 The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Russell on protecting Scotland's interests response to the outcome of the meaningful vote in Westminster. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so if anybody wishes to ask a question, I would encourage you to press your request-to-speak button as soon as possible. Presiding Officer, those with an interest in the ironic might remember that, five years ago this very week, the UK Government released its latest paper in its Scotland analysis series, publications devoted to undermining Scotland and the case for independence. Entitled EU and international issues, that item extolled what it claims were the many benefits to Scotland of the UK's membership of the EU. Not much of it has lasted well. People might find disassertion in the light of last night's events, particularly ironic. It says that the UK uses its influence within the EU to Scotland's advantage on a whole host of issues of particular interests to people and businesses in Scotland, such as budget contributions, fisheries, agricultural subsidies and structural funds. Scotland benefits from that and is in the UK's strong voice in Europe, where it contributes to and participates in discussions and negotiations from its position within the UK. What a difference five years makes. We may remember how Ruth Davidson put it at the time. No, that is to Scottish independence, means that we stay in. We are members of the European Union. Well, it didn't. We all now know that we are imminently threatened with not being members of the European Union. Presiding Officer, this Government was elected in May 2016 on a manifesto that said that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another independence referendum if there is a significant and material change. 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. Today is not just about the constitution. There are real losses. It ill behoves the Tories to laugh at anything today, I would have said. There are real losses which every one of us would experience of which we have never voted. Brexit, if it happens, will remove all the claimed benefits of EU membership and, moreover, it will substitute for them more incompetent leadership by and even greater dictation by the complete chaos of the Westminster system. There are actions that we believe that the UK Government should take immediately to stave off complete disaster. I shall come to those in a minute, but let me first pause to reflect on the enormous dangers that we are now in and how they have come about. Last night was not just a defeat, it was a rout. A Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, who had spent two and a half years negotiating a withdrawal agreement, had that agreement defeated by a historic margin, a margin never seen before at Westminster and, in part, caused by one of the biggest revolts within a political party that has ever taken place there. No wonder that it went down to such a heavy defeat. The Prime Minister's deal would make people poorer. It would drag Scotland not just out of the EU but also the single market in the customs union. It would put Scotland at a competitive disadvantage against Northern Ireland and, far from bringing stability, it would open the door to many more years of difficult negotiations, disputes and inevitable uncertainty for citizens and businesses. In a normal political world with normal, accountable, self-aware politicians, the scale of that defeat would have led to the immediate resignation of, if not the Government, then at least the leader of that Government. Instead, the Prime Minister behaves as if this is all somebody else's fault, as Ian Blackford said last night. All she could come up with was the offer of talks with the opposition parliamentarians, something that she should have done at the start of the process, not at its disastrous denouement. Moreover, her MPs, including former members of this parliament, have emerged blinking into the daylight today, shaking the dust and rubble of the defeat from off their shoulders. Asserting in the media-attended village that has now grown up around the UK Parliament that the disaster is in some way not a problem for her and their party, it is one for the EU, which they now expect to come running back to the negotiating table full of contrition at their stance. That is, Presiding Officer, self-deluding mints. It is arrogance born of ignorance. The EU is clear, Ireland is clear, the deal can only change if the red lines change. If the Prime Minister will not change her red lines, there can be no change to anything that is on the table. No change to the backstop, no change to the financial arrangements, no change to the need for regulatory alignment if there are to be tariff concessions. There is stalemate in that crumbling palace beside the Thames. That stalemate, exacerbated by the delays that the Prime Minister has been solely responsible for, is costing business, EU nationals and, indeed, all the rest of us very dear. So what needs to be done now? Well, fortunately, despite genuine differences of opinion on the question of independence, there has been general consensus, with the exception of the Tories, on the steps that should be taken to protect Scotland and mitigate for the whole UK the damage of Brexit. In these worsening circumstances with the UK Government humiliated, leaderless but still arrogantly self-deluded, such a plan is required more urgently than ever. Presiding Officer, last night the First Minister spoke to the Prime Minister. Today she is in London meeting with MPs. She and the First Minister of Wales have also sought an urgent meeting of the joint ministerial committee at plenary level and she has written to the PM regarding that and about the best way forward. The first part of the plan must be to rule out a no deal. Last week the House of Commons began in adopting the amendment proposed by Labour's Evet Cooper to the finance bill to demonstrate the force that they are prepared to put into frustrating the UK Government should it choose to pursue a no deal outcome. That is good, but more is required and more of the UK Government in particular they can and should rule out no deal now and forever. This afternoon, by supporting the SNP amendment to Labour's motion on the economy, this Parliament can reaffirm its rejection of no deal. But until that happens, it will be necessary, if regrettable, for the Scottish Government to go on with and indeed intensify our work to prepare as best we can for that eventuality. For that end, we are continuing to engage with the UK Government on our planning and preparations for a potential no deal outcome. We are making every effort to ensure that the vital importance of getting the important information that we need is recognised. The Scottish Government resilience committee is now meeting weekly to manage and escalate matters as needed, supported by a rapid response group of officials, which will grow as need requires. We have a public information campaign in the final stage of development. We are making initial decisions on issues such as medicine, medical devices and clinical consumable stockpiling, emergency transportation, support for supply change, diversion of local produce and a host of other issues. All of this activity has become a significant focus of our resources and efforts, as it has to be for a responsible Government. However, it remains something that the UK could and should choose to remove as a risk and as a cost today. Secondly, the Prime Minister must write to the EU immediately and request an extension to the article 50 process. That will require unanimous agreement among the EU 27. Given the scale of the defeat last night, it surely must be inconceivable for the Prime Minister to simply attempt one more heave. More time is needed, but that time then has to be used to a productive end, not just to try and save the PM's face once again. Every member of the SNP group at Westminster has signed the motion of no confidence, tabled by Jeremy Corbyn, and being debated at Westminster today. We will support it, we are ready for and indeed we would relish a general election fought on the issue of Brexit and Scotland's future. However, if that motion fails, we will immediately step up our support for a second EU referendum and I profoundly hope that the Labour Party will do the same. The Scottish Government is clear that the best outcome is to remain in the EU. A second referendum with remain on the ballot paper is an opportunity for that to happen and for the wishes of the people of Scotland to be respected. The third key step is for the UK Government or for a Parliament now controlled by its members to bring forward a proposal to legislate for that second EU referendum. Preferably, that should be the motion that the UK Government brings forward next Monday. With Labour, SNP, Liberal, Plaid Cymru and Green support, and given the already declared intentions regarding it from some Tory members, it would command a majority. It would begin to break the logjam that has now paralysed politics at Westminster. As UK Parliamentarians cannot agree on any outcome of the Brexit process that would be best for the country, it must, as a matter of democracy, return to the people. If that return cannot be in the form of an election, it must be in another referendum and one based on the full knowledge of what leaving the EU actually entails and rigorously policed against overspending and illegal interference. Holding a second EU referendum will take time. Legislation would be required in Parliament alongside consideration of the question and preparations by the electoral commission before a formal campaign period takes place. The interaction with the European Parliament elections in May will need to be addressed. The First Minister will be making all those points today. She will make them to the Prime Minister at a JMC plenary if the PM calls such a meeting. I want to conclude on a more positive vision of the future. Because through all the chaos and uncertainty that there is in Westminster now, there is also an opportunity to shine a light through that and persuade the country of a better, brighter alternative. Scotland has for many centuries enjoyed a deep and mutually beneficial relationship with our European neighbours. A proud European nation, for the past four decades, we have been an active and committed member of the European project. Membership of the EU has enriched Scotland and indeed the whole of the UK. Individuals, businesses and communities have gained from the ability to live, study, work, trade and travel across the 28 member states. Membership of the world's largest single market, extending to 32 countries, is a fundamental part of our economy. Let's not forget that at 500 million people, the single market is eight times the size of the UK. In return, we have shared our expertise and leadership in areas ranging from progressive social policies that improve the wellbeing of citizens to innovation, contributing to world-leading efforts in science and technology. Free movement of people, particularly important to Scotland, helps to address skill gaps and deals with an ageing population. In total, more than 230,000 people from other countries in the European Union now live, work and study in Scotland. They contribute to the diversity of our culture, the prosperity of our economy and the strength of our society. For Presiding Officer, the EU is not just about jobs and the economy. It is not in those words of Martin Schultz merely an economist club. Membership of the EU is about solidarity and shared values. We have seen that in how Ireland has been buttressed and supported by the other member states in its essential demands. We, on the other hand, have been left isolated and ignored by the other member of this so-called precious union. I am ready to make the case for Europe passionately and proudly in a second EU referendum and to contrast it with the Prime Minister's deal, which will only leave this country and its people impoverished. In closing, let me call on all parties in this chamber each of which campaign to remain in 2016 to hold to their principles. First of all, to support the plan laid out by the First Minister, and then to join her and me and this Government to make the positive case for EU membership for Scotland. We turn to questions now from Adam Tomkins. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement, but his statement is yet another reminder, as if one were needed, that for the SNP Brexit is not about our future relations with Europe. Brexit, like everything else, is all about independence. On just the first page of this statement, Mike Russell bangs the independence drum not once, not twice but three times. We were then treated to yet another Mike Russell performance about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit. I do not support a no-deal Brexit. I have never supported a no-deal Brexit, and I cannot foresee the circumstances in which I would do so. However, the cold hard truth, Presiding Officer, is that those who have made a no-deal Brexit all the more likely are those MPs who last night voted against the Prime Minister's deal, including every single SNP MP. The minister said that the First Minister today is in Westminster meeting SNP MPs, so my first question for Mr Russell is this. Is Nicola Sturgeon in London as leader of the SNP or as First Minister of the Scottish Government? We know that she does not need to be in London to speak to the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister phoned her last night, so why is she there today as party leader or as First Minister? Yesterday, Presiding Officer, the Prime Minister reached out to all other political parties to seek a deal, to seek a deal that, first, can be agreed with the European Union, second, can command majority support in the House of Commons, and third, respect the referendum result that we leave the European Union. That was a serious offer and should be taken seriously. Will the SNP play a constructive role in cross-party talks or will it merely retreat to the familiar playground politics of playing to the nationalist gallery and bang on only about independence? In considering the largest ever defeat that a Prime Minister has experienced, it is perhaps important to point out to Professor Tomkins that there were 35 SNP MPs who voted against the Prime Minister's deal. There were 118 Tory MPs who voted against the Prime Minister's deal. It is remarkable that we did not even have a third of the influence that the Tory MPs have. Some of them are even trying to answer back on that point. Actually, there is not an ounce of shame amongst them and there should be more than an ounce of shame, Presiding Officer. That was the largest ever defeat, greater than even the defeat of Ramsay MacDonald in 1924, in the Campbell case, which I will not go into great detail on, but the fact that that happened has just been ignored by the Prime Minister. Let me say to Adam Tomkins very clearly that there is a way forward. I have spent more time discussing and being positive about this than anybody else in this chamber. Certainly considerably more time than Adam Tomkins says. I cannot remember the last time I heard a positive word from him. I am ready to go back into that process. There is meant to be a GMCEN meeting in Cardiff next week, but the Prime Minister will get no progress with the EU. I was clear from Monsieur Barnier this morning who has been here from a whole list of contributions—I could read them out, if you like—from leading European politicians today. There will be no change unless the Prime Minister's red lines change. What we have heard from Adam Tomkins is no indication that any of those red lines will change at all. Of course, as usual, Adam Tomkins does not believe in a single one of those red lines. I am afraid that I cannot take politicians seriously who, in the face of the facts, and the facts last night continue to posture in that way. Neil Findlay to be followed by Patrick Harvie. I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of the statement. Last night was indeed a historic occasion. After all the debate, the discussion, the argument, the bribes, the handing out of nighthoods, the Government being held in contempt of Parliament and monthly ministerial resignations, the Prime Minister has gone down to the biggest defeat of any Government in modern history. This is an abject humiliation that leaves me with not a shred of credibility exposed as the worst Prime Minister since the last one. 118 Tory rebels. I say to Mr Tomkins, going he agreed at them, will he? I think, well, Ms Davidson is away, she should have a reshuffle and put Mr Tomkins out of his misery. He has contributed nothing in our debates over this period. Over the last two years, the Prime Minister has completely failed to engage in any discussions, any discussion to build unity or a majority on Brexit, no discussion in two years with the leader of the opposition or the shadow cabinet secretary, no involvement of the Scottish or Welsh parliaments, no attempt to bring together, leave and remain voters, just an arrogant belief that only her view of the world will prevail or the alternative is no deal. We do not accept that and we will never accept that. It was Labour who suggested a transition period. It was Labour who called for a meaningful vote. It was Labour who called for a customs union. We have called for fair immigration, the retention of rights, the rights that we have gained and an agreement that secures the country, is secure and works for the nations and regions of the UK. Last night, Parliament humiliated the Prime Minister. Three Scottish Tory MPs did the right thing. The rest of them joined the entire group of MSPs in their supine sycophantic support of a bad deal. Let me tell you this, that will not be forgotten. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that if the Prime Minister had an ounce of self-awareness, she would have resigned immediately? Does he agree that this deal is dead, that the Prime Minister has no credibility, that we cannot have a no deal Brexit would be a disaster for our communities and that there should be a general election so that we can elect a Government that will, in all its work, deliver for the many, not the few? I have indicated in what I said and I do again to Mr Finlay that I hope that the motion of no confidence succeeds today. I hope that that does trigger an election and I welcome the prospect of that election and, as I said, I relish the opportunity to contend in that election on the issue of Brexit and the future of Scotland. However, if that does not happen, then I think that we have to move very, very quickly to the people's vote and I hope that the Labour Party will support that. In terms of his other point, I absolutely agree. It is absolutely inconceivable that a Prime Minister that has gone down to defeat of this nature has not resigned. Did not stand up at that moment and say, I will now resign. It is actually shameful and she should be ashamed of that but so should her entire party. Her entire party is now so supine that it cannot say, go, this is the time to go. In fact, it has not even been raised. Instead, we have had, and I agree with the member, continued negativity and lack of input from the lead spokesperson for the Tories. It has contributed nothing at all. The reality of the situation is, of course, that he himself and his reputation have suffered very greatly, particularly in the way that he approached the matter of the Supreme Court. Patrick Harvie is before my Tavish Scott. It is extraordinary to remember that the EU referendum was called by a Conservative Prime Minister in attempt to heal his own party's internal divisions over the issue of Europe. Now, two and a half years after that referendum took place, we have a UK Conservative Government which still has no clear idea about where it intends to end up with just 10 weeks to go until their preferred date for leaving the European Union. It does contrast hugely with the situation here in Scotland where our Parliament has a clear majority against Brexit on principle, a clearer majority in favour of a people's vote and an even clearer majority in favour of casting a no confidence motion at Westminster against the UK Government. Isn't it also clear that for those of us who believe in Scotland's future as an independent member of the European family on our own terms and in our own right, we could hardly wish for a better advertisement for our cause than the shambolic absurd theatricalities that we have seen at Westminster, a Parliament in which not only Scotland's interests but the whole idea of rational debate appear to be held in utter contempt. Of course, that is completely the case. Anybody standing outside the UK and looking this will despair. The comments from other European countries and from newspapers are legion today, but in many of them there is an affection for the UK and an affection for Scotland and an astonishment of the situation that has now arisen and a recognition that Scotland did not vote for this, did not wish it and will have to make a choice. At some stage it will have to make a choice between following this disastrous route or making sure that it is rejoining the family of nations. Of course, the First Minister will speak and the member is right to say this, will speak for this Parliament and for Scotland when she is in London today, because that is what she does as First Minister. She speaks for the majority in this Parliament who have consistently voted against Brexit and consistently voted against the shambolic Tory Brexit. I think that many people, not just in these islands and there are many people sympathetic in these islands to these matters but many people outside these islands recognise that that is the case. We will continue to go on doing that to ensure that we deliver for the people of Scotland. The people who are failing to deliver for the people of Scotland are the Conservatives both at the UK and at the Scottish level. Their recognition of their failure is shown by the fact that every time something positive is mentioned they groan. Scotland is groaning at them now. Last night, Theresa May's deal was savaged by MPs, mostly her own, despite sharing them with knighthoods and honours and £1 billion to the DUP. Today, the Prime Minister will not say to whom she intends to talk. She will not say what her plan is. She will not change her red lines. She ties on as if nothing happened. Does the cabinet secretary accept that Theresa May must decide what comes first, her party or the country? Does he agree that this decision cannot be left to a divided Conservative party? Therefore, the Scottish Government needs to be rock solid for a people's vote. I recognise the cabinet support for that here today. The only issue that I would take with the member is that he has got the Prime Minister's priorities wrong. The Prime Minister's priorities are first of all her job, then her party and then her country. That is the shameful nature of what we see. She is preserving herself in office at the expense of all of us. It is at the expense of all of us. For example, preparations for no deal are costing businesses millions of pounds—I know of businesses—that have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on individual businesses because of the no deal uncertainty, which could have been taken off the table weeks ago by the Prime Minister. She is personally culpable for that expenditure. The Government is spending that money, the time and effort that this Government and others are putting into making sure that they are doing as much as they can on no deal is directly down to her. She should have the self-awareness to realise that whatever she wanted to do two and a half years ago, she has been an abject failure. In those circumstances, she should resign. As far as we are concerned, we will go on supporting the people's vote because it is the right next step. Today, we will know whether the motion of confidence succeeds, whether the Government will fall. The moment we know that that is the case and if the Government does not fall, then the next position has to be the people's vote. Why does it have to be that? Because I have outlined here that we need to return to the people in what some form or another, but we also know that there is a majority in the House of Commons for the people's vote. If the Labour Party is supported, if the Scottish National Party is supported, if the Liberal Party is supported, if Plaid Cymru supports it, if the Green MSP supports it and the Tories who are committed to it are supported, then we will get a people's vote. It follows from that that the EU will accept a delay in article 50 if there is some material change, something that is going to happen. That is a clear set of steps that can be taken. That is absolutely obvious. The First Minister will be saying that today. I know that it has wide support. Let us try and make sure that that happens and consign to the dustbin of history, the Prime Minister and those who have supported her failed enterprise. Theresa May's red lines abandoning free movement, the customs union and the single market mean her deal was bound to fail because it only delivers more years of uncertainty. The UK Government's approach has been characterised by procrastination, self-delusion and incompetence. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the last 24 hours are a brutal reminder that Westminster is not working and that this Scottish Parliament could do a much better job with the full powers of an independent country? That is absolutely clear. I have believed that for many years and the evidence is all around that that is the case. Of course, it is important to recognise, and the member touched on something very important, that the uncertainty of a no deal can be completely taken away today, but it can also, by the will of the Prime Minister, where she, to continue to survive, continue for a very, very long time. Even if there was a deal and we left the EU on 29 of March this year, at any stage during the discussions on the future relationship, those negotiations could collapse and lead to an end of discussions and a no deal. What we have got through, if we were to get through to the 29 of March and if the UK was to leave and I hope that does not happen, then we would be in the circumstances where we had only gone over the first hurdle and there are very, very considerable hurdles left. So, this whole venture, unless the Prime Minister rules it out, unless sense prevails, unless we have a people's vote, can continue for a very considerable period of time. It is already causing vast damage. It can cause even more damage. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you. It appears from this statement and others that the SNP now clearly views a second EU referendum as the only way forward. Given that the cabinet secretary himself has previously welcomed alternative proposals, such as one relating to membership of EFTA and a customs partnership, does he agree or not, with Ian Blackford, that the ship has sailed on such alternative proposals? I take that question very seriously. I think that it is an important question. Mr Cameron knows that my view is, and he is aware of this, that this particular juncture, given the crisis that has been created by the Prime Minister and what has happened since the postponement of the first meaningful vote, the only way to break the lock jam that we are now in is to have a people's vote. If there was a set of proposals on the table for a supposed Norway Plus model, depending on what you call it, and if that could command a majority—I am answering this in a serious way—I think that Tory members might want to listen to this, as they have created the mess, it would be helpful to them to understand some truths about this. If the reality of the situation is that a detailed proposal for a Norway Plus arrangement is put forward and if it could command a majority in the House of Commons, then it is worth continuing to consider it. However, there is no such proposal on the table. Secondly, there seems to be a difference between those people who are suggesting continued membership of the single market, which would require a continuation of freedom of movement, which appears to be absolutely anathema to the Prime Minister and those around her, or whether they are proposing continued membership of the customs union, which is a different matter. However, if there was a serious proposal on the table and if Mr Cameron could demonstrate to me and to this House that it was capable of a majority support, then, of course, we would not turn up our noses at it. However, at this particular juncture, what you would have to describe as, frankly, an emergency, then the way out of the impasse that we are in is a people's vote, if it is not a general election, and that is the only caveat that I would make. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the historic scale of the defeat for the Tory Government in last night's vote, EU citizens living in Scotland will understandably be deeply concerned about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. Those people are our work colleagues, our neighbours, our families and, in many cases, our family members. What message does the Scottish Government now have for those people who contribute so much to their public services, our economy, our communities and daily life in Scotland? The member makes probably the most important point of all. The Prime Minister last night, when she rose on the point of order after the outcome of the vote, attempted to give some reassurance but did not do it in the terms that need to be done. The terms that need to be done in the terms of reassurance are very clear. The Prime Minister should commit to all of the conditions of withdrawal agreement that pertain to EU citizens being applied without reservation in terms of any deal or no deal. In other words, what is in the withdrawal agreement should unilaterally be imposed. That in itself would not reassure all the individuals involved who are very nervous about those matters. I think that the Scottish Government will also want to continue in its efforts to say to EU nationals that we support them in the wonderful contribution that they make to Scotland. We will want to make sure that they are provided with as much help and information as we can give that those within the family of organisations within the Scottish Government, we will pay the costs of settled status. We will continue to argue that there should be no fee for settled status, which is completely outrageous the way in which that is being done. We will want to make sure that if there are more things to do, we could do. Of course, the best way to guarantee this is to have that people's vote to reject leaving the EU and to return to the benefits of freedom of movement. It is utterly astonishing that there are politicians who go around crowing about the end of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is a wonderful gift to all of us. It benefits this country and it benefits everybody in it and it benefits those who come here and those who go from here elsewhere. To regard it as an honourous burden is nonsensical but it is also deeply offensive. Pauline McNeill will be followed by Alex Neil. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, to the scale of the defeat last night that was not first seen by anyone, it should mean that this Prime Minister, out of respect for parliamentary democracy, should do the right thing and resign? Does the cabinet secretary further agree that there are no paths now that provide any real certainty? Is it an indication that the Scottish Government's position is that an extension of article 50—which I think there is a case for—in that extension the Scottish Government would not consider support for a radically different or better deal? No, I cannot say that that is the position. The clear likelihood in terms of people and parties coalescing round something is to coalesce around a people's vote because that is available, it has clearly got support within the House of Commons, it has support within the Labour party, it has support with the SNP, that is the most likely option. I am not ruling anything out, but I do note, for example, just recently, within the last hour or so, that Downing Street spokesperson has ruled out moving to a customs union in cross-party talks. Essentially what that means is that the type of movement that you might envisage, for example single market and customs union membership being on the table, which Mr Cameron has just raised, is already ruled out by the Prime Minister. If it is ruled out by the Prime Minister, the only way it would succeed if there was a legitimate proposal that was put that was able to be fleshed out and which commanded at least some Tory support. I think that the clearest way—there is nothing clear in the way forward, but the clearest way forward at the moment is undoubtedly to rule out a no deal, to ask for an extension of article 50 and to hold a people's vote. The timescale for that is tight, nobody would deny that. I think that the likely extension of article 50 would only be until the end of June, so in those circumstances it would have to be done with dispatch, but it could be done and, in my view, should be done. Alex Neil is followed by Liam Kerr. Can I ask the cabinet secretary that if we end up with having a second EU referendum, will he give an undertaking that, before the Scottish Government makes up its mind on what the preferred wording is, that this Parliament will be consulted beforehand, and does he agree with me that any referendum that restricts the choice to between remain and supporting Theresa May's deal would carry no credibility given the scale of the defeat by both supporters of remain and supporters of the leave vote in the House of Commons last night? Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills That will be a game of two halves, because I am quite willing to accept the first thesis, which is that, of course, there should be in the light of a people's vote a substantial discussion within the chamber about the nature of the people's vote, the nature of the question, what are the circumstances that should be held in Scotland. That would be a referendum organised by Westminster, but clearly Scotland would want to have an input to it, so I am happy to give the undertaking. I think that you have to have real alternatives in a referendum. I think that the problem that we had in 2016 of the EU referendum was that neither set of alternatives were particularly well fleshed out. The changes to the EU membership that was proposed by Cameron were not really understood, and those who argued for leave had essentially no shape or substance to what they were arguing at all. I think that you have to have real alternatives. I am not saying that there are no other possibilities, but the real alternatives in this at the present moment are between remaining on the terms that we have or leaving under the Prime Minister's terms. There is no other set of terms that is worked out. There is a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration for all their weaknesses that exists, and therefore it would be a real choice. I am quite happy to continue to debate and discuss this with the member. I think that there are issues to be debated and discussed, but my view at the present moment is that that choice is the most likely choice, but it is not the only choice, and there could be other choices. Liam Kerr has been followed by Annabelle Ewing. Is the minister confident that he can look Scotland's fishermen in the eye when he and his party are agitating to lock them in the hated... Presiding Officer, I will go again. Is the minister confident that he can look Scotland's fishermen in the eye when he and his party are agitating to lock them in the hated common fisheries policy? Annabelle Ewing to be followed by James Kelly. Cabinet Secretary, with two years wasted negotiations, pointless delaying of the vote and the clock ticking with 72 days to go, surely the Prime Minister must now seek an extension to article 50 to prevent the UK crashing out of the EU with no deal, a hugely damaging outcome for my constituents of Cowdenbeath and for my country, something the Conservative party appeared to care very little about. Cabinet Secretary, I was very struck by interviews that I heard on Radio Scotland yesterday and today where the issue of jobs and the importance of jobs and the importance of the economy seemed intaniad to be ignored by the Conservative spokespeople, who either wanted to attack the SNP, which is a bit of a fixation for them actually, I think that they should try and get over it, or simply to talk about the weaknesses of other members of the Conservative party. This appears to be their favourite game. The reality of the situation is that there are huge issues at stake for ordinary men and women in this matter, both EU citizens and others who live there. For each community is under threat. In my constituency in the Highlands and Islands, on Friday, I was at a meeting of fishermen and it was a very positive and productive meeting of fishermen. I declare an interest as an honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and of the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Association. In both of all those people who were there and there were 50 or 60 there, there was huge worry about the way in which their produce would not be able to get through for sale into Europe. Huge worry about a range of problems created by Brexit. In all those circumstances, I can look anybody in the eye and say what the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Government is concerned about, the jobs and the future of the people of Scotland. That would best serve by being within the EU as an independent member. James Kelly has been followed by Clare Adamson. Given that the current Scottish draft budget was based on the assumption that the UK would leave the EU on 29 March, if article 50 is extended, will the Scottish budget have to be rewritten? The reality is that I am seeking information from somebody who—this question, as Mr Kelly will know, is above my pay grade. I have to get information from others. However, in those circumstances, I have advised the cabinet secretary of finance that, if there was a supplementary UK budget—which, of course, the chancellor has said, is likely to be the case if there was a no deal—we would have to have a supplementary budget as well. I made quite a lot in his statement of the cost of a no deal. The cabinet secretary of finance knows this better than anyone that there are already substantial demands upon the Scottish purse from issues that we are having to address through the resilience committee chaired by the Deputy First Minister, so there will continue to be pressures. However, a supplementary UK budget would require us to follow suit and also to receive resources that would allow us to meet those costs. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Following her crushing defeat last night, the Prime Minister said that she wanted to hold talks with others and agree a way forward ahead of a fresh statement to the House on Monday. Given his recent experience, can the cabinet secretary set out to what he believes this to be a genuine offer and what, if any, movement has there been on the part of the UK Government to actually listen to the concerns of this administration and the people of Scotland? The member asked a very good question. There was a very good commentary on this issue by Ryan Heath of Politico Europe some weeks ago, in which he listed the things that the Prime Minister had got wrong from the very beginning. It is a long list, I have to say, needed more than one issue of Politico to go through it. However, at the very heart of it was the fact that she had not, at the earliest stages of this process, sat down with Nicola Sturgeon, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Drakeford and his predecessor and said that, how can we bring together our concerns to make progress on this matter? That has never happened. What we have had in the JMC is detailed discussion on many of the details, but at no stage has the Prime Minister, or I have to say any of those such as Damien Greene or David Littington, said what would it take to allow this to move forward. That is what I understood the Prime Minister meant last night when she rose to her feet. However, if, by lunchtime today, she is already ruling out issues that she will not discuss, it does not seem to me that it is going to make much progress. Of course, we will take part in that. Ian Blackford will take part in it at Westminster. The First Minister stands ready for it, so do I. I will be happy to have those discussions. However, at the end of it, there has to be some indication, both that she is listening—which is not always the indication of the Prime Minister, I have to say—and that she is prepared to change her red lines, not just in order to get agreement in the House of Commons, but more crucially, to get agreement from the EU, because nothing will change unless her red lines change. If Downing Street says that they have ruled out moving to customs union and cross-party talks, that is a red line that prohibits certain things actually happening. If they are ruling out issues on freedom of movement, that is a red line that rules out many other things, so that needs to be understood. How it is understood, followed by Julian Martin. The cabinet secretary's statement indicates that the first part of the plan must be to rule out a no deal. Having voted against the deal last night, your MPs have made that outcome more likely. Therefore, what compromises is the cabinet secretary willing to make to avoid a no deal scenario? I am not sure that the cabinet secretary heard that question. Can I just point out, as kindly as I can, that if every single SNP MP had voted for it, it would still have been voted down by the Tories? Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, hugely so in my constituency—not that our views were reflected yesterday by our MP. Can I ask the cabinet secretary two things? Does he agree with me that all EU nationals in the UK should have a vote in any people's vote? If the Labour leadership does not get behind a people's vote, what other options are open to Scotland? Those are both very good questions for Julian Martin. First of all, yes, of course. The Government's position on franchise is that all EU nationals should have a vote in franchise. Of course, if there was a referendum held under a Westminster franchise, that is not the case with the Westminster franchise and would not be the case also with the Westminster franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds, so that issue would need to be addressed and that would be an issue that we would need to make sure was understood at Westminster because the Westminster franchise does not do that and there are no plans to change the Westminster franchise in that way. There was of course an amendment during the original referendum bill from the SNP among others to look for a quadruple lock, which all the nations of the UK would have to vote in favour for it to go through. That is another approach to it and that was defeated, but the member raises an important point that will need to be considered. In terms of other options, I am working as strongly as I can with the Labour Party and I know that our group at Westminster is doing so, too, to ensure that the people's vote does go through. I do not want to consider that that might not happen, but, of course, there are other options and I indicated from the very beginning that every member of the chamber knows it. At the end of the day, the people of Scotland can choose not to be part of Brexit and they can choose to be independent within the EU. Thank you very much and that concludes our statement on the response to the ministerial vote. We are going to move on now to portfolio questions on environment, climate change and land reform. We will just take a few moments for the ministers and members to change seats.