the EEA or being taken out of the single market by the Tories altogether. His leader asked that question as well. I gave the same answer, so I would end by simply advising Adam Tomkins in future that he should probably listen more to his leader and adapt his questions accordingly. Joan McAlpine, to be followed by Alexander Stewart, can I encourage members to be as brief as possible while trying to get as many members in? Thank you, Presiding Officer. The European Committee has heard evidence and received briefings on the way in which the provinces of Canada and the regions of Belgium are recognised and involved in striking international agreements, and even the cantons of Switzerland set their own immigration policy, and there are many more such examples. Given such examples, does the FM agree that a differentiated first minister—excuse me—agree that a differentiated solution for an empowered Scotland will get a hearing in the EU as long as the UK Government accepts and proposes such a differentiated deal for Scotland? First Minister. Yes, that is why we have directed those proposals, first and foremost, at the UK Government. People talk about the response that we have had from other European countries. The response has been very warm, sympathetic and keen to help. However, the one consistent thing that is said by other European countries is that this will be a negotiation with the UK. Therefore, if we want proposals for different solutions for Scotland to be considered, then we must steer them through the UK process. We have listened to that advice and we are acting accordingly. Joe McAlpine is absolutely right. She is also right to look and cite examples of other countries across not just Europe but the world, where some of what is proposed in this paper already happens. Canada and Belgium, for example, where the devolved areas of Belgium have the kind of treaty-making powers that are talked about in here. We are often told by those on the Opposition benches that this Scottish Parliament is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Looking at some of those other examples would give lie to that. We have an opportunity, if we are to seek to find a solution, as I am trying to do within the UK, to try to get some of those powers and give ourselves much greater ability to protect the interests that are at stake now because of Brexit. We will find plenty of examples. There is probably nothing in here that, in some way, shape or form, albeit different in detail and different in scale, but in some way, shape or form does not apply in some other part of Europe or the world. That should give us great confidence that, if there is the political will, there is no reason why we cannot achieve the ambition that is set out in here. The UK is the fastest-growing economy in G7 and is one of the strongest advanced economies in the world, something that benefits Scotland four times as much as the EU single market. The SNP has set out plans for a separate deal for Scotland, but Professor Michael Keating of the Economic and Social Research Council has said that, if we were to harmonise our regulations with Europe and not the rest of the UK, then it would be very difficult to have free trade in England, particularly in the services. Does the First Minister agree with him, or is he wrong? No, I do not agree with him and I am not sure whether he has read the document. I would be perfectly happy to discuss his views. He is a respected academic, but no, I do not agree. In fact, the paper sets out in detail how it can be possible with the political will to ensure continued free trade across the UK while protecting Scotland's continued place in the single market. Again, I would say to the Conservatives why is it that David Davis goes to Ireland and says to the people of Ireland, you do not need to choose between the EU and the UK, but the Conservatives here say the polar opposite of that to Scotland. In the days of the internet and modern technology, people hear what has been said in other parts of Europe right now, and people will come to the conclusion that the Conservatives' arguments are not based on anything other than not wanting to rock the boat for their colleagues at Westminster. Richard Leonard will be followed by John Mason. The report issue today suggests that employment law and health and safety law be devolved to this Parliament. How are Government plans to consult on the suggestion with who? To what extent the Scottish Government considers that there is a Scottish labour market, a UK labour market and a European Union labour market? I want to see that his powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The starting point of consulting on that is the document that proposes that they should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which is published today. I hope that Richard Leonard would be in support of the proposal in that regard in that paper. I would simply point out that this is just inescapable. Those powers might already be devolved to the Scottish Parliament if, as I seem to recall, Labour had not argued against them being devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the Smith commission process, where we argued for employment law rights over trade union regulation, which, if we had, we would not have had the trade union bill that has recently gone through Westminster. My and my party have been absolutely consistent in arguing for those powers to be devolved to this Parliament. If it is now the case that Labour backs us on that, I absolutely, unreservedly welcome that and look forward to that support being vocal. John Mason, to be followed by Jackson Carlaw. I wonder if the First Minister agrees with some of the evidence that we have had at the economy committee about the importance of free movement of labour for certain sectors in particular of the economy. For example, we heard from Angus soft fruits, where they said that if they could not have access to labour from other European countries, they might have to scale back and to try to match production to the available labour, or they might have to move production overseas. Absolutely. I specifically did see the evidence that was given by Angus soft fruits. In many ways that encapsulates the fear that many employers in many different parts of the economy have right now, that if their access to labour from other parts of the EU is cut off, that will have a direct and very serious impact on their ability to do business. Angus soft fruit set that out very starkly, which is why freedom of movement is so important. I know that people have very legitimate concerns about immigration, but those of us who believe in the benefits of people from different countries getting to travel and live and work in other countries, we have to be able to stand up and have the courage of our convictions and argue that case, because it is right in so many ways, but it is absolutely right for the interests of our economy. The quote that John Mason has just read out, I think, says that much more starkly than I or any other member of the chamber ever could. Our final question is from Jackson Carlaw. The First Minister is right to draw attention to the population demographic, which demonstrates the need for migratory labour into Scotland. She places undue emphasis on the EU, where currently only 3 per cent of those people working in the United Kingdom choose to settle in Scotland. The other 97 per cent choose to settle elsewhere. Given that we will depend upon a migratory workforce from across the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, does she not understand that by placing obstacles between Scotland and the rest of the UK she potentially undermines the workforce that we need? Can she tell us what it is about her style of government and economic management that is so deeply unattractive to the other 97 per cent of EU migrants who choose not to settle in Scotland? Jackson Carlaw is somebody that I have enormous respect for. We used to cross swords when I was health secretary and he was opposition health spokesperson. While we disagreed often passionately, I always had real respect for the understanding and the analysis underpinning those disagreements. However, I think that the question he has just asked me in many respects demeans Jackson Carlaw. There is absolutely nothing in this paper that would put a single obstacle on the way of somebody from other parts of the UK wanting to live in Scotland or somebody in Scotland wanting to live in other parts of the UK. As I have said, often in and outside this chamber, my grandmother came from England. Many of my family live in England. The idea that no matter our political disagreements, I would or I am putting any obstacles in the way of that free movement across the UK is completely without foundation. Let's disagree whether there are real disagreements. I can have no quarrel with that but, for goodness sake, let's raise the quality from that question that we just had and debate the real issues that currently face Scotland. That concludes our statement and we now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 3190 with the name of Martin MacDonald. We'll take a few minutes just to change seats.