 Until we move to the next item, members will be aware that the Government has answered a Government-inspired question this morning in regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the reference made by the Lord Advocate. The long-established good practice guidance on announcements to the Parliament states that ministerial statements are appropriate in matters of significant and either immediate or on-going public and parliamentary importance. I have asked the Government to reflect on the appropriateness of using a GIQ on this occasion. The first item of business is an urgent question, and I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I had hope that this question might be answered by the First Minister, but I know that she is absent from the chamber. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the UK Supreme Court's ruling on the legality of an independent referendum bill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As constitution secretary, it is entirely appropriate for me to be answering questions about the constitution today. First Minister's questions are tomorrow, and I'll wait to see if Douglas Ross has any better questions then. In answer to the substantive question before us this afternoon, the Supreme Court has decided that under the devolution settlement a referendum on the question should Scotland be an independent country is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament. That means that without an agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments and the Scottish and UK Parliaments, without a section 30 order or a UK act to change the Scottish Parliament's powers, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass the laws required to hold a referendum to give effect to the mandate that people in Scotland gave it and to give us a choice about our future. The first thing that I want to say is this. The Scottish Government accepts and respects this judgment. The Supreme Court was not asked to decide and cannot to decide whether the Scottish Parliament should have the power to hold an independence referendum. Its job is to set out what the law is, in this case the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act 1998, and that is what it has done. The judgment makes clear how the UK constitution gives the UK Government a veto over people in Scotland's right to choose. The Supreme Court said in paragraph 81, that a clear outcome, whichever way the question was answered, would possess the authority in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate. That is what those constitutional arrangements deny us, a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate. Why does this matter, Presiding Officer? The Supreme Court tells us that the question is whether Scotland should cease to be subject to the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The reason that the Scottish electorate does not get its chance to offer a democratic expression is because it would impinge on Westminster sovereignty if its views were known. That tells us what is truly left of promises made that the UK would operate as a partnership of equals or that we lived in a voluntary union of nations. No matter how the people of Scotland vote or how often they elect parliaments that support a referendum or support independence, they cannot be told no by the UK Prime Minister. These cannot be right, and there are fewer stronger or more powerful arguments for independence than that. In a voluntary union, one part does not have to rely on the agreement of another before it is allowed to even think about leaving. Cabinet Secretary, I would be grateful if you could draw that particular response to a conclusion as there is a great deal of interest in this item. Douglas Ross I noted that the Cabinet Secretary quoted paragraph 81 of the ruling, not paragraph 82, where the judges said that they were in absolutely no doubt as to the answer to the question that they were looking at. Given the cost of this case in taxpayers' money and time, I think that it is regrettable that the First Minister herself was unable to come to this chamber to answer. She was more than happy this morning to comment from behind an SNP podium as SNP leader, but she is now unwilling to answer questions today in this chamber from elected Scottish parliamentarians as First Minister. The Scottish people have made it clear in pole after pole that they do not want another referendum next year, so I welcome the Supreme Court's clear. I hope that the SNP backbenchers here do as well. We now have an opportunity to focus on the big challenges that Scotland faces right now. Strikes, the global cost of living crisis and a winter storm in our NHS. Will the SNP Government ditch its referendum obsession and get back to tackling these crucial issues for individuals, families and communities right across Scotland? The inconvenient truth for Douglas Ross is that last year's Scottish Parliament election decided the principle and the electorate decided the mandate. It was for parties in favour of an independence referendum. It was the SNP in the Greens that won the election. It was the Scottish Conservatives that lost the election. I think that this session will be a lot more productive if we can hear whoever is on their feet speaking. I would be grateful if members could please resist any temptation to contribute while members are on their feet. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The position of the Scottish Government remains the same as the First Minister announced to this Parliament on 28 June. Nothing in this respect has changed. We would prefer the UK and the Scottish Governments to agree a section 30 order under the Scotland Act to allow a legal and constitutional referendum to go ahead. That is what the people have voted for. It is for the Scottish Conservatives to explain why they are blocking and why they are denying democracy. Douglas Ross is for the cabinet secretary to explain his misleading claim there, because a majority of votes in the Scottish Parliament election were for parties that support the remaining party of the United Kingdom more than parties who support separation. However, let us be very clear that the SNP's political obsession with separation dragged both of Scotland's Governments into court. However, there is now a chance for Scotland and our two Governments to come together and move on, so there is a clear choice for this SNP Government. Either they continue to divide our country and focus on their political priorities or they can get on with the job of dealing with the real priorities for Scottish people. So, cabinet secretary, what choice will this Government make? Will it keep pushing for another referendum or will it focus on getting back to work to deliver for the people of Scotland? Which will it be? What I can say with absolute certainty is that my memory is long enough to realise that it was the Conservative party that blocked Scottish democracy and devolution after the yes vote of 1979. I am long enough to remember that it was the Conservative party that opposed devolution in the 1997 referendum, so perhaps it is unsurprising that they are not keen on Scottish democracy now. Blocking and denying democracy is a serious charge, and Douglas Ross and the Tories are, unfortunately, leading the charge. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Douglas Ross just spoke about opinion polls. Although they are interesting, election results themselves are actually definite and this chamber proves that. This Parliament has the biggest majority for an independence revolution, and that has never had in the history of devolution. What does the UK Government's refusal to respect the mandate say about their view of this Parliament and the decisions made by the people of Scotland? Cabinet secretary? Well, it is difficult to understand, to be honest, because it is difficult to understand why a UK Government having established a principle of respecting when a majority is elected to this Parliament that a referendum should take place, which is exactly what happened after the 2011 Scottish Parliament election should now depart from that precedent. Presiding Officer, I can only come to one conclusion, which is that they are scared. They are scared of losing the referendum. All of the excuses about why democracy should be blocked now are factually inaccurate, and they are a fiction. They are democracy denial. It is not a good look in a democracy when political parties block democracy, but then the Tories have formed over this for decades. I call Sarah Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It was right for the Lord Advocate to refer this question to the Supreme Court, and it is welcome that we now have the legal clarity on the matter that they sought. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the court for their speedy work in considering this case. It is crucial that we now focus on the problems facing our country, from soaring bills to the crisis in our NHS. Indeed, Scottish Labour will be debating those issues in the chamber this afternoon. There is not a majority cabinet secretary in Scotland for a referendum or for independence, but neither is there a majority for the status quo, people across Scotland and, indeed, the UK want change. Will the cabinet secretary agree with me that we need to get rid of this economically incompetent and morally bankrupt Tory Government? Will he agree with me that the best way to do that would be to help elect a Labour Government across the UK to bring economic growth and store-living standards, prioritise our public services and deliver a green new deal? What I would prefer is getting rid of unelected Tory Governments in Scotland forever, forever, forever, and what Sarah Boyack suggests wouldn't deliver that. I'm quite taken by a quote that I've got here from a colleague of Sarah Boyack's—I think that she knows him—Anna Sarwar, who said, "'It should be the people of Scotland who decide when the next referendum is.'" And that issue was debated last year in the Scottish Parliament election. It was the defining issue of the Scottish Parliament election. And look around the chamber, see who is here. The parties that stood on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum won the election. The party that opposed referendums, they lost the election. What a bizarre situation for opposition parties to tell the governing parties that they shouldn't do what they were elected to do. That is not a normal functioning democracy. And it's very sad day to see the Labour Party, a party that was in its day a strong supporter of home rule joining the Tories in blocking Scottish democracy. I have lost count of how many times the First Minister has launched a new independence campaign, each with less energy and momentum than the last. While Nicola Sturgeon goes through the motions, people wait days for an ambulance, months for NHS treatment and years for lifeline ferries, breaking up the United Kingdom simply isn't a priority for those people who are opening their bills with dread or living in pain. My goodness, teachers are on strike tomorrow. Scotland needs new hope, not old division. So why won't this SNP green government finally focus on what matters instead of this arrogant, tired and divisive charade? I say gently, Presiding Officer. It is neither liberal nor is it democratic to stand in the way of democracy and people being able to make a choice, yes or no. We will differ. We will differ, no doubt, on whether we support independence or not. I know you don't want to hear this. I know Alex Cole-Hamilton doesn't want to hear this, representing a party with only four members and the worst election result in its history. That secured that loss off the back of opposition to an independence referendum. Maybe he should listen to the electorate, because what the electorate did is indeed point at those benches. Those benches have the majority in this chamber. Benches elected with a manifesto commitment for liberal referendum. I am sorry that Scottish Liberal Democrats are being neither liberal nor democratic nor standing up for democracy in Scotland. I call Ross Greer. Thank you. Can I start off by correcting Douglas Ross? Not only did the SNP and the Greens win more seats than the opposition at last year's election, we won 16,057 more votes than the anti-independence parties combined. We did so on the basis of manifestos that committed to giving the people of Scotland a choice over their future. The onus is now on the UK government to explain how, if this is a voluntary union, a part of that union can decide whether or not to stay or to go. In the absence of any alternative being put forward by Westminster, though, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that every vote cast for pro-independence candidates at the 2024 general election will count towards that mandate for Scotland's independence? Indeed, it will. As Democrats, it behoves all of us to embrace every democratic opportunity to secure democratic change. In a democracy, however, it also behoves other political parties with different views to uphold the basic tenets of democracy. Overlooking and disregarding election results—where one can clearly see, because of the numbers on those benches and those benches being less than the majority of this Parliament—is those parties that are opposing the democratic mandate that sent us all here. It does not need to rest on the next UK general election, this question. The UK Government could meet with the Scottish Government and do what they did in the run-up to the 2014 referendum. They could say that we disagree on the principle issue of independence, yes or no. However, as Democrats, we agree that the people should have their say. It is time for the people of Scotland to have their say. They decided that they elected us to do this, and nobody should stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament and the views of the Scottish people. The ruling today from the Supreme Court confirms that this is not a voluntary union. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what does the fact that the Scotland Act prevents Scotland from having a referendum to escape Westminster control, say about the security of the devolution settlement and the state of democracy in the UK? I am going to quote Margaret Thatcher in answer to my colleague. As a nation, the Scots have an undoubted right to national self-determination. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician should stand in their way? John Major, who said of Scotland that no nation could be held irrevocably in a union against its will. All political parties, as part of the cross-party Smith commission said after the 2014 independence referendum, nothing in this report that we all agreed on prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. They have chosen to have a choice, but the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are working in hand and glove to deny the people their say. We need democracy in this country. Today, we have seen the end of the voluntary union as we know it. We will not give up on democracy and the people will have their say. Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is portfolio questions.