 That's a statement by Michael Russell, on an update on actions following the outcome of the EU referendum. The minister will take questions at the end of a statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions to that end-of-a statement. I call on Michael Russell. Thank you Presiding Officer, and forgive me if I croak my way through this statement. I'm sure that the chamber will be suitably supportive and sympathetic. This is our third statement, Presiding Officer, updating Parliament on our actions following the EU referendum and the overwhelming vote in Scotland to remain. The First Minister last updated Parliament on 7 September. Today I'd like to give the chamber more information about developments since that statement. Reassuring our fellow EU citizens about their future right to continue living and working here remains of vital importance. President Tory rhetoric balances their future against that of UK citizens living in Europe, who are equally uncertain about their prospects. Using human beings as bargaining chips cannot ever be justified. The UK should take the lead and end this uncertainty now. The impact on EU nationals living in the UK is just one of many problems the Brexit vote has created, all of which have been compounded by the reaction, inaction and confusion of the Conservative Government at Westminster. Our approach in contrast has been to seek consensus, to establish clear priorities and to propose solutions to those problems in keeping with the democratic mandate that we have—a triple mandate arising from the election in 2016, the vote on 23 June and the vote of this Parliament on 28 June. Since my appointment, I pursued that mandate at every opportunity. I have met twice with the UK Brexit Secretary David Davis most recently on Friday, along with the Secretary of State, and colleagues have met with Treasury ministers and the trade secretary. I have been to Cardiff to identify common ground with Mark Drakeworth, my Welsh counterpart, met with representatives of the London mayor's office and our officials have been engaged with the Northern Ireland Executive. I have begun a series of meetings with party leaders, with Willie Rennie and Patrick Harvie and I look forward to meeting Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson. Above all, we have been pressing hard for a mechanism to deliver the full involvement that was promised by the Prime Minister. The Joint Ministerial Committee finally met on Monday. The First Minister and I, along with our counterparts and the devolved Administrations, attended the meeting in Downing Street, chaired by the Prime Minister. The meeting considered the means by which the devolved Administrations could and should engage with the UK Government on the development of a negotiating position for our future relationship with the European Union. This was a long overdue meeting, but, unfortunately, it was, in large part, hugely frustrating. In line with the wishes of this Parliament, as expressed during recent debates, the First Minister set out Scotland's key interests in protecting our place in the single market, securing continued freedom of movement and protecting social and employment rights. She also pressed, along with colleagues, for more information on the high-level negotiating stance of the UK Government and some indication of how it would take forward engagement with the 27 remaining EU members. However, we know no more about the UK Government's approach now than we did when we went into Downing Street. We do not know whether the UK Government is in favour of membership of the single market, or the customs union, or what type of relationship is in visages between the UK and the EU after Brexit, or indeed how and when those decisions will be made. We did secure agreement that the GMC in plenary session will meet more frequently with another meeting promised for the new year before the triggering of article 50. To put that in context, the last meeting of the GMC plenary before this week was in 2014. It was also agreed that a sub-committee would be established to discuss the issues raised by Brexit. That sub-committee, the GMC-EU negotiation, will meet for the first time early next month. Following a proposal from the First Minister, agreement was reached that a detailed work programme was to be established ahead of the first meeting, which must be linked to the timetable 4 and the key points anticipated in the overall Brexit negotiating process. The timetable must ensure that issues are discussed in sufficient time to inform the UK Government's European sub-committees decision-making process. The Scottish Government will take part in as many meetings as necessary in order to ensure that that is the case. I shall be speaking to David Davis later today about the issues. Let me make it clear to Parliament. The Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and indeed the people of Scotland, are and must be equal partners in this multinational United Kingdom. The Scottish Government will not be and is not simply a consultee or a stakeholder. That is not what the Parliament or the country asked us to do. There is a huge amount of work to do to satisfy the Prime Minister's own requirement for a UK approach and objective for negotiations before she triggers article 50. As the Welsh First Minister said after Monday's meeting, time is against us. Given there are only 18 weeks between the first meeting of the GMCEN and the UK Government's self-imposed March deadline for triggering the article 50 process. 18 weeks, 126 days. We cannot afford to lose a single one of them given the vital importance of the task. A task that includes ensuring that the UK and Scotland does not drive straight off a hard Brexit cliff. Presiding Officer, Monday made it clear than ever that there are present no coherent UK plan, but there has to be a Scottish plan and ideally there should be one that is good for the UK too. Alongside our efforts to influence the United Kingdom to adopt a soft Brexit with continued membership of the single market, the Scottish Government will bring forward our own detailed proposals to protect Scotland's interests by the end of this year. A key part of those proposals will be ways in which we can maintain membership of the single market for Scotland, even if the rest of the UK leaves. I have noted recent comments by Alex Rowley and by David Watt of the Institute of Directors in Scotland, which suggest that a consensus position on the key issue of immigration may be possible. We will continue to seek advice from the Standing Council to seek agreement on that and other key issues. I remain open to proposals from all the other parties. The Parliament also gave ministers a mandate to engage with other European nations and institutions to ensure that Scotland's position is heard. Since our last statement to Parliament, the First Minister attended the Arctic Circle Assembly, which he met with the President, Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of Iceland and the Deputy Prime Minister of Finland. The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs has met with the T-shirt and the Irish Foreign Secretary, as well as ministers from the French, Italian and Maltese Governments. In addition, along with continued engagement with the diplomatic community in Scotland, we have also met with the chief and deputy chief ministers for Gibraltar. Fiona Hyslop and I visited Brussels last week. We spent time with Scottish MEPs, as well as with Guy Verhofstadt, who forms part of the European Parliament's negotiating team, and with Danuta Hubner, the chair of the Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee, which will take forward scrutiny of Brexit. Of course, the views of this Parliament remain crucial to establishing the principles behind our approach. My cabinet colleagues and I have taken part in very useful debates on the implications of the EU referendum, and this series will continue with the debate on the environment tomorrow. Members will also know that the Scottish Government was elected with a clear mandate that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold an independence referendum if there was 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 is a direct quote from the manifesto on which we stood and won. We are now faced with that specific scenario. As a result, in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, we said that we would prepare the required legislation to enable the new referendum to be held if it became clear that this was the only or the best way of protecting those interests. We repeated that commitment to Parliament in our programme for government. Last Thursday, we published a consultation on a draft referendum bill. That consultation invites views on the draft legislation and technical arrangements for a referendum. That will ensure that the draft referendum bill is to be ready for introduction, should it be, in the opinion of the Government, the right way to proceed. The people of Scotland in every local authority area voted to remain in the EU. That is an inescapable fact and is recognised by every party in this chamber. We have therefore sought and will continue to seek to work with every party to ensure that the democratic, economic and social advantages of our engagement with and connection to Europe continue to benefit us as a nation. There is much that we can do together. We can continue to seek answers in the UK Government on the most basic of questions. We can continue to bring forward solutions to the problems created by the Brexit vote. We can continue to assert our right to be treated as an equal partner. We can, as the FM said this morning, and we must come together to form an all-Scotland coalition to protect our place in the single market, regardless of our views on the constitution. We can resolve to ensure the best outcome for Scotland and all the people who live here, all of them, including those who come from elsewhere. Thank you. The minister will now take around 20 minutes of questions. I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call on Adam Tompkins to be followed by Lewis Macdonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for early sight of his statement, and I wish him and his sore throat a full and speedy recovery. Yesterday, this year's winner of the Booker prize for fiction was announced, and already I think we know what one of the leading contenders for next year's prize will be Nicola Sturgeon's programme for government, with its commitment to place education centre stage. A candidate not because it was particularly well written, but because, judged by any standard, it is a work of fantasy. It does indeed require a great leap of imagination to conjure the image of an SNP Government that is not obsessed with independence. Yet what we saw last week with the publication of this document was a simple copy and paste job. The question will be the same—a simple majority will decide it. A section 30 order will be required as before, and the campaign rules are unchanged. However, the SNP forgot to copy and paste the fact that we have already answered this question. We said no, and the SNP signed an agreement that they would abide by and respect the answer. Why have they ratted on that agreement? I know that we often have to remind the SNP that they are now a minority Government, but they seem to have interpreted this as a mandate to govern in the interests only of the 45, and not in the interests of a clear majority of Scots who said no to independence. We hear a lot of loose talk about mandates. We heard some talk about mandates in the ministerial statement a few moments ago about mandates, material change and the like. However, the truth, Presiding Officer, is that there is one and only one in DRF2 Trigger, and that is a substantial and sustained spike in the opinion polls in favour of independence. Given that there has been no such shift in public opinion, why is the Scottish Government wasting everybody's time? Presiding Officer, I think that Mr Tomkins might want to reflect when he reads the official report on the reality of what I have said and his question, because they do not match each other. The points that I made were about the serious existential threat that lies to Scotland in the Brexit process. It was seeking a working together to answer those threats and those questions. It was looking for information from the Conservative Party, which obviously north and south of the border has no idea and no thought about what is going ahead. It can only bluff and bluster. Let me say to Mr Tomkins and his colleagues that I remain very willing to enter into serious discussion about the issues that we have to resolve in Scotland, in circumstances that we did not ask for, which we have been dragged into and which threaten our future prosperity and, indeed, much else in our nation. When Mr Tomkins is ready to address those issues, I am ready to answer them. Lewis MacDorrell to be fun about Joan McAlpine. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. He quoted Carwyn Jones, who said on Monday that time was against us. Mr Russell counted the days until the day that Theresa May plans to trigger article 50. He rightly said that we cannot afford to lose a single one of them. We need to know the UK Government's approach and objectives for negotiations, but we need to know a bit more about the Scottish Government's priorities and objectives, too. The minister says that he will bring forward the Government's own detailed proposals, but he says that he will do so only by the end of this year. That is 66 days away and days that we surely cannot afford to lose. Will the minister not follow the good practice that he has commended to others and go beyond the high principles to tell us precisely what he will be saying to colleagues on the joint ministerial committee? If membership of the single market is the red line for the Scottish Government, what does he propose in relation to the customs union, to agriculture and fisheries, to trade with third parties, all of which lie within the European Union but lie outwith the single market? If it will take him 66 days to answer those questions, will he undertake today to engage fully with other parties in this Parliament, not as consultees but as partners in finalising those positions in the same way that he calls on UK ministers to engage with the Scottish and other devolved administrations? I am very happy on the second point to say that I stand ready to have those conversations. Indeed, I spoke to Kezia Dugdale yesterday briefly to say that we were very keen to have a meeting. We have not got that meeting set up yet, but I am sure that Mr MacDonald will go back and ask Kezia Dugdale's office to expedite that matter. On the first point, I assure him that there will be less than 66 days. We do not intend to publish it between Christmas and New Year, so we are already counting down to the publication date. It is very important that the standing council influences this process in an important manner. There is a lot of detailed work being done. We have already indicated that there are options to be looked at. I think that he should bear with us and work with us as we develop the right option for Scotland, which we also believe will be the right option for the UK. In that regard, I quote the Prime Minister at the European Council on Friday, who said that the right option for the UK would also be the right option for the EU. In Scottish and UK terms, we believe the same. We can find an option that works well for Scotland, a differentiated option that works for the rest of the UK. That is what we intend to try and do. I would be very happy to work with any party in this chamber who wants to do that. I indicated in what I said that I thought that Mr Rowley's contribution on the matter of migration was very helpful. I think that the more we have that type of contribution in that discussion, the better it will be. With the EU Trade Commissioner recently saying that if we cannot make it with Canada, I do not think that we can make it with the UK, does the minister think that the UK Government has been overselling its claims about the opportunity to fully negotiate global trade deals? I think that there has been a great degree of incoherence in the message coming from the UK Government about the possibilities of establishing trade deals. I note that it was the Secretary General of the World Trade Organization who said after Liam Fox's speech that Liam Fox misunderstood what the WTA was. It was not the world free trade organization, it was the world trade organization. The world trade organization has a whole range of tariffs and issues that would arrive into any set of negotiations. There is, I think, a sense of unreality in many of these statements coming from the UK Government. I think that that would be something that we could take with tolerance were it not that the implications of those are so serious, because failing to get this right will lead to prolonged and very serious financial difficulties for each one of us. We need to remember that. The First Minister and the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's place in Europe have talked much of protecting Scotland's interests and addressing the uncertainty that faces Scottish businesses following the United Kingdom's decision to leave the EU. Can the minister please explain to the chamber how ripping Scotland out of the UK, a single market to which it exports more than four times as much as it does to the European Union, constitutes protecting Scotland's interests? I think that there is a worrying tendency now in the Scottish Tory party to become obsessed with independence. I would encourage Mr Stewart and his colleagues to look at higher things, to look at some of the issues that we need to address over the next 126 days, because Mr Stewart might be able to bluster, like Mr Tomkins. He might bluster for the Tory party, but all he is doing is letting Scotland down, unless they are prepared. Mr Tomkins is now waiting the independence referendum bill. He obviously sleeps with it under his pillow. He is so fond of the idea that the reality is that we have a lot of work to do. I would dearly like the Tories to be part of that work instead of standing and sniping on the sidelines. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Ross Greer. On the side of the chamber, we agree that the rhetoric at the Conservative Party conference was toxic and hugely unhelpful when it comes to reassuring EU nationals about their status in the UK, people who have chosen not only to work but to make Scotland their home. I would like to ask the minister in terms of transparency on the negotiations that she is currently having, whether she can publish any minutes or provide any detailed insights into the discussions that she is having on that point. For example, what have you put to Theresa May precisely on that question? What are the options available on the table that would give legal certainty to EU nationals who clearly want to remain here but want this protection? I should have indicated that Pauline McNeill has also made contributions to the issue on migration and the movement of people, which I think have been very helpful in this debate, and I am grateful to her for it. I do not think that anybody would be in any doubt about what took place at that meeting. I think that better than a minute was the interviews with the First Minister when she left Downing Street. They had the ring of veracity after two very frustrating hours. The reality is that we have made it clear that a simple statement now to say that those who are presently here and resident here will be able to stay would begin to solve that problem. That is what is required. If that statement was made, we could move on from this stage. We then need to look at the whole issue of migration, but there was, as members will know, a report at the weekend that indicated that Scotland would be short of 100,000 members of its workforce without free movement of people. That is an immensely important figure. It cannot simply be that decisions will be made about free movement and refusing free movement without addressing the realities of the situation for Scotland and the Scottish economy. Scotland is not full up. I represent a constituency that has a severe problem of depopulation. To approach that issue as an issue that only affects the south-east of England will do an enormous disservice to the people of Scotland. I believe that we can get an answer on immigration, which would suit this chamber, suit Scotland and should suit the UK. I hope that all members will help me to do that. Ross Greer has been followed by Tavish Scott. Like others, I appreciate the advance copy of the minister's statement, and the Greens welcome the opportunity to meet the minister, which Patrick Harvie and myself will be doing so soon. Following the answer to Pauli McNeill's question, could the minister confirm what work the Government is doing to provide further evidence of the vital contribution that citizens from the rest of the European Union make to our health and social care services and to the damage that would be done to those services by Scotland being dragged out of the European Union, particularly under a hard Brexit scenario? I thank the member for that. There are a whole range of statistics that prove the point that he is making. The workforce statistics in the health service and the social care service make the point for him. 9 per cent of our doctors come from other European countries. 12 per cent of our social care workforce comes from other European countries. There is a great deal of material on the table, and a great deal of material being produced that testifies to the severe problems that will be caused for all parts of the public service by the changes that are being proposed. That puts into sharp relief a request that is constantly made to the Scottish Government that we should say what we want in terms of the devolved competencies. That is not just about the devolved competencies. The whole issue of the single market, the way that the single market operates, free movement of people, free movement of goods, the ability of companies to set themselves up elsewhere and passporting, they are all matters that deeply affect the devolved areas of competence, so they may not be devolved. Therefore, that is another reason why Scotland must be at the heart of the discussions and the negotiations. Tavish Scott is followed by Stuart McMillan. I also thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement and sympathise with his ailments. I hope that they were not caused by all the shouting in London on Monday. A month before the European referendum, Theresa May warned Goldman Sachs of the consequences for the UK in leaving the single market. The Prime Minister now considers ending the free movement of people across the EU as more important than the single market itself. Wouldn't it be helpful if instead of telling American bankers why the single market matters, she made that case to her cabinet? Would this Government in Scotland recognise that the chaos caused by the UK Government's current position is not helped by the uncertainty over Scottish independence either? I was with the member all the way until the last sentence, but we will have to find something to disagree on. I do not agree with his last sentence, but I do agree with the rest of it. Indeed, he is familiar with the old Westminster maxim. The vote follows the voice, and it is fairly astonishing to discover that the voice of the Prime Minister was saying that Brexit would be a disaster, and now she is telling us to whistle a happy tune and to believe that everything will be well. I would call that hypocrisy. Stuart McMillan is followed by Rachel Hamilton. The UK Government appears to be working towards sectoral deals for the city of London and car making. Does the minister believe that Scotland should be treated as a special case, given the overwhelming vote to remain here? I think that there is no doubt that differentiated deals are going to be of great importance. What Scotland will require to consider is if it is possible for the UK Government to consider differentiation for the city of London, if it is possible for the UK Government to consider differentiation for the Japanese car factories in the north-east of England, why would it not be possible for them to consider differentiation for Scotland? It makes no logical or political or economic sense. Differentiation is also—a unionist might want to consider—the basis on which the United Kingdom was established and the basis on which devolution was set up. If you are against differentiation, you are against the thing that you are trying to defend. It seems wildly illogical. Rachel Hamilton is followed by Christine McElvie. Theresa May and David Davis are fully committed to engaging with all-devolved administrations, including the Scottish Government, as an equal partner. They are open to proposals that Mike Russell submits to the joint ministerial committee. What evidence can the minister share with the Parliament that he and his ministerial colleagues are co-operating with the UK Government so that we can obtain the best deal for Scotland and the UK rather than threatening to break up our country? I am reminded of that line from the ballad about Sheriff Muir. If you had seen what I had seen, I was in the room, I saw the willingness of the Prime Minister, it was not as you describe it. Christine McElvie is followed by Anas Sarwar. Following on from suggestions that hard-write Tory MPs are planning to insert a sunset clause into Theresa May's Brexit bill, which would see all EU laws automatically expire after five years and about to scrap red tape. Does the minister agree with Antonia Bans, head of campaigns of the trade union congress, who said yesterday, as we all know, that this is how workers' rights come under threat? Fergus Ewing reminds me that the song that I was referring to was and not Sheriff Muir. I would not like to mislead Parliament about folk songs. The First Minister laid out a series of tests for the options that we are considering in a speech that she made to the IPPR in July. Those tests included the economic test, the democratic test and the test of social protection. Christine McElvie is absolutely right to say that guaranteeing social protection is not just the continuation of existing social protections, but the continuing improvement in social protection, which the EU is committed to, will be vital for Scotland's national interests. It is also tied up within a single market. If you undermine and remove the single market, you undermine and remove social protections. The idea of a sunset clause, as proposed by a very right-wing ex-Toria chairman, is in actual fact an attempt to undermine that and should be resisted with vigor. Anas Sarwar to be followed by Willie Coffey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is becoming increasingly clear that Scotland is caught between two nationalist Governments, both obsessed with rhetoric and wildly inaccurate claims about taking back control. However, in reality, neither in the least concerned about the impact leaving either the EU or the UK will have on people's jobs, on public services, on people's right to live and work across the EU or indeed the UK, or trade opportunities that exist in the EU and across the UK for companies who export. Given that the Scottish Government delivered in short order an economic impact report on leaving the EU, just when is the same report going to be published on the same terms on Scotland leaving the UK? Just two years ago, this Government was relaxed about challenging the single market and relaxed about threatening freedom of movement. We have heard today again about the hard Brexit cliff. Why is this Government so relaxed about the hard independence cliff? Presiding Officer, could I give two pieces of friendly advice to Anas Sarwar? The first is that you are bound to be on the wrong side if Mike Rumbles is applauding you. The second one is that there are people on his benches who are making a sensible, thoughtful contribution to this debate because they realise how serious it is. I have spoken about Paul MacNeill, I have spoken about Alec Rowley and Mr MacDonald is doing so, too. He will be well placed to emulate them. What he has just asked does not do him any credit and it certainly does not do his party any benefit. We have problems to solve. I look forward when I sit down with Kezia Dugdale to discussing how we solve those problems. I cannot imagine that Anas Sarwar will need to be in the room if that is his type of contribution. Given that the UK Government promised to treat Scotland as an equal partner in the union, it swiftly moved to introduce English votes for English laws. It now looks determined to ignore the 62 per cent of Scots that we voted to remain in the EU. Does the minister think that that kind of behaviour by the UK is consistent with those promises that were made to Scotland? No, of course I don't. The Prime Minister has said that she thought Scotland should be fully engaged and fully involved. The Prime Minister has talked about a UK position, not a UK Government position, but a UK position before article 50 is triggered. None of those things are coming to fruition as yet. Rachel Hamilton believes that the Prime Minister is well-intentioned in this matter. I have still to see it, but I am still waiting, and if it does happen to be the case, I shall be pleased. So far, I will not be holding my breath for it. Given the meeting that the minister had on Monday with the PM and the heads of the devolved assemblies mentioned before, does he have any worries on the potential impact on education in Scotland? Does he agree with Professor Timothy O'Shea, who said on Monday that the potential impact of Brexit on higher education ranges from bad to awful to catastrophic? Mr Dornan raises a very important point. The issue of the impact on higher education and particularly higher education research is crucial in those discussions, and I am grateful to him for raising that serious point. Timothy O'Shea's contribution was as ever measured but in depth. Timothy O'Shea knows more about the running of universities and higher education in the UK and globally than most people, and when he is using that language, he is using it, I think, in a considered fashion. We have to ensure that, in the process that we are now embarked upon, we need to have detail at an early date about how the UK Government intends to take forward those proposals that do not damage higher education, in particular to not damage involvement in horizon 2020 in Erasmus and also in the flow of talent into and out of this country. There is an invidious possibility, which we are just beginning to hear about and see, which is senior academics and universities. It is a talent game. Senior academics who might want to come to Scotland or the UK to further their career, who might be tempted with the offers that they are being made, are also looking at Scotland and the UK and saying, is this a place that will welcome me? Is it a place that can sustain me and will the connections be worth having? If the answer to any of those is no, they will not come. That will lead to a diminution of our excellence, and we must avoid that at all costs. What discussions has Mr Russell had with the Secretary of State, David Mundell, with a view to developing a joint approach to representing Scotland's position as our Government's approach to Brexit negotiations and, if he has held such discussions, what matters were agreed on? I am more than willing—the Secretary of State has raised that with me—to attend events at which we will speak. I am more than willing to listen to sectors, and I am quite sure that we can co-operate in that way. However, it would have to be done on the basis of equality, it would have to be done on the basis that we are there to listen and also to put our point of view, and the outcome of those would have to influence the negotiating position. If we can achieve those things, I have no difficulty. Can I thank the minister and members for their contributions? We will now move to the next item of business, which is the debate on motion number 2099 in the name of Keith Brown. I will give a few minutes to change seats.