 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3427 in the name of Michael Russell, protecting Scotland's interest in negotiating our future relationship with Europe. Can I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move the motion in the name of Michael Russell. Cabinet Secretary, 15 minutes are there abouts, please. Presiding Officer, I move the motion in Michael Russell's name. I understand the front bench having advised that he's regrettably unable to attend today. Presiding Officer, almost seven months since the EU referendum in which Scotland voted emphatically to remain in the European Union whilst England and Wales voted to leave, the Prime Minister has today announced as ending the UK involvement in the European project in the hardest and most complete way possible. We think that this is the wrong decision for the UK as a whole and indicates that the type of country that the Conservatives want is a race to the bottom, sacrificing consumer, environmental and workers' rights for the price of deregulation, low wages and low taxes. The Scottish Government and the Scottish people, as indicated in poll after poll, have a different view. We have to find a way forward that honours the democratic demand of the nation to maintain our relationship with our European friends and neighbours. We are realistic and the proposals that we have set out are pragmatic, recognising that the UK is leaving the EU and a compromise in the Scottish national interest. It reflects the interests of this Parliament. The Parliament on 28 June voted 92 to 0 to mandate the Scottish Government to explore options for protecting Scotland's relationship with the EU, Scotland's place in the single market and the social employment and economic benefits that come from that. Although there was a division during the debate, it was clear that even those who did not support the Government's motion in its entirety were of one mind about certain key issues. There was, for example, unanimous support for EU nationals in Scotland. Today, I welcome the sentiments behind the amendment to the motion for this debate from Ross Greer. I would reiterate that EU nationals are and will remain welcome in Scotland and that their futures should not be used as part of a negotiation strategy by the UK Government. In June, there was also agreement about the importance of the single market. For example, Ruth Davidson, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, tabled an amendment in which she said, and I quote, makes it clear that we want to protect and maximise Scotland's place in Europe, the continent and in the European single market. Indeed, since then, Ruth Davidson has gone further on June 30, she said, and I quote, I think that we need to agree some first principles for the talks. Retaining our place in the single market should be the overriding priority. She told the BBC a few days later that she wanted to stay in the single market, and I quote, even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour. Kezia Dugdale, on behalf of Scottish Labour, agreed that, and I quote, all options for protecting Scotland's place in the single market must be explored. Patrick Harvie and Willie Rennie were also among voices from across the chamber who wished to see the Government explore all the options that are open to us within the context of the single market. We were also assured in that very debate that the issue was emphatically—those are the words that were used—emphatically not about a Scottish independence referendum, and that is why you had our support. I can reassure the member if he has taken the trouble to read this document to Scotland's place in Europe. This is a compromise, it is not about independence and neither is it about continuing to EU membership, but it is the UK Government that is driving the debate to the hard right of the Conservatives, shaping a country that I think many people are questioning, do they want to continue with on the terms of Theresa May, but the ball is firmly in her court. Scotland's place in Europe was published on 20 December. It delivered the mandate that we were required to do by this Parliament. It is the first detailed plan to be published by any Government in any part of the UK to deal with the implications of the UK leaving the European Union. Today's debate gives us a Parliament speaking for our nation to take those plans a step further. On Thursday, the Scottish Government will make a presentation about those plans to the GMC European Negotiations Committee, and it is, of course, proper that this Parliament should give its view to them in advance of that discussion in London. The Prime Minister was explicit today in stressing that this paper is still to be considered by the UK Government. As the First Minister highlighted to the chamber on the launch of our publication, those proposals represent a significant compromise on behalf of the Scottish Government, and they are put forward in good faith. We are pleased that that point has been recognised and accepted by so many in Scotland. For example, by Professor Sir David Edwards, Scottish lawyer and academic and former judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, who said that he believes that the Scottish Government is right to urge the UK Government to maintain the UK's position within the single market, the customs union and the various forms of security and police cooperation. That is the primary proposal, and I believe that it merits the widest support across the political spectrum. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Prime Minister made a speech this morning and discussed the disbenefits to Europe in barriers to trade from Europe to the UK, in particular highlighting the plight of Spanish fishermen who might not get access to the UK market, but who are saying not a single word about Scottish and English fishermen and the detriments they might suffer in getting their products to the EU. Disgraceful, is it not? That is the nub of the issue. How do we make sure that we do not repeat the situation where—I raised this issue only yesterday in Brussels with UK officials—never again should we allow the UK Government to see Scottish fishermen and Scottish fishing as expendable. In developing our paper, the Scottish Government has listened carefully to the many communities across and outside Scotland in order that we might understand and respect the wide range of views, including those from whom we voted to leave the EU. We have engaged positively in the joint ministerial committee, as well as the British Irish Council, a wide range of bilateral, multilateral official meetings. We have worked with other devolved administrations, with London, Gibraltar and the Crown Dependences. We have also been engaged in a diplomatic or government level with every one of the remaining 27 member states of the EU, as well as an exhaustive range of meetings with think tanks, academics, businesses, representative bodies and individuals in Scotland and other places, too. Yesterday, I presented our proposals to European partners in Brussels. I held a constructive meeting with the Belgian vice-prime minister and minister of foreign and European affairs, Didier Wendell. I also ensured that I had engagements with others. I also met Sir Tim Barrow, the UK's new permanent representative to the European Union, and I made the point about fishing in particular. I outlined our expectation, following commitments made by the Prime Minister and repeated again today, that Scotland will be fully engaged in the process to agree a UK-wide approach to Brexit in advance of triggering of article 50. I am grateful to all those who have offered their views during our meetings and engagements, including those in the chamber today. I am also grateful for the standing council for its advice and guidance and its input to the development of our paper. Central to our proposition is the belief that short of EU membership, full membership of the single market and customs union is the best outcome not just for Scotland but the whole of the UK. That membership can be secured by UK membership of the European Economic Area. It is disappointing to see that prospect for the UK as a whole being rejected by the Prime Minister today, but we will continue to work with everyone across the political spectrum to take forward the arguments of a differentiated option for Scotland within the UK negotiating position. Adam Tomkins is very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. She mentioned a few moments ago the First Minister's standing council on Europe. Charles Grant is a member of that standing council, and he has said on the point that the cabinet secretary is addressing right now that it will be legally, politically and technically extremely difficult, his words are not mine for Scotland to stay in the single market if the UK as a whole does not. Does the cabinet secretary agree? It will be extremely difficult to ensure that the economy and society of Scotland in the UK can survive and prosper and flourish under the terms of what the UK Government has provided today. However, in relation to Charles Grant, we agree, we actually say in the document, we know that this is challenging, we understand the challenges within that. I was talking to many eminent experts only yesterday in Brussels about these issues, but everybody has said that this is as to Charles Grant, this is a considered piece of work. There are challenges within it, it is technically and legally possible, but there are challenges and changes that would have to take place. We acknowledge that fully in the document, and I have actually been complimented for facing up to the challenges that we might have. We have also highlighted the ways that we can keep Scotland in the single market while continuing to protect free trade from across the rest of the UK, as well as safeguarding the existing powers of this Parliament and the significantly expanding devolution in order to mitigate the damage that will be done by Brexit. It is difficult to overstate the importance of Scotland's continuing membership of the single market. It is central to the health of our economy and our prosperity as a nation, enabling Scottish exporters to be inside the world's largest single market, enabling our citizens to buy goods and services free from import, tax and barriers. The single market has removed barriers to trade and opened Scotland to a market of over 500 million people and 21 million small and medium-sized enterprises. It is eight times the size of the UK market alone. Businesses selling in the EU have unrestricted access to these consumers, helping them to stay competitive. As a result, Scotland's exports to the EU are now worth more than £11.6 billion a year or 42 per cent of the country's total international exports. You said earlier that this document has nothing to do with independence, but the forward in this document contains 11 references to independence. You mentioned the importance of the European single market. Do you think that the European single market is more important than the market with the rest of the UK that accounts for 65 per cent of our trade? We are quite clear that it is not an either or. It is a both and. We want to make sure that we have the single market access to the EU and continue with the United Kingdom. That is what is in the document. We have made it quite clear that our preferred option was the UK as a whole to remain in the single market. We have also then set out the differentiated option that we are going to have to pursue just now, but we are also quite clear that if we cannot achieve the type of results that we want to see and the requirements of the Scottish people, we have to make sure that independence is still on the table if required. We have been quite open about this and we have been quite transparent, but we would not be spending the time, energy and effort to be making sure that there is a solution for the people of Scotland in the national interest with all the activity that I set out. Our proposal states that Scotland should follow the UK position on a customs union. If the UK is out, Scotland would be out. It is also the single market in which considerable potential remains to be unlocked and new opportunities to increase our trade and co-operation will emerge. New market opportunities will arise, the digital economy, services sector, energy, retail, green economy and others. When the UK becomes poorer as a result of Brexit and Brexit has not happened yet, particularly if there is a hard Brexit, as looks as will be the case from today's announcement, then taking advantage of the growing European market will become even more important for Scotland. Membership of the European single market also involves implementing a range of measures designed to further the rights and the interests of working people, protect and advance social and environmental interests and address wider societal changes and challenges such as climate change by collaborative research and collective action. While our key proposal is for the UK as a whole to retain membership of the single market and customs union, we have had to put in place plans and intentions for the situation that is announced today by the Prime Minister, who has chosen to listen to the isolationist Tory Brexiteers and take the path that leads to the hardest of withdrawals. He wants to prioritise cutting immigration and the rejection of the European Court over the financial, employment, social and cultural interests of Scotland, but more than that, he is putting the interests of the right wing of the Tory party over the interests of the people of Scotland. Our paper explores the ways by which we might secure a differentiated option for Scotland, one that keeps Scotland in the single market by means of continued membership of the European economic area. That strategic objective represents a compromise from the Scottish Government. It falls short of what we consider to be the best option for Scotland and the UK, which remains full EU membership. However, the Scottish Government is prepared, as the First Minister has made clear, to offer such a compromise in the national interest in the hope of gaining consensus in Scotland and agreement in the UK to the practical position that was set out. I am sorry, I need to make progress. In this paper, we reiterate our position that we have held for a long time. Just as UK-wide free movement and free trade could, should and would continue if Scotland became independent in the way that the UK Government intends that free trade and free movement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland will continue after Brexit, so we are making plans to secure for Scotland explicitly and sincerely the benefits of the European single market in addition to not instead of free trade and free movement across the UK. In September, David Davis, the UK Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, went to Dublin and told business people there that Ireland will not have to choose between having a strong commitment to the EU or to the UK that it can and should have both. As we have seen through its approach to Nissan last October, the UK Government is all okay and ready to have a flexible Brexit deal in relation to different sexes of the economy, why should that flexibility not provide to distinctive geographical areas? Now, we know that there are challenges in what we are proposing, but they can be secured if there is a political will to do so. We want our discussions with the UK to succeed. That has been our message quite clearly in our discussions with the UK Government, but if our attempts at agreeing a compromise are rejected, then it is vital that we continue to have other options available to us, including that of a referendum on independence. If the hard right of the Tory party that is driving the UK debate can drive Scotland not only out of the EU but out of the single market, it will start to believe that it can do anything to Scotland and get away with it. Finally, the paper sets out why Scotland must have necessary powers to protect democratic, economic, solidarity, social protection and influence issues on leaving the EU. The EU is a major source of rights, so we have already debated it in this Parliament. We take forward those discussions with the UK Government. Theresa May has repeated today that Scotland should be fully engaged in the Brexit process. The next meeting of the GMCN is on Thursday. Scotland will not be silenced by a right-wing Tory Government, which is intent on riding roughshod over our vital national interests and the democratic— The cabinet secretary is in her last minute. Scotland will not be silenced by a right-wing Tory Government, which is intent on riding roughshod over our vital national interests and the democratic voice of the Scottish people. It is time to stand up for the interests of Scotland. I call on Dean Lockhart to speak to and move amendment 3427.3. 11 minutes are there about please, Mr Lockhart. I would like to start by recognising the contribution to the EU debate, provided by the Scottish Government's paper on Scotland's place in Europe. I would also like to highlight the powerful speech that was delivered by the Prime Minister this morning, which provides us with much greater clarity on the UK's future relationship with the EU, something that I will return to later. Looking first at the SNP's proposal for a differentiated relationship for Scotland with the EU, the central recommendation is that Scotland maintains continued membership of the EEA and the European Single Market. The so-called Norway option is one example of how that might be achieved. The report itself acknowledges that that proposal raises technical, legal and political complexities and will require the express agreement of all 27 EU member states. Initial reactions to the SNP's proposals have raised some serious concerns. Members of the First Minister's own Standing Council of Experts have said that their proposals would be highly unlikely and extremely difficult to implement. We share those concerns. On that side of the chamber, we encourage the Scottish Government to work closely with the rest of the UK and use the full strength of the UK's bargaining position to get the very best deal for Scotland. Presiding Officer, I will first set out the advantages of taking this UK-wide approach to the negotiations before considering the differentiated approach proposed by the SNP. Under the UK-wide approach, our combined objective, as set out by the Prime Minister this morning, is to pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU in order to allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. Let me highlight to the members all European countries outside of the EU have tariff-free access to the EU single market under free trade agreements, with the exception of Belarus. The Prime Minister also highlighted today a number of other significant objectives that will address issues that are raised by various parties. First of all, the guarantees of rights of EU nationals in Britain as early as possible as part of the negotiations, the protection of workers' rights currently enshrined in EU law, new trade agreements with the rest of the world through a new and bespoke arrangement with the European Customs Union and a smooth, orderly Brexit with the phased process of implementation with the final EU deal to be agreed by the UK Parliament. Mr Crawford? Dean Lockhart could tell us just how many countries within the European Union would need to agree a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Is it not 27? Mr Lockhart? It is 27, Mr Crawford. We would have a very strong bargaining position, because the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa. I will come on to this. The EU chief negotiator has already said that it wants access to the city of London and that the UK is a financial hub, and I will come on to that later. The market reaction to these ambitious plans has seen the pound appreciate by 2.5 per cent showing faith in the new vision for the negotiations. Given those ambitious objectives announced by the Prime Minister for the UK to be a leading global free trading nation, it is now clear that Scotland will be in a much stronger position if it negotiates together with the UK. For example, I will a bit later. Let me make some progress. For example, together we represent the financial hubs of London, Edinburgh and Glasgow. The chief negotiator of the EU, as I said to Mr Crawford, has recently recognised that financial stability will be a critical factor for an increasingly fragile eurozone. It will therefore be vital as part of the negotiations for the EU to continue to have free access to global funding from the city of London, as well as Edinburgh and Glasgow, as the UK remains the centre for global capital markets. A UK-wide approach would also avoid creating potential barriers to trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK, ensuring free access to Scotland's vital domestic market, which accounts for 65 per cent of our trade, compared with the EU single market, which only accounts for 15 per cent of our trade. Many commentators have warned that free trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK would end if one country was in the single market and the other was not. On that point, Charles Grant, one of the First Minister's standing council of experts, has said that it is extremely difficult for Scotland to stay in the single market if the UK as a whole does not. There would have to be one set of business regulations applying to England and another set applying to Scotland. Ash Denham. I am very interested in the member's opinion of the idea of renegotiating those bilateral trade agreements. Most experts are expressing the time frame of that would be about 10 years. Are the Conservatives happy to preside over 10 years of lost trade? There are various ways of achieving that. The UK could, for example. The UK could exceed two existing arrangements, which are in place, so that is all part of the negotiation. However, I am very confident, unlike some others, that we have a strong position. Just getting back to this point about the priority being our domestic market with the rest of the UK, the head of Scottish engineering has warned that having two regulatory systems would damage trading with the UK, our largest market, something that we want to avoid through the differentiated approach proposed by the SNP. A UK-wide approach would also mean that Scotland could fully participate in new trade deals entered into by the UK after Brexit. Our single largest international trading country is the United States. Trade levels with the US have doubled in the past decade. Scotland exports more to the US than it does to Germany and France combined. Exports to the EU have declined in recent years. Exports to the rest of the world have increased from 16 per cent to 20 per cent, so there are significant benefits to be derived from entering into new trade agreements with the likes of China and India, as recommended by the Scottish Whiskey Association. That is something that Scotland can benefit, but only as part of a UK-wide negotiation with the European Union. Given all of those opportunities, I encourage the Scottish Government to work together with the UK Government to get the very best deal for the people of Scotland. I would like to know what reference the Prime Minister made to companies using the UK as a tax haven, as mentioned by the Chancellor Philip Hammond on Sunday. If she did not make a reference to that, can you answer us to why the UK public should think that that is in their interests in a boost for the UK? Mr Lockhart. I think that, as part of the negotiations, you will see a lot of positioning by different people that was speculation as a possible outcome. Do not see it being part of it. Presiding Officer, turning now to the differentiated approach proposed in the SNP's paper, there are a number of constitutional, economic, practical and legal problems surrounding the SNP proposals. Constitutionally, the proposal for a Norway-style arrangement would require the consent of all four existing EFTA members, as well as the other 27 EU states. In addition, article 56 of the EFTA convention provides that only nation states can become members, meaning that Scotland would have to first become independent before it could apply to EFTA. Reflecting this constitutional background, the head of the Norwegian delegation to EFTA has made it clear that, to enter the EEA agreements, a nation has to be either a member of the EU or EFTA. To become a member of EFTA, Scotland would have to first leave the UK. His words are not mine. In addition, a leading Spanish MEP has commented that if you do not like the message, that is probably why you are not listening. A leading Spanish MEP has commented that we are not going to accept Scotland in the single market without the rest of the UK. Economically, the SNP proposals run the real risk of creating an economic or customs border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and requiring business in Scotland to follow two regulatory systems. Professor Michael Keating has warned that free trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK would end if one country was in the EU single market and the other was not. On a practical level, let me refer you to members of the First Minister's own Standing Council of Experts, because the First Minister said that she would follow her advice every step of the way. Perhaps she might want to hear her advice that her proposal is highly unlikely. Finally, legally, the proposals would see Scotland having no influence over whatsoever over its legal and trading framework and directly contradicts the First Minister's own five Brexit tests, including making sure that we do not just have to abide by the rules of the single market but that we also have a say in shaping them. That would not be the case. Following the announcement by the Prime Minister, it is now clearer than ever that Scotland's best interests will be served by following a UK-wide approach to negotiating our future with Europe. Let me conclude, Presiding Officer. Our amendment to the Government motion today calls on the SNP— I would like to hear Mr Lockhart, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. So would I. No, thank you. Our amendment to the Government motion today calls on the SNP to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland as a whole, and to stop using the outcome of the EU referendum to campaign for independence. In the forward to this paper, Scotland's place in Europe, supposedly a document about Europe, there are 11 separate references to independence, as well as the First Minister's repeated reference to Scotland being independent within Europe as being the preferred option. Yet again, the SNP continues to defy economic logic by constantly campaigning to leave our domestic UK trading market, representing 65 per cent of our business, to maintain membership of a European single market that accounts for only 15 per cent. A clear majority of people in Scotland do not want another independence referendum, do not want to join the Eurozone, the Schengen area and do not want to be part and subject to the monetary and fiscal policies of the European Central Bank. It is time for the SNP to stop using the paper as a European version of the white paper on independence, listen to the people of Scotland and rule out another damaging independence referendum. I move the amendment in my name. We start the new year as we ended the old debating Scotland's future relationship with Europe and what it means for Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. Things have changed, of course, not just since the Scottish Government published Scotland's place in Europe in December, but indeed in the course of the last few hours. The premise that the best option is for the UK not to leave the single market in the first place is the starting point of this paper, but as we have heard, it has been dismissed altogether today by Theresa May. The Scottish Government has outlined its own plan B, recognising the risk of just such a position being taken and that, of course, is central to our debate this afternoon. However, we also need to understand what the Prime Minister said today. She appeared to say three things, note to the single market, yes to transitional arrangements and on the customs union, don't know that her Government has still not reached a clear position on that critical matter. There was little evidence of a willingness to consider different outcomes on the single market for different parts of the UK, but the Prime Minister has given undertakings to consider proposals from the Scottish Government, and that pledge should be honoured. Our starting point in this debate is that we acknowledge the benefits that Scotland and Britain have derived from membership of the European single market, but we know that the single market of the United Kingdom is even more important to our vital interests. The Scottish Government has proposed that Scotland can retain the benefits of one without sacrificing the other, but ministers, I hope, recognise that retaining our place in the single market does not mean the status quo. It cannot mean full membership of the single market if the UK Parliament endorses what Theresa May had to say today. Our place in future, as we argued last time, we debated the single market, has to mean the most unfettered access to that market that can be achieved in the context of the decisions of the United Kingdom as a whole. However, in that context, ministers can and should continue to seek ways to protect Scotland's vital interests, working with others across the United Kingdom who are also seeking to make the best of the current circumstances. Our Labour colleagues in Wales, such as us, believe that access to the single market is vitally important to jobs and prosperity and that there is scope for the Scottish and Welsh Governments to work together in their approach to discussions in the joint ministerial committee and elsewhere. The mayor of London is strongly focused on the issue of freedom of movement, so again there is scope for working together to achieve vital economic and social objectives for both London and Scotland. We welcome the emphasis in today's Government motion on the issue of free movement of workers and we value the single market for the rights that it gives to citizens as well as for access for business. The points that the member is making and clearly in terms of the single market, it is not just the economic trade, it is the four aspects and the point about freedom of movement is also about the regulations, the protections of workers' rights, which really is at risk unless we ensure that we can comply and ensure that they are in the best interests of the people of Scotland going forward. Is that a point that the member agrees with? Absolutely, and workers' rights are certainly central to our approach and among the key benefits that we recognise and identify from the positive experience, if you like, of the European experience along, of course, with jobs and business. The Government's motion also says that, in the event that the UK opts to leave the single market, alternative approaches within the UK should be sought. We welcome that to enable Scotland to retain its place. We welcome that emphasis. Seeking alternatives within the UK is clearly different from seeking alternatives to the UK, and we remain wholly opposed to any options that would sacrifice access to the British single market in favour of the European one, but we are in favour of exploring alternatives that do not. We want the Scottish Government to go and talk to UK ministers about their paper on alternatives within the UK, and we want UK ministers to listen. On that point, I wonder if the member agrees with something that the Prime Minister said in her speech earlier on today, where she said that it must be one of the United Kingdom's guiding principles that no new barriers are created to living and doing business within our own union of nations. Is that a position with which Scottish Labour now agree or disagree? Mr MacDonald, it is certainly the case that we want to create as few new barriers to movement and to doing business as possible. First and certainly within the United Kingdom, as I have said, that is our starting point, but clearly barriers created within Europe equally damage our vital economic and social interests, and that is also part of our perspective. Of course, it is true to say that this Government has to talk to the UK Government in order for the proposals in the paper to be taken forward. Access to the European Economic Area through membership of Efter for Scotland alone would require support both from the UK Government and from Efter Member States. It is also hard to see how it would be possible to maintain a customs union across the UK if part of the UK was in the European single market and part was not. That again is something that has to be addressed. Of course, ultimately, the UK does leave the single market and the European customs union. It will then seek to negotiate bilateral trade deals with other countries, and there would therefore soon be a divergence between trade deals entered into by the UK and those to which Member States of Efter and the EEA are already committed, either directly or as a consequence of the relationship with the European Union. Mr MacDonald is aware that Norway, while in the single market with the European Union, is outside the customs union and is therefore not subject to external deals negotiated on behalf of the European Union. Mr MacDonald, I am very aware of that. The critical challenge for the Government in promoting and making the case for their paper or their plan B is the proposition around the customs union of the United Kingdom, although I completely take the point that Mr Mackey makes about the significance of the European customs union. However, even if the UK agreed to support a special arrangement for Scotland, there would clearly be the risk of a direct conflict between membership of Efter for a part of the UK and the UK-wide customs union, because there are provisions in relation to trade that apply there. Fiona Hyslop summed up the Scottish Government approach the customs union today. I paraphrase her fairly that, essentially, it is to shadow whatever decision on a customs union that the Conservative Government ultimately makes. Mrs May's clear rejection of the single market today was in marked contrast with her uncertainty about the right way forward on tariffs and trade. That is little wonder. If businesses in every sector of the economy can see the risk to export and jobs from tariff barriers between Britain and Europe of exactly the kind that Professor Tomkins referred to, he would expect Government ministers to see that too. That uncertainty about the options of signing or leaving the customs union in Europe does offer room for manoeuvre, which should be taken. Although I do believe that ministers need to be realistic about the relationship between membership of the single market and membership of the UK customs union. Today is also the right time to look beyond the triggering of article 50. That is the purpose of our amendment today. If the UK Government is determined to walk away from the single market, it is all the more important to talk about what kind of transition from the status quo towards new permanent arrangements would be in the best interests of Scotland and of the UK. Theresa May appeared today to say that she was open to such transition arrangements, and that again creates space for seeking to sustain positive relationships, at least in the short term. If there genuinely is an appetite for such transition arrangements, Scottish ministers should seek to influence them and to maintain as many as possible of the positive benefits of our relationship with Europe. In our view, the Scottish Government's option paper provides a basis for discussion, not the final answer to the problems that we face. We recognise that different arrangements on freedom of movement and freedom of trade for different parts of the UK may be part of that answer, but we are absolutely clear that the integrity of the UK single market and customs union will remain critical to Scotland's interests. We want to make the most of any transition arrangements to minimise the economic dislocation that the EU will bring. To that end, Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr McDonnell. I now call him Willie Rennie to speak to the move amendment 3427.2. Mr Rennie, eight minutes are thereabouts, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. This afternoon's speech from the Prime Minister I think confirms that the Conservatives are hell bent on a hard Brexit, regardless of what the impact will be on millions of people through higher prices, greater instability, hitting jobs and hurting our economy. Withdrawing from the single market and the customs union is not in our country's interests nor was it what people voted for on 23 June. The Tories are turning Brexit into a democratic stitch-up, and it shows how vital it is that the public be given a say in a Brexit deal referendum. I listened to Dean Lockhart earlier on. That is the exact speech that Nigel Farage would have delivered just a few months ago. The Liberal Democrats, in contrast, stand for Scotland in the UK and the UK in Europe. Many in this chamber and outside want us to choose between the European Union and the United Kingdom, but we will not give up on either of those institutions, not just now. I will never choose. My ambition is for Scotland to be in both, and I will campaign for both. I am an internationalist. I believe in co-operation with our neighbours. I am pro-European. I am pro-United Kingdom, and I will not give up on either. The argument that our interests are best served by working together equally applies to the UK as to the European Union. Listening to the speeches on this side and on this side, you could have reversed those speeches only a couple of years ago. The arguments that they were using for each were the arguments that could have been used in the independence campaign. That is how those two have turned the arguments, not just now, on their heads. The Conservatives have embraced a hard Brexit, and they tell us to give up on the EU. The SNP is desperate to tell us, as the end of Fiona Hyslop's speech made clear, that we need to give up on the United Kingdom. I do not know what Labour stands for anymore. I do not know whether they stand for the European Union. I do not know whether they stand for the United Kingdom either. They are prepared to accept a blank check for Theresa May to agree whatever she likes. Lewis MacDonald's speech did not clear that up in any way whatsoever. On a point of consensus, I agree with the SNP's analysis of the Conservatives on Brexit. Ham strung by their right, hell bent on hard Brexit, no preparations. In fact, our analysis between our two parties is so similar that they are now adopting our slogans. The blank check Brexit was coined by the Liberal Democrats by him. I am pleased to say that it is now being used in graphic form by the SNP. On 24 May last year, before the referendum, the now chancellor, Philip Hammond, made a powerful case for the single market, one in which I agreed with. He ridiculed the suggestion that we could have it all, that access to the single market on the same terms as membership is possible. He ridiculed that. In fact, he said that the Leave campaign was a manifesto for the impoverishment of the British people. He was right then and he is right now. At that very moment, when it becomes clear how bad it is going to be and how impoverished we will become, Ruth Davidson switches sides to become a hard Brexiteer and make us all poorer. Theresa May sold out the single market at lunchtime today in her first major speech on the terms—not just now—before she had even opened the door to negotiate with the rest of the EU. What a betrayal of everything! She, her chancellor and Ruth Davidson promised—I will take an intervention. I wonder whether Willie Rennie could possibly explain that this is a hard Brexit. We seek the greatest possible access to the single market through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement, the words of the Prime Minister today. That is not a hard Brexit. That is seeking full access to the single market. That is not a hard Brexit. Mr Rennie? I was quite a nice try, but in reality we all know that she is planning to take Britain out of the customs union and out of the single market. That is a hard Brexit, and Adam Tomkins needs to understand that before he stands up in this chamber. Ruth Davidson and her colleagues are prepared to impoverish the British people because the Conservatives were incapable of resolving their internal civil war on Europe. Impoverish the British people because the Conservatives' tactical calculation that they could see of UKIP. Impoverish the British people because the Conservatives are only prepared to follow, not lead. They will not stand up for our economy, our security and our jobs. I will never hear it again from the Conservatives that they are the party of business and the economy. They have shredded that reputation with this decision today. Ruth Davidson now expects us to believe that Brexit is a great opportunity when she said only a few months ago that it would be an unmitigated disaster. Some say that this is the biggest mistake since Suez and the decision to go to war with Iraq. I think that it is as monumental as those decisions. I think that the long-lasting effect on our country and our economy, our jobs and our opportunities will be significant, that the Conservatives are prepared to roll over no questions, no challenge, no leadership. Although we may disagree with the SNP or the analysis, we differ on the solution. We do not need the chaos of independence to compound the chaos of Brexit. We do not address uncertainty by bringing more uncertainty. The SNP's differentiated half-way house solution has not got off to a good start. We have heard from Governments across Europe who have questioned whether that differentiated solution can work. I do not believe that it can work. The SNP's pre-Christmas paper is an apparent serious attempt to present a plan, but the SNP's plan—their idea of a plan—is to offer the solution that it always offers. The solution that they believe that the answer is to absolutely any problem that you could possibly think of, and that is independence. It was thinly disguised in the paper, but Fiona Hyslop revealed at the end that this is what it is all about. They will dress it up in all sorts of different ways, but in reality what they want is independence, because they do not believe in anything else. I believe that what we should go for is a Brexit deal referendum. The British people can have a say on the final deal, on the detail. The first referendum on the detail that I believe is the democratic way to proceed to project jobs and protect opportunities for people in this country. I have moved to the open debate. It is a tight six minutes. I call Ivan McKee to be followed by Alexander Stewart. The situation that we find ourselves in at this time is not of our making. It is a consequence of internal schisms within the Tory party dating back decades. Scotland finds itself at risk of losing the substantial benefits of membership of the European internal market. The situation was not the preferred option of the last Prime Minister and it was not the preferred option of this Prime Minister. It is not the preferred option of the great majority of Scots or of members of this Parliament, including the vast majority of those on the Tory benches, who, not that long ago, were arguing passionately for Remain. However, it is from that mess that we must work together to extricate ourselves, navigating our way through the fog of Brexit to find the option that delivers the best deal for Scotland within the UK, consistent with the wishes of the people of England and Wales, to leave the EU and declare the desire of the people of Scotland to stay in the single market. With political vision and leadership, this circle can be squared, and through this proposal, the Scottish Government has done just that, by proposing an option that works and one that we all have a responsibility to fully consider. The document makes it clear that the goal is to identify common ground with the UK Government around a solution that would protect Scotland's place in the European single market from within the UK. The Scottish Government's proposal does not prioritise the European single market over free movement and free trade within the UK, just as the UK Government believes that free trade and movement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland will continue after Brexit. That proposal seeks to secure the benefits of the European single market for Scotland, in addition to not instead of free trade across the UK. Let us be clear about what the proposal is before us. Scotland will continue as a member of the European single market. Norway shows that it is not true that membership of the single market requires membership of the EU. Scotland would, however, be outside of the EU customs union if that is the option that is chosen for the UK by the UK Government, and Scotland would continue as part of the UK to be part of the UK customs union. Membership of the single market, again, as shown by Norway, does not necessarily mean membership of the EU customs union. Llyctinstein in Switzerland are in a customs union with each other, even though the former is part of the EEA where the latter is not. Scotland will be a member of the single market, enjoy. Mr O'Lackert, looking at the Norway option, would he agree with the head of the Norwegian delegation to EFTA, who made it clear that to enter the EEA agreement, a nation has to be either a member of the EU or EFTA, and to become a member of EFTA, Scotland would have to be independent? That is not the case. If you look at the situation currently with the Faroe Islands negotiating a position to become part of EFTA, that scenario is perfectly possible, and the details of that are included in the document that the member cares to read through it. Scotland's member would continue to enjoy free movement of labour, and there is no reason why Scotland cannot continue to enjoy the benefits of working and living across the EU, even as citizens in other parts of the UK deny themselves those rights. I Love Man is not a member of the EU. EU citizens are unable to work in the I Love Man, and Manx citizens are already unable under current situation, despite being British citizens to enjoy free movement across the EU. That demonstrates that differential solutions across the islands are possible, and there is no need for Scottish citizens to exclude themselves from the single labour market when the UK leaves the EU. There would be no hard border for people between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The UK Government has been very clear that the common travel area will continue after Brexit. There will be no hard border between an island still in the EU and the UK outside of it. Differential immigration regimes within countries without internal borders are not uncommon. Provinces in Canada and the United States and Australia are concrete examples. The Prime Minister has made it clear that immigration controls will, in any event, be deployed at the point of employment, allowing for separate immigration solutions in different parts of the UK. Scotland can have different immigration policies from the rest of the UK. Indeed, whatever post-Brexit arrangements in Scotland, like London, needs to explore a distinctive approach to our immigration needs. Norwood, there needs to be a hard border for goods between Scotland and the UK. The border between Sweden and Norway is two countries with very different relationships to the EU, or between Switzerland and Liechtenstein, two countries with very different relationships to the European single market, but a customs union with each other shows that that would work. That proposal would deliver benefits to Scotland, to the rest of the UK and to the EU. Remaining within the single market will give Scottish businesses advantages over those in other parts of the UK due to access in through the single market. The Scotland and Europe model also delivers significant benefits to the rest of the UK, allowing UK businesses to trade within the single market without leaving the UK. That allows European businesses the benefit of trading within the UK from within the single market, a win-win-win for all concerned. For the UK Government to fail to engage on those proposals, it is not only a slap in the face for the people of Scotland, but it is also a dereliction of their duty to find the best solution for the UK as a whole. For Theresa May, the Scotland and Europe option provides a get out of jail free card. It allows the UK to leave the EU while significantly mitigating the economic impact of Brexit and keeping the UK together. Ardge members across the Parliament to take the time to read and consider the document, understand the proposals and to work with us to deliver the solution in the interests of Scotland. I also say to the Prime Minister that a failure to engage with that proposal will not go unnoticed. It will go down in history as the moment when it was made crystal clear to the people of Scotland that this United Kingdom is anything but a partnership of equals. Alexander Stewart, to be followed by Ash Denham. The referendum held on 23 June last year was decisive. The United Kingdom, as a member's state of the European Union, took the decision to leave the political bloc. The fact that the trade within the UK domestic market is four times as important to Scotland compared to the trade within the EU single market. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government have recognised and have taken cognises of that, but that also begs the question as to why it continues to put our participation within the UK single market in jeopardy. That position is utterly illogical. I thank Alexander Stewart for taking the intervention. Given the point that he just made, would he say that it seems somewhat illogical if the Conservative position, as he has just described, is also to say that it should jeopardise its biggest market, the UK's biggest market, which is the EU at 44 per cent of exports, in favour of a deal with Donald Trump at around a third of that level? He cannot have it both ways. Mr Stewart, we have made it quite clear that we want full access to as many markets as we possibly can. With this situation, we would get full access to markets. I move on. The First Minister has made it quite clear that she has been forced into a situation of not ruling out a second referendum for Scottish independence only for this year, but the threat still looms large. It is having a negative impact on investment and business confidence in Scotland. The business community understands that. Why can't the Scottish Government understand the impact that it is creating with independence coming back again and again in the agenda? No, I would like to make some progress. The recent survey carried out by the Federation of Small Businesses revealed that, in the final quarter of 2016, small business confidence in the UK bounced back to the pre-Brexit referendum level. That is very much to be welcomed, and it shows the confidence that is there, and it shows that people believe in the future as we move forward. The small business index in the UK average is now 8.5 per cent, but in Scotland, however, it sits significantly lower than that of any other part of the United Kingdom, and considerably lower than in London itself. It is this threat of another referendum on independence, not Brexit, that is having the most significant impact on confidence within business in Scotland. The Scottish Government has to acknowledge that it is creating this crisis in the business community. Nobody else. No, I want to continue. The SNP should stop harming our economy by completely ruling out another referendum for the duration of this Parliament and end the uncertainty that it is creating. Rather than being obsessed with a single market membership, the Scottish Government should be doing all that it can to work alongside the UK Government to ensure that we achieve the freest possible trade deal between the UK and the EU. One that allows a United Kingdom to make its own trading relationship with other nations. The ability to forge our new trade deals with the rest of the world is vitally important in ensuring that it goes forward as a success. As the other parts of the world continue to outstrip the European single market in terms of economic growth, we need to negotiate new, bold trading relations with other countries beyond the European frontier. In Scotland's case, specifically, while around 15 per cent of our exports go to the rest of the EU, 20 per cent of them go to the rest of the world. Regardless of your views on the US president elect, his willingness to engage and to secure a quick and broad free trade deal with the United Kingdom is something that everybody in this chamber should welcome. Not only, but other countries like New Zealand and Australia have significantly indicated their desire to quickly negotiate a bilateral trade deal with Britain. Those countries, once again, see the opportunities that lie ahead and want to embrace those opportunities and do all that they can to support us as we move forward as a nation in the world market. The Scottish Government's proposals that are set out in the Scottish Place in Europe publication seems to be more to do with politics than trying to ensure that Scotland has a meaningful input in the UK's vectors negotiations. No, I would like to make progress. The member is not taking intervention. I can do that by myself. I continue single market membership for Scotland while the UK leaves is simply unhelpful. Such a ludicrous situation would necessitate a hard border at Berwick and stop Scottish businesses from having unfettered access to the UK's domestic market. That, even the SNP has to acknowledge, and as I said before, we are four times more important to Scotland than the EU within the single market. As I move on to concluding, perhaps the Scottish National Party stopped using Brexit as a political smokescreen to mask their failings in government. It might be better able to represent Scotland's interests in the immediate negotiations in our future relationship with the European Union. I realise that some members of the Tory benches wish to stop giving chamber time to the issue of Brexit, especially as it was mentioned last week, but I assure them that on this they are out of step with the public, who are desperate for more information on the subject. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, and if the democratic will of the people of Scotland is to be realised, Scotland's voice must be heard during the negotiations. The Scottish Government has now published its plan, Scotland's Place in Europe, outlining a potential way forward with a number of options. One option is to try to influence the UK Government to take a soft Brexit. After today, I'll admit that I don't hold out much hope of that option. Another option, of course, is that Scotland could become an independent country and a full member of the EU, but for today I'd like to talk about the third option, which is that of a differentiated arrangement. I accept that the UK Government has a democratic mandate to take England and Wales out of the EU, but the mandate in Scotland is very different. Scotland must not be taken out of the single market against its will, and all the indications are pointing towards what is called a hard Brexit. For Adam Tomkin's information, being outside the single market and outside the customs union is regarded as a hard Brexit. Why is that such a problem for Scotland? Well, because of the effects that it will have on our economy. Economists have said that a hard Brexit will cost up to 80,000 Scottish jobs and could cost the Scottish economy up to £11 billion per year. I believe that we are now on our 15th debate on Brexit. If the SNP would focus on domestic issues such as productivity, it could improve the Scottish economy by £45 billion according to Scottish Enterprise. That is a multiple of the money that we are talking about as a result of Brexit. That is why we are telling the Government to get on with the day job. I realise that the Scottish Tories policy, and indeed the UK Tories policy on Brexit, is to have your cake and eat it. However, after seven months of no substantive improvements in setting out a plan by the UK Government, we could all agree that cake is now stale. In challenging economic times, when global productivity growth is stalling, UK housing is so expensive and wages are stagnating, that is far from the time to inflict the economic carnage that would result from leaving the single market by choice. It would be a choice—a choice that we do not have to make. Scotland should negotiate to stay inside the single market. Being in the EEA would give us things like free movement of goods and services, allowing Scots to move around to establish businesses and to build careers in EU countries. It allows businesses to trade to a market of 500 million consumers, and 42 per cent of Scotland's international exports go to the EU. It continues to make Scotland an attractive place for foreign direct investment and gives us access to a supply of skilled labour to fill gaps in our workforce, allowing companies to grow and flourish and universities to access the best talent for research. That option is feasible. It allows the UK Government to respect their mandate, whilst also respecting Scotland's quite different mandate, and it also protects Scotland's interests. The Prime Minister has said that she would listen to the options and that her view was of a United Kingdom where the four nations flourish side by side as equal partners. Now comes the hour when the Prime Minister can demonstrate that principle and show by acting in good faith that she is willing to listen and to act upon the voice of Scotland. The UK Government appears to be the open to the idea of a flexible Brexit, where that applies to different sectors of the economy, or to Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. It is important to recognise that there is already a range of differentiated arrangements within the EU and the single market framework, reflecting a willingness throughout its history to be flexible. Examples of that include Denmark, which is a member, and Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which are not. The Faroe Islands are considering joining after and have asked the Danish Government to support it in doing so. I also appreciate the exploration of those options, but could the member give us an update on the status of those Faroes negotiations? My understanding is that they have not been taken forward and the Danish Government rejected them as not being possible. What I am trying to do here is to lay out that there are a number of different variances within the framework, so that all those options are possible. The Channel Islands are not in the EU, but they are in the customs union. Lichtenstein and Switzerland are in a customs union with each other, though the former is in the EEA and the other is not. A solution for Scotland would vary in detail, but the principle is already well established and would be the same. I would join with Ivan McKee in calling on the UK Government to support Scotland to negotiate a differentiated agreement where Scotland is in the single market, in the EEA and EFTA, in the same way that Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland are, even if the rest of the UK is outside. Let's be clear, I do not underestimate the difficulties in this. There are significant practical and technical challenges with this option, but with the political will I believe it is possible. We are in an unprecedented situation. There are no set rules for what happens now. Imagination will be required for whatever comes next. Differentiation within the UK is the very hallmark of devolution, allowing Scotland to make different choices because they are the right choices for our different circumstances and because they protect our interests. Fundamentally, devolution allows policy to be different across the UK precisely to reflect the democratically expressed preferences of the electorate. Scotland has democratically expressed a very different preference. A differentiated arrangement is technically possible. It doesn't cost the UK Government anything. I would ask the other parties in this chamber to give serious thought to this sensible and practical option and support the motion. Hi Colin, Mark Griffin to be followed by Graham Day. Time is really tight. As Lewis MacDonald set out, we will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion. Today, we agree with overall sentiments and express these in each of the points that it raises. We believe that Scotland benefits from having a strong relationship with the EU and that jobs and prosperity are best maintained with unrestricted access to the single market. We welcome that the Scottish Government has published a paper that lays out its options for maintaining Scotland's relationship with the EU, but we see that that is a basis for discussions going forward and not as a final answer to the problems that we face. We want the Scottish Government to engage with UK ministers on the paper of alternatives and, crucially, for UK Government ministers to listen. Today marks a very significant stage in the Brexit process, as Theresa May turns her back on UK membership of the single market. That makes serious engagement around Scotland's relationship with Europe all the more urgent. Last week, we debated the impact of Brexit on the human rights institutions of this Parliament in the UK. Given today's speech by the Prime Minister at Sampson, I want to revisit it. During that debate, I made it clear that, when key bills are lodged in Parliament this year, in particular the proposed child poverty bill and social security bill, we must revisit those themes so that we can best secure and enhance civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for people in Scotland. The challenge that I made to this Parliament to act is now starker than ever. Theresa May has detailed just what she actually means by Brexit. She has, in one speech, reopened constitutional wins, but at the same time has shown us that so much uncertainty lies ahead. I mentioned in the chamber last week that Brexit will lead to her leaving the EU, so we will no longer be signed up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union and raised the question that, until we decide otherwise, the European Convention on Human Rights will still be applicable through our membership of the Council of Europe and through the Human Rights Act 1998. That Labour Government act brings home our rights, given our most vulnerable citizens, a powerful means of redress and protecting us, all of us against the misuse of state power. It is quite clear that the Tories are not content with putting Scotland's place in the EU at risk because of their reckless Brexit gamble, but they are also willing to put the future of the UK in danger at every turn and are now pressing ahead with putting those human rights at risk, too. However, that antidote from the Government benches of another referendum, yet more constitutional wrangling and uncertainty will not protect Scots. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union includes a broad range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. If the charter no longer applies in the UK as a result of Brexit and no changes are made to compensate for that, there will be fewer human rights limits on the UK Parliament and this Parliament. It is clear that the challenge that we now face in this Parliament is that we need to protect and instill those rights into our own law. Poverty erodes the values of dignity and equality that underpin all international human rights that we should act, not least because we have the power to make laws to protect communities and it would be of the service to Scots if we let the Tories remove those powers. Theresa May's speech today made promises on workers' rights, but given the Tories' record on employment rights, I won't be taking her word for it. Presiding Officer, we've got a job to do. The question that we now need to think about is how we incorporate more of those rights into Scots law using the powers that we do have and prevent the Tories from removing rights from UK law. Scottish people don't need politicians from different halves of the country constantly facing off each other and furthering the cold war of constitutional politics, but we do have to recognise in this debate, though, that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that being part of the UK secures hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland, grows our economy and funds the public services that we all rely on every day. Our exports to the EU countries are worth about a quarter of the value of our trade with the rest of the UK. Scotland's trade with the UK single market is worth £48 billion. Scotland trades twice as much with the rest of the UK as we do with the EU and the rest of the world combined. Presiding Officer, the last thing that we should be considering following a hard Tory Brexit is withdrawn from our most important market and partnership. I wonder if we could focus on the human aspect of all this. The people who are in the firing line of Brexit or who could have Scotland finds itself with no access to the single market potentially suffer directly from its consequences. Are we just being the overwhelming majority of Scots who voted remain or, indeed, those who voted leave but not for the hard Brexit version that is emerging? I also mean the many EU nationals who have made Scotland their home and have found themselves being treated as bargaining chips or negotiating capital. The seasonal migrant workers who ensure Scottish agriculture functions, the 13 per cent of staff at Aberty University, which I visited on Monday who hail from other EU states, I don't know what the future is going to hold. The 450 students at Dundee and Angus college whose places are supported by European Union funding and, yes, the 80,000 Scots who are predicted to lose their jobs within a decade if we are out of the single market. At the end of June of last year, a matter of days after the Brexit vote, Parliament debated the potential implications for Scotland. My contribution to that debate focused on the uncertainty for and impact on EU nationals living in our communities and the businesses that rely on EU migrant workers to succeed. Here we are, more than six months later, and I find myself returning to that theme, not to score political debating points, but because the intervening period has provided at best only partial apparent progress with the former and none with the latter. Those are real people and real Scottish businesses that we are talking about. Back last summer, in common with colleagues on those benches, I wrote to the 800 or so EU nationals living in my constituency to reassure them that they were welcome in Scotland and the Scottish Government would be doing all that could to protect their status. I and colleagues were attacked for writing to these folk, but it is interesting to reflect all these months later on the allegation that we were stalking up fear among people who had no question marks over their status. Here is the thing, there were question marks over their status. Those question marks still remain, even though today the Prime Minister sought to shift the blame for that on to others by claiming that she would strike reciprocal residency deals as a priority, but one or two other member states are opposed to that. It will be interesting to see over the coming hours and days whether Alex is accepted as being the case by the other members of the EU or exposed as simply seeking cover for maintaining the bargaining chip approach. If it turns out that the UK remains behind the continuing uncertainty that these EU nationals faced, then that would be unforgivable. Then we come to the migrant workers issue. In that debate of June, I highlighted the situation in my constituency with Angus soft fruits, who require 4,000 seasonal workers between March and November of each year. Best part of seven months on and with 2017 season almost upon us, again we are no further forward in securing a positive outcome. Indeed today's statement appeared perhaps to indicate a hardening on the issue. There had been positive noises from Amber Rodden and Andrea Wedsum on the principle of having some sort of seasonal permit scheme in place post-Brexit for the agricultural sector, but, set against that, we also had the chance of a Philip Hammond draw a distinction between highly skilled and highly paid EU workers and those who would be taking entry-level jobs. In discussions between their UK trade body and the UK Government, Immigration Minister went so swimmingly that Angus soft fruits told a committee of this Parliament that it was possible that they would have to rewokate their business and follow the workforce. In her speech today, the Prime Minister followed Philip Hammond in drawing that distinction between highly skilled migrants and anyone else, pledging that she would deliver control over the number of people who come to Britain. No wonder the NFUS is this afternoon querying where this leaves them when it comes to accessing a necessary workforce. In contrast to that, the Scottish Government is very much alive to the dangers. I am grateful to Mike Russell for taking the time to meet with myself and Angus soft fruits, commit to continue pressing the UK Government on this issue and to visiting the company's operation in Arbroath in the next few months. The Scottish Government may not be in the driving seat when it comes to shaping Brexit, but it has offered sensible navigational advice, showing a willingness to compromise in order to minimise the impact of this appalling situation, and a determination to protect the interests of the people that it was elected by, along with Scotland's economic interests. The standing up for what is right for Scotland is a duty that falls to all of us, not just on the Scottish Government, but all 129 of us elected to serve in this Parliament. That includes the Tories. Tory MSPs will have nowhere to hide at decision time tonight. Either they can stand up to Westminster's Westminster masters and for Scotland's interests, which certainly are not served by leaving the single market of the customs union, or roll over and join the Westminster Government in pandering to the very worst Brexit elements within and outwith its own ranks. It is over to them. Ross Greer, to be followed by Clare Adamson. Earlier today, Theresa May gave a speech that was confused, contradictory and dangerous. It appears that the Westminster Government is intent on hurtling towards a hard Brexit. Despite the odd, seemingly kind phrase, we have learned that there will be an end to free movement and we will be out of the single market. That is exactly the hard Brexit that we had feared. Despite the single line acknowledging the Scottish Government's proposals, the plans that are set out today are entirely incompatible with the Scotland's place in Europe paper. Theresa May would have to depart far from today's speech to even get half way towards the proposals from the Scottish Government, which we and the Greens had already seen as the limits of reasonable compromise. The Fraser of Allander Institute report, commissioned by the Parliament, often mentioned in recent debates, makes for pretty dark reading today. A hard Brexit will mean an £8 billion loss to our GDP, a £2,000 drop in the average wage and the loss of 80,000 jobs here in Scotland. That is a Brexit plan dreamt up by ideologs of the Tory right. They do not need to worry about it, though. Those with existing wealth and power rarely do. The people that will hurt are the people that we all represent. Every one of us will know the consequence of a £2,000 drop in average wages in the areas that we represent. However, the damage of a hard Brexit is not just economic. As we have heard today, Brexit is about what kind of country, what kind of society we want to be. This Westminster Government is indicating that it will fire the starting gun on a race to the bottom. How much lower can we go? Take EU employment rights? They are already only to a minimum standard, the idea being that nation states are free to legislate to a higher standard, yet the UK is right at the bottom of the table. Last week, I laid out the hypocrisy of a Conservative party that pledges to defend workers' rights, but whose major piece of anti-worker legislation in recent years was so sinister that now Brexit minister described it as more akin to Franco's fascist regime than the UK of the 21st century. It is essential that we have the powers to defend workers' rights here in Scotland, so the Greens welcome proposals from the Scottish Government to devolve powers over employment, for example. If that were to happen in the event of Brexit, and we, of course, do not accept that Scotland will yet leave the European Union, we will have won those powers not just to maintain an unacceptable status quo, but to make bold, vital improvements to the rights of workers here in Scotland. The Westminster Government has already been accused of creating a deliberately hostile environment for EU migrants. We have already witnessed that uncaring state in action. A Dutch woman having lived in the UK for almost three decades told to make preparations to leave, to leave her family. A German neuroscientist having lived here for almost two decades also told to make preparations to leave. I am sure that we all have similar stories of errors in the system in our inboxes from constituents. If a differentiated Brexit is the result of this process, with Scotland staying in the single market, with control over immigration and asylum policies here, just as with workers' rights, we will have won not just the power but the responsibility to end a cruel and broken system. The failures of this Tory Government to guarantee the status of those EU citizens living here is nothing short of a disgrace. Even today, to the European press, Theresa May has failed to do this, attempting to pass the blame to other Governments. This is a politics that Scotland must break free from. The Scottish Government has proposed a compromise where we retain membership of the single market. That would allow us to continue free movement and would, as mentioned, require devolution of, among other powers, that over employment law. It would offset some of the costs of Brexit and could give us some separation from the hard-right neoliberal future that Westminster seems set to pursue. On trade, for example, it is essential that Scotland is not unwillingly subject to trade deals negotiated by the likes of Liam Fox. We are often told that that is one of the most powerful sub-state parliaments in the world. That was one of the promises made to us after the 2014 referendum. However, while we stood powerless, Bologna brought an intercontinental trade deal grinding to a halt until the reservations of their elected Parliament were addressed. If Scotland has a future inside the UK, those are the kind of powers that we require to adequately represent the needs of our society and our economy. However, the previously mentioned Fraser Valander report estimates that a Norway-style EEA deal, albeit for all the UK, would, in the best scenario, see Scottish GDP drop by 3 million, see wages drop by an average of £800 per person and would still lose over 30,000 jobs. That is quite a compromise. It is probably the Westminster Government's last chance to ensure that Scotland continues to be part of the UK. Yet, for all the reason that they spoke about wanting the UK to be more united than ever before, they have steadfastly refused to compromise. I believe now that a vote on our own future is all but impossible to avoid. It is time that we put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands, because it is certainly not safe with the Conservatives at Westminster. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Rachael Hamilton. Can I open today with agreeing with the Prime Minister in our opening statements in her speech today? That means more than negotiating about our new relationship with the EU. It means taking the opportunity of this great moment of national change to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be. Who does Scotland want to be? In every local authority in Scotland, we voted to remain. I said to the Prime Minister that we did so with our eyes open, too. Even now, I urge colleagues across the chamber to look to Scotland's place in Europe, look to the options presented for a differentiated solution for Scotland and support the continuing work of the Scottish Government to secure Scotland's current position within the EU, secure Scotland's place in the European single market. Like many SPs across the chamber—I encourage Mr Stewart to go out and speak to a few more of his constituents and the industries in his areas—I have been discussing what Brexit will mean for them. Without exception, the importance of one of the four freedoms of good services—capital and persons—those freedoms that define the core obligations of membership of the European single market—the one that they are most concerned about is the movement of labour. Whether that was a software or a software industry, the free movement of labour is extremely important to Scotland's economy and its future. I am appalled that the Tory party in Scotland seemed to—yes, I will. Adam Tomkins. In the narrative consensus with which she started her remarks, I agree that movement of labour is important to the Scottish economy. It is important to Scottish business. I agree that migrant labour—access to migrant labour is important to the Scottish economy, but why does that access have to be free? It is not movement of migrant labour that we are talking about, it is uncontrolled immigration that we are talking about. So why does the movement that she and I agree is important to the Scottish economy have to be free? Clare Adamson. Mr Tomkins, attention to some of the comments that have come from the European Union. Those are the four principles of the European Union. Claude Juncker had said that those who want to free access to our internal market have to implement our freedoms without exception or new ones. Angela Merkel, who has said that access to the single market is only possible under the condition of adherence to the four basic principles, movements of good, capital, people and services. That is not an Alucard menu that we can pick and choose from. It is membership of the club and abiding by the club's rules. I am appalled that the Scottish Tory Sinct of abandoned their position even after the Brexit vote. At that time, Ruth Davidson has said that the overriding priority was to stay in the single market. Indeed, on national television, BBC Sunday politics in July, she said, I want to stay in the single market even if the consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour. So what has changed? What is that material change in circumstances that now lead the Tory front-benches to be arguing for the Tory hard Brexit, which no one, I believe, thought would happen and it would be to this extent when they voted to leave the EU? In the debate, we have had the great revelation, not of what Brexit means. Brexit means Brexit. We now know that it means hard Brexit. The big revelation in this debate seems to have been that the SNP believes independence is the best solution for Scotland. Who would have thought? I can understand why the Liberals and the Tories seem absolutely fascinated with this position. It is, after all, a consistent position, something that they seem very unfamiliar with. It is a legitimate stance for us to take in the SNP. Just it is it legitimate that where we are now is to argue for the support for our Government to continue to maintain Scotland's position in Europe, in the single market, within the relationship that we currently have within the UK. I would urge the Tories to get behind this commitment. Willie Rennie Does she disagree with the First Minister when she said earlier on this year during that debate, after the referendum, that the process was emphatically not about independence? It is clear that it always has been about independence. Clare Adamson Mr Rennie, I do not think that it will come to a surprise to anyone in the Scottish nation to know that the SNP believes that the best solution for Scotland is an independent Scotland. That does not mean that we do not argue for what is best for Scotland each and every day that we represent the people of Scotland in this place. One of the other things that has been mentioned over and over again is that this will be an extremely difficult solution for Scotland to achieve, not impossible, but extremely difficult. Presiding Officer, it is not called hard Brexit for nothing, but let us get behind this Government and the proposals in Scotland's future. Let us get to the bottom of securing Scotland's position in the single market and our relationship with the EU, because that is the type of country that we want to be. Rachael Hamilton Today, our amendment to the motion encourages all parties and the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government and other devolved Governments in the UK to achieve the best possible negotiated outcome for Scotland and the United Kingdom. Negotiating the terms of Brexit with the EU 27 will be a highly complex task. Reaching consensus will not be easy. The Joint Ministerial Committee in its new framework will feature representatives of the devolved Administrations, and they will be fully engaged in the negotiation process. Today, our Prime Minister set out a clear message that she wants the UK Government to work together to find common ground and pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU in order to achieve the freeest possible trade in goods and services. That is why current monthly mental Government discussions in the form of the Joint Ministerial Committee are key to Scotland's place in negotiations and provide an important platform for all devolved Administrations. The European and External Relations Committee recently produced a report compiling 150 pieces of written submissions in response to call for evidence. The report drew together the views of individuals, bodies and organisations across Scotland that highlighted the needs of different sectors, such as agriculture, for example. How will current EU funding programmes be replaced by—yes, I will take an intervention. Joan McAlpine? Yes, I am glad that she raised the work of the committee because we have engaged widely with them across Scottish society, but I would point out that the report has not been published yet. Rachael Hamilton? I thank Joan McAlpine for that intervention and I will not be revealing any of the report. In the context of the information that has been published, for example, how will current EU funding programmes be replaced by domestic funding arrangements? Those are the type of arrangements that will need to be discussed going forward. We welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement that a commitment to the continuation of cap funding up until 2020 will be forthcoming. It should be the intention of Mike Russell—although I am sorry to hear he is not here today—to continue to support negotiations for industries such as the Scottish agricultural sector, which rely on support payments, accounting for two-thirds of total net farm income in Scotland. It is crucial that the Scottish Government publicly recognise the importance of the UK domestic market to Scotland's economy over the EU's single market too. Yesterday, the Scottish National Farmers Union sent a briefing paper and I quote, Scotland's most important trade partner is the rest of the UK. Some 80 per cent of our produce goes to the UK and this cannot be undermined. Likewise, Fraser of Allender Institute stated that it is estimated that whilst 250,000 Scottish jobs are tied to the EU, a million more rely on Scotland being part of the EU. We must look at the positives. Scotland forms part of the United Kingdom, which is one of the fastest growing economies in the G7, affording us strong negotiating stance with potential new global partners such as New Zealand and America. We currently operate within some of the most stringent rules and regulations when producing goods and services, which will give us the confidence to export quality products. Moreover, the Bank of England will upgrade its UK growth forecast next month, and that is generally all positive. It is clear that we must prioritise relationships with our largest trading partner and I make a plea for those wishing to break up our country. Please take the threat of an independence referendum off the table once and for all. The Scottish Parliament will need to use their new economic and fiscal powers and responsibilities wisely. Depending on how the new devolved powers are used, we will determine how Scotland can best position its self post Brexit. Ministers say that vital tax powers will create a fairer and prosperous Scotland. What we want to see is support for businesses giving us a high degree of competitiveness, attracting inward investment and encouraging entrepreneurship. The SNP motion states that the UK as a whole should retain its place in the single market, ensuring rights not just for business but for citizens. In the event that the UK opts to leave the single market, alternative approaches in the UK should be sought that would enable Scotland to retain its place within the single market. It is regretful for the 2 million of us who opposed an independence referendum back in 2014 that the First Minister decided to publish a draft consultation on a second independence bill. Surveys have shown that at least a third of SNP voters also voted to leave the EU, allegedly alongside a number of SNP MSPs in the chamber today. It made pain members across the chamber to hear that the EU referendum was not designed to put Scottish people in a position of choosing between membership of the UK and the EU. I haven't got much time, but I will. Can the member clarify where in the Scottish Government's proposals it is proposed that people of Scotland should have to choose between trading with the UK or the EU? I thank the member for that intervention. It is just obvious that if you put voters in that situation that you will leave voters in particular, where they have already voted to say yes to an independence referendum but said no to an EU referendum. Finally, the Scottish Government Scotland's place in Europe paper explores ways in which Scotland could retain its place in the single market. The Norwegian model is an example. Let me explain. Norway is a member of the single market but not a member of the EU. Professor Ulf Soudraup, the director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, stated in his lessons from the Norway-EU relationship. The truly unique element of the Norwegian model is that the EU arrangement entails integration without representation. That is not something that the First Minister wants in her Scotland's place in Europe paper. I will come to a close. No, I think that you have come to a close. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. Richard Lochhead, followed by Oliver Mundell. As one of the members said earlier on, it is very important to bear out the front of our minds that the whole Brexit debate is now impacting on people's everyday lives in Scotland. As we can see from the economic statistics in today's news, that is certainly the case. If you look at the Guardian online copy, for instance, the headline is, UK inflation hits two-year high. It goes on to talk about Brexit. Fueled fallen pound will squeeze family finances in 2017. The worry stem from the sterling's drop against other currencies since the vote to leave the EU last summer, a weaker pound has raised the cost of imports such as food and fuel, and businesses are starting to pass that on to customers. It goes down to say that the pound is down almost 20 per cent against the dollar since the referendum. On Tuesday, the technology company Apple said that it was raising prices on its UK Apple store by almost 25 per cent to reflect the sharp appreciation of the pound, which no doubt will affect hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland as well. So, whether it is food prices, input costs for our factories and our businesses, or even Apple products, that is an issue that is having a real-life impact on people that we represent in this Parliament. I genuinely believe that the people of Scotland did not vote for a heart Brexit, which the UK Tory Prime Minister has outlined today. Dean Lockhart even said in his opening remarks that it is really important that the SNP listens to the people of Scotland. While Scotland voted to remain in the EU, 62 per cent of people voted to remain within the EU, and if Dean Lockhart and the other Conservatives want to listen to their constituents, they will also find that many of the 38 per cent who voted to leave actually did not vote to leave the single market or take all the economic damage that is now perhaps probably in the pipeline due to the UK Government's policy. I put it to the Conservatives that are listening to the people of Scotland, and it is the Conservatives that are not listening to the people of Scotland. I would just remind him that a higher majority of people voted to remain in Scotland in the independence referendum. Will he listen to those people and rule out an independence referendum for our generation? Absolutely. Richard Lochhead. The SNP absolutely respects the results of the 2014 independence referendum. Isn't it such a pity that the Conservative Party will not respect the results of the referendum in Europe and Scotland as well, where 62 per cent of people voted to remain? We will come on to the options facing Scotland for the future, but in terms of respecting the referendum result, it really is important that the Conservative Party, who keeps referring to themselves as the official opposition in this Parliament, listens to the people of Scotland. I was a ghast, absolutely a ghast, the scene of Prime Minister's speech, sympathy expressed for Spanish fishermen in terms of the impact of Brexit, and of course not a mention for the concerns that are expressed by Scotland's fishing industry or seafood sector about the potential of leaving the single market or severing all links with Europe even in a Brexit situation. That is also a very serious situation. Can I give the Conservatives a short history lesson here, perhaps, in the most respectful way I can? In the 1980s, the Spanish managed to negotiate early access to Scottish waters in terms of our fishing grounds. The response of the North of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands and the North East of Scotland was to eject every single Conservative elected politician in Parliament from that part of the country. You are now in danger of repeating history, because believe you me, if you sell down the fishermen down the river once again in terms of the Brexit negotiations, the people of the North of Scotland will vote out every single Conservative MSP and MP at the next election as well. George Eustace, of course, was in the news just a few months ago saying that it was potentially the case that the UK would use to fishing industries a bargain chip during the Brexit negotiations. Here we have today Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister, saying that she's got some sympathy for the plight of the Spanish fishermen. That will go down like a bucket of rotten fish in Scotland's coastal communities today when they hear about that comment. I feel that I just need to correct the member's history. In fact, in the 1992 election, the Conservatives gained a seat in the north-east. In 1983, in fact, we retained all but two of the seats that we'd won in Scotland. It's worth remembering that throughout the whole of the 1980s, in every one of those elections, the Conservatives won more seats than did the SNP. Richard Lochhead I remember the Conservative Wipeout in 1987, which I'm held enough to remember on a big part of that Wipeout in Scotland in Zewin, which the UK Government, time and time again, betrayed Scotland's fishing communities. I also point to other comments in Theresa May's speech today. She says that there are two ways of dealing with different interests. You can respond by trying to hold things together by force, tightening a vice-like grip that ends up crushing into tiny pieces of any things that you want to protect. She also says that you can respect differences and cherish them even. I would argue to the Scottish Conservative Party that if that applies within the European context, surely it applies within the UK context as well. Why can't we have a Conservative Party that respects the differences within the UK and perhaps even cherishes it in terms of its approach to the Brexit in the future? I think that she also goes on to talk about the need for compromise and for using our imagination in both sides of the debate in terms of Brexit. Again, can we not have that approach from the UK Prime Minister and the Scottish Conservatives in the context of Scotland's position, given that 62 per cent of Scots did vote to remain within Europe, and many of the others have said before want to remain or retain our economic links as well. I think that that's something that hopefully the Scottish Conservatives can reflect upon after this debate. I also want to turn to Ruth Davidson's comments because, of course, back in July, she was saying that her view was that Scotland should retain membership of the single market, even if the cost of that was to remain free movement or retain free movement of labour. We need to hear whether that's the Scottish Conservative Party's position still today, because one thing that's so important from the perspective of everyone that's going to be affected by this debate in Scotland is that all the political parties stand together, stand up for Scotland's interests and put those interests first in terms of the way forward for securing living standards in this country. Oliver Mundell, to be followed by Joan McAlpine, and it's really tight. Can I remind people if you go over time, it just penalises your colleagues? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Following this morning's powerful speech from the Prime Minister, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's debate, because perhaps for the first time we have something concrete and sensible to discuss. Indeed, we have much of the clarity that the SNP has been demanding. I think that it is therefore a bit disappointing that they have decided to confuse agreeing with the proposals that have been set out today with the fact that the commitment to set them out has been delivered. I would have thought even that they would have welcomed confirmation that the freest possible trade agreement with the EU, the protection of workers' rights and cross-border co-operation on tackling crime, will be key priorities for the UK Government, recognising some of the suggestions that they have put forward in their paper. However, credit where credit is due, I think that today's motion does make it clear that the Scottish Government is slowly edging towards a more realistic outlook, and I think that it is to be welcomed that ministers are now so explicitly recognising that this was a UK-wide decision to leave the European Union, and that it is the UK, as the member states, who will therefore be taking forward negotiations. Richard Lochhead Firmandell, for giving way. His Scottish leader said in July that I want to stay in the single market even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour. Is that the member's position today? Oliver Mundell I think that Ruth Davidson has made her position very clear in fighting Scotland's corner within this debate. By securing the freest possible trade agreement with the rest of the EU, she will be helping to secure jobs for people here in Scotland. It is about time that the SNP got behind that approach rather than harking from the sidelines. It is welcome—Mr Lochhead can shake his head, but I think that it is welcome that Government ministers have, in that motion today, recognised that Scotland's trade within the UK and our access to the UK single market is worth four times that of our trade with Europe, a point that my colleagues have been making time and time again. However, that said, in my view, the motion still strikes the wrong balance and the wrong tone. Since the day after the referendum when Nicola Sturgeon hurried out her statement in response to the referendum result, the SNP have failed to properly address the real concerns and views of the Scottish people. There is a big difference between independence, which the SNP wants, and standing up for Scotland's interests. The reality is that most people across our country, just like across the rest of the United Kingdom, recognise that, regardless of how they voted, they want the UK Government to deliver an outcome for the whole of the UK in order to leave the EU as the vote confirmed the wish of the British people to be. They do not want to be left in limbo on whether or not we are having a further independence referendum, and they do not want to be left in limbo when it comes to continued membership or partial membership of the EU. The Scottish Government's own paper, Scotland's Place in Europe, takes a great deal of time to cover a number of options that would leave Scotland in a different position from our counterparts across the rest of the UK. I would say that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the will of the Scottish people. Again, it is high time for the SNP to differentiate between its own desires for a less unified United Kingdom and the wishes of the Scottish people. Indeed, in contrast to the UK Government's clear and reasonable plan, the paper on Scotland's Place on Europe is both highly complex when it comes to delivering identifiable outcomes and, more disappointingly, it is completely underwhelming when it comes to delivering an outcome that people here in Scotland desire. It is clear to me, although it seems to have escaped many of the hard left separatists on the SNP benches, that people living in Scotland want to see an orderly, an expedient Brexit, and although they want a bespoke model, I do not think that anyone living across Scotland is inspired by the concept of being some kind of reverse Greenland or the new Norway. I know that the Scottish National Party—Ivan McKee. I just want to get the member's reaction to—I heard Susanne Evans of UKIP on the daily politics show this afternoon commenting on the Prime Minister's speech and she said that she was delighted and I said a quote, because Cheezer Mae was channeling UKIP. It is what Susanne Evans said. Can I ask for the member's reaction to that, given that he was a supporter of Remain and his party? He is now part of a party that has moved so far to the right in this issue that it is channeling UKIP? Oliver Mundell. I do not think that I will be taking any lectures on being a populist party that models UKIP from the SNP, who themselves seem absolutely—no, well, you can shake your head, but if you want to stand up and intervene, then go ahead. Is the Scottish National Party that have a fixation on a single issue? Is the Scottish National Party who are determined to bring back the debates of the past? Is the Scottish National Party that failed to recognise that the United Kingdom is one of Europe's largest economies and that we are not on a par with the Faroe Islands? The United Kingdom is more than capable of negotiating a good free trade deal with Europe and that we will be able to compete globally rather than trying to scaremonger and perpetuate a negative outlook. That is why, rather than focusing on the Scottish National Party's usual doom and gloom, it is time that we start focusing on the opportunities that truly global free trade offers Scotland and our economy. I listen carefully to the Prime Minister's speech today. She talked about the sort of country that we want to live in, but the vision that she outlined was not the kind of country that I want to live in or that 62 per cent of Scots voted for. Theresa May's threat, trailed by Philip Hammond, was a deregulation that cut price Britain, as the cabinet secretary said, a race to the bottom. It suggested that the UK Government is leading a country that is desperate to survive its self-inflicted wars by undercutting its neighbours. That is why it is so important that the Scottish Government paper argues that we must get powers over employment and social protection to stop Scotland being dragged down there with the UK Government. The Prime Minister at least made it clear today that the UK would be outside the single market, something even her own Tory leader in Scotland has argued against. It is something nearly every single business organisation has argued against too. Today, Mrs May said something that I agree on, however. More trade means more jobs, she says, while leaving the single market means barriers to trade, it means less trade and less jobs. The Prime Minister's delivery today was smooth, but that served to gloss over an inherent incoherence at the heart of her speech. You cannot, as Mrs May suggests, leave the customs union but negotiate away customs controls, controls that the ports operators have warned will cause serious tailbacks and increase costs. You cannot negotiate a free trade deal, as Mrs May claimed today, while giving special treatment to car manufacturers or financial services. As trade experts have told my European committee, the world trade organisation rules specifically state that opt-outs for individual sectors are not allowed. Deals must cover all sectors of the economy, and it is not even clear that a free trade deal, however bold and ambitious it is constantly referred to as being, can be negotiated within the two-year window. If Mrs May was as confident of securing that free trade deal that Oliver Mundell talked about, why did she feel the need to threaten our European partners by undercutting them in a race to the bottom? We know, for example, that the CETA agreement with Canada took seven years to negotiate, and that is seven years to negotiate something that is suboptimal to the access that we currently have to the single market, which brings me to the motion in the Scottish Government's paper. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that she would consider the Scottish Government's paper very carefully. As the cabinet secretary suggested, Mrs May's speech spelled out that Brexit will be complicated, messy and, for all her rhetoric, uncertainty. The Scottish Government's proposal is clear, but it does not pretend to be an easy option. However, it does attempt to deliver the democratic desire of the people of Scotland to remain in the single market. In fact, people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, so, as such, the SNP paper position is a significant compromise— Will the member take an intervention? Yes, I will take an intervention. Oliver Mundell. Does the member accept that there is a significant difference between people voting to remain part of the European Union as was and voting for a suboptimal halfway house that delivers none of the advantages of leaving the European Union and does not deliver the same level of benefits as being a full member? John McAlpine? People in Scotland voted to remain in the EU and voted to remain in the single market. Most of the people on the benches that Oliver Mundell occupies, but not all of them, argued for Scotland to remain in the single market. That is what the paper proposes. It is not going to be easy, but Brexit is not going to be easy. To return to the paper, I think that the fact that the compromise in the customs union that the Scotland offers is incredibly significant. We have said that we will shadow the UK's decision on the customs union, even though all the evidence suggests that it is far better to remain in the customs union. Scotland's place in Europe, as well as being a compromise, is part of a process, and that process is the journey that is Scottish Devolution. It makes reasonable proposals about the further devolution of powers over areas such as immigration, which, during the referendum campaign, Michael Gove wrote to the First Minister and suggested, could be devolved to Scotland. It suggests further devolution of powers over employment and social protection, which I have already referred to. Crucially, the power for Scotland to enter into discussions and agreements with other countries would allow us to work with EFTA as a way of remaining in the EU with the co-operation of the UK Government. That is the key issue here. A few years ago, we were told that it was not possible for Scotland to have additional powers, for example, over income tax. As part of the devolution process, people have changed their minds, and Scotland has assumed those additional powers. It is absolutely not out of the question for additional powers over treaty making, for example, to be devolved to Scotland, as the paper suggests. Indeed, the EU already negotiates with federal countries that have provinces that have treaty making powers, such as the Canadian provinces, which were very closely involved in the negotiations over CETA. I also noted from the paper that the Scottish Government is clear that, if that is not enough, the UK Government could co-operate with Scotland and sponsor Scotland's membership of EFTA. If Theresa May really values what she calls the precious union of the UK, she would respect Scotland's position, Scotland's vote, and she would pay close attention to the paper and how the UK can work with Scotland and the rest of Europe to deliver a democratic result for all the countries of the United Kingdom. We have two speakers left. I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you both to five and a half minutes. Pauline McNeill followed by Tom Arthur. Today's speech by Prime Minister Theresa May is the most significant yet since the referendum on 23 June. We had some clarity, some commitments and still some unanswered questions, but at least I welcome the limited clarity that we got from the speech today, setting out 12 objectives for the focus of the Government in its attempt to negotiate the deal for Britain and Scotland. In the months ahead, we now know that both parliaments will vote on the Brexit deal. We know that we are here because of the unbelievable and remarkable divisions within one particular party. We know that Theresa May said clearly that I vote to leave that citizens would be worse off. We remember that she also said that I vote to leave the European Union, but she was not a vote to leave the single market, and she is U-turned on that one today. In a sense, that is very frustrating, but I think that it is pointless now, given the enormity on the complexity of the road ahead. The most critical time that I remember in my lifetime, I want to make at least some positive contribution to the debate. Whether it is extreme Brexit, hard Brexit or whatever Brexit you want to call it, that marks a serious separation from most of Europe's mechanics and institutions. I speak as someone who seriously considered options on both sides of the referendum to leave or to remain. I considered leave because I always had concerns about the remoteness of Europe to ordinary people. I was appalled at the behaviour of the European Union to Greece, a nation that has had imposed upon it crippling debts and arrangements. Like Janis Varoufack, the former Greek finance minister, I felt that it was better to remain and reform within. I see opportunities that exist. I want to qualify that. Thanks to Adam Tomkins, I took up his recommendation, and I am reading through Tim Shipments' staggeringly interesting book on the behind-the-scenes on Brexit. Some of the commentators believe that, if David Cameron had asked the EU for some restrictions on freedom of movement, he might have won that. It is an important lesson in history. We will never know the answer to that. I believe that there are some opportunities that exist. However, I believe that those opportunities have to be based on the best relationship that we can have with the single European market and the access to that important market. Theresa May said today that Britain wants Britain to be a magnet for talent. If she believes that, the Tories will have to embrace a much more progressive policy on immigration, it is hard. If foreigners fear that coming here is not a welcoming country, we are not going to attract the best talent. We cannot be this international Britain, a global power, attracting the best talent without implementing a more progressive immigration policy, albeit that there may be some controls on that. I think that there is a lot of convincing to do. She also said, as Richard Lochhead pointed out, that she mentioned diversity many times in her speech that it should not be done by force, but she has to lead on that if she does not want it to be done by force. I call on her to do that if we want to look like a nation that is immigration friendly. On that point, fully engaging Scotland and the other nations in how we move forward, I believe, and I have said in this chamber that it means that we have to have a much bigger say in an immigration policy post Brexit. If Scotland has shortages of skills in any sector, we must be free. There must be some mechanism that we can influence immigration to the UK that benefits Scotland. If anything is affecting confidence in British markets, it is absolutely certain that, above everything else, it clearly is Brexit, as we are interested to see the result or the response to the markets today. The customs union question is still a matter that we are still to hear more detail on, but, if I have heard Theresa May correctly, it is sounding to me as though there might be some special terms for certain sectors of certain industries. Although I appreciate that, I laid a motion last week on the fear of the finance industry, which the head of HBC said was almost like a geng at our waiting to fall apart. It is important and definitely Brexit will slow down what we have been used to in the finance sector up until now being part of a wider European union. However, I think that all sectors must have access to the customs union, and I do not really believe that a special deal for a sector is really acceptable at all. I probably will vote for the Government motion tonight, but I just want to make clear on what terms I will be voting for the Government motion. I believe that membership of the single market is desirable. Access to the single market is essential, but I want to see the discussion through to the end, and I believe it with the very early stages of that. I want the Scottish Government to continue the discussions, and I do think that some of the plan I can support. I want them to continue to do that. It is not by implication that, if we fail to do that, support for a second referendum, and I just wanted to make that clear before I vote tonight. We have a very long way to go in this debate, and we must work our way through it, paying attention to every dot and every detail. The last of the closing speeches is from Tom Arthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have to say that, as much as I expected the contents of the Prime Minister's speech today, it was still a bit of a punch in the gut. I did hold out hope that perhaps she would listen to the entreaties of the Scottish Government and others and see common sense and say that no, we would seek to preserve the UK's place in the single market. However, it is not to be. However, I would hope that, perhaps in this debate as well, we might see a different approach from the Conservative benches, one that recognises their responsibility to the people of Scotland and not simply to the interests of the city of London or other interests outwith this country. I have to say that it is very disappointing, because I know that there are many reasonable members in the Conservative benches who campaigned to remain, who still believe that we should be part of the European Union and know in their hearts that that is the right thing to do, but they are not willing to say it. Rather, what we have is a sell-out. It was only in June that the leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland stood in his very chamber and said that remaining and retaining her place in the single market was a priority. That was after the referendum. That was a clear statement of principle, and they have reneged upon it. It was not just that the UK Tory manifesto in 2015 spoke of membership of the single market and numerous Conservative front-benches here, and the UK Government spoke of the catastrophic effects of withdrawal from the European Union and withdrawal from the single market. However, now, when they have an opportunity to speak up for their constituents, do they take that opportunity? No. It is worth remembering how this Parliament came about. This Parliament, for many people, is inspired by the experience of living through 18 years of remote Conservative Government from London, a situation in which we were helpless with no opportunity to speak for ourselves. That was something bitterly experienced by my constituents in Linwood. Everyone in this Parliament has a fundamental duty to speak up for Scotland's interests. That was the vision of this Parliament. Many people campaigned, many people in the Labour Party campaigned for this Parliament, so never again would the Scottish nation be subject to a Tory Government that was not elected to take decisions that would be economically and socially catastrophic. When this Parliament does speak up about Brexit, when it does advocate a positive solution for Scotland, when the Scottish Government puts proposals forward, it is perfectly not just entitled to do so, it is duty bound to do so, and so it really is disheartening when members of the Conservative Party come in here and complain that we are debating Brexit. I would like to touch upon a few of the Conservative responses and contributions in the debate today. I think that we are at a crucial moment in our history. This is a time for inspired leadership. It is a time for vision. I was reflecting as we approached inauguration day in the US presidential election of President Trump on Friday. What is leadership? I recall the words of Jai Fk. He spoke at British University in 1962 when he was setting the target of reaching the moon. He said, we choose to go to the moon and other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, because they will serve to organise and measure the best of their energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept and we are unwilling to postpone and we intend to win. I now listen to the Conservative benches today. Guernig, whining, we can't idea it, it's too difficult, it's too hard, I'm very sorry, I'm pressed for time, I would otherwise take an intervention. That is not what we need. That was an effeaked, insipid, uninspired and supine performance. A complete betrayal. Many Conservative members voted overwhelmingly for remain and they are now being betrayed. I thought that there was something rather pardon. Well, I have a conception of democracy, which is Scottish democracy, and the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union. I cannot do much more time, but I will say one thing. Mr Mundell accuses me of being, and my colleagues, of being left-wing separatists. To the first charge, I'll plead guilty, but the only separatists in this chamber are the separatists sitting around Mr Mundell. His party, the party that wants to make firms say how many European workers they have, it wants to put a levee on European workers for companies, it will not give security and guarantee the status of European citizens. Those are the real separatists. We now move to the closing speeches, and I call Willie Rennie up to seven minutes please, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There were two contributions in particular that I was quite attracted to. One was from Graham Day, who talked about the fruit workers in his constituency and the insecurity that they feel. I too have many agricultural workers in my constituency in North East Fife. Many of them feel equally insecure by the inability of the Conservative Government to guarantee their future in this country. The second contribution was from Richard Lochhead, who talked about the real direct impact, the economic impact on people's lives, the value of the pound, inflation, jobs and security. That is at the heart of what this is all about. That is about people's lives. Although, on 23 June last year, we voted to leave the European Union, what that vote ignores is the impact that it has on people's lives. The fact that our lives, our communities, are intertwined now with members, individual citizens from other members of the European Union, is that their lives are intertwined with ours, and those lives will not be easily undone. Those connections will not be easily broken. Although the Conservatives can stand here today and lecture everybody else about being concerned about the future economic conditions in this country, I think that they fail to recognise the direct impact on individual people's lives and that it will not be as easy as they paint. It will be much more difficult. We heard speeches from the Conservatives, one after the other today, making the direct opposite speeches from what they made just a few months ago. I made a comment earlier on about adopting the language of Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage is tweeted today commending Theresa May for adopting the language that he has been using over the past 10 years but was ridiculed for doing so. The Conservatives have adopted this isolationist approach, lock, stock and barrel, and that is disappointing for a party that claims to be in favour of the economy and jobs for our country. I must say that Oliver Mundell is amused by condemning the SNP for fixating on a single issue. I think that the issue that the Conservatives have been fixating for a single issue is the European Union over the past 10 years and looking at where it has got us to. It is posing great risks to our economy. However, in today's debate, there was much promise for today's debate. The build-up was quite tantalising. Over the weekend, we had the two Anguses, Angus MacNeill and Angus Robertson, banging their fists on the table through Twitter on this occasion. Angus Robertson, who is the deputy leader, no less said that Scotland did not vote Tory or for a hard Tory Brexit. A single European market has now been blocked by the Tories. Scotland will not accept this, and I can imagine on banging his fists on the table while doing so. Then Angus MacNeill intervenes with hashtag material change mandate—probably not exactly going viral—we said that we need a second independence referendum. It is a great promise that this was going to be the day that when they had been tipped over the edge and now we are going to get this second independence referendum. However, alas, all we do is get is promises that we are going to get this, but they never bite the bullet. What we need is a real focus on the big, monumental decision that has been imposed on our country. Pauline McNeill was right that this is probably the biggest decision in our lifetime, in her lifetime, in my lifetime. However, this is not the time for micromanagement. This is the time for big, bold solutions. That is why we have said that there should be a Brexit deal referendum, because if the Conservatives are so confident about the deal that they can negotiate, they are so confident that it will be such a brilliant deal for Britain, then why not put it before the British people so that they can have the final sign-off? Why not? No, not just now. Why are they keeping it within the Conservative party rather than engaging with the country? If they are so confident about this monumental decision—as I say, one of the biggest decisions since Iraq or Suez—if they are so confident about what the solution that they are going to provide is so good for our country, then they should be coming forward and putting the vote to the British people. Is Willie Rennie not reassured by Theresa May's commitment that the proposals will go before the UK Parliament? Far from it, it is packed full of Conservative MPs who are going to tell the Prime Minister exactly what she wants to hear. If they are so confident, if they are so confident, put it before the British people and let them have the final say. Of course—no, not just now, you have had to say—you have had to say. If they are so confident, put it before the British people so that they can have a say. Can I deal with a couple of aspects of the SNP's paper published before Christmas? Ash Denham, in a pretty good contribution, acknowledged the practical and technical difficulties of having a differentiated deal. I agree with her. All we have to do is look at page 35, paragraphs 153 to 155, which describes imports from the European single market. If those three paragraphs are not enough to put you off any differentiated deal, I do not know what it is, because it is so complex. I do not understand it. I am sure that most people do not understand what it means, and it certainly will not be good for business. I think that that probably alone condemns the document and condemns the future. That is why I was disappointed that we have not—not just now—no, I am in my last minute, I am sorry. That is why I would urge the SNP, if they are so much in favour of the European Union, and there has been some excellent contributions—I have to say from Tom Arthur, his last contribution was excellent—some brilliant contributions. If they are so in favour of the European Union, then why do they not get behind the campaign that has got the momentum, the campaign for a Brexit deal referendum? We won in Richmond against the Conservatives. We are winning by-elections across the country because people do not want a hard Brexit. We have got the momentum, I would urge the SNP to come behind us so that we can win that campaign. This has been an important debate, and at times a highly charged debate. I think that the reasons for that are very clear. The stakes are incredibly high, but I think that there is one thing that is clear, and I think that one thing that all sides need to be mindful is that globalisation is with us. It is embedded in the way that our economy works and operates. We cannot hide from that, we cannot control that and we cannot alter any of those elements in isolation. I would say that to both sides. We cannot simply put the world on hold while we negotiate trade deals, nor can we wait to come up with hypothetical scenarios in which we never really come to pass or ever be realistic. Pauline McNeill put the quandary that faces us with Brexit very well. She described the issues that the EU presents us, but ultimately said that the protections that provide the benefits of having wider trade was what led her vote towards the remain side. As we look towards this, I think that it is important that we try to retain access. Indeed, I think that the terms of the debate have been more broadly instructed. People have emphasised the importance of retaining access and retaining benefits, because the EU gives us admission to that globalised economy. It has done so for protecting workers' rights, putting in place social protections, meaning that we are not a part of a race to the bottom. When we look to a future deal, we look to our options, it is those elements of our trade and our relationship with Europe that we must seek to keep in place. Of course, the debate is taking place within the context of new revelations. Before Christmas, I think that the Scottish Government's paper on options was very helpful and useful for exploring and expanding the space that we are operating, but clearly the comments today from the UK Government are highly important. Indeed, a number of speakers have made that point, that it has provided clarity through what was perhaps a fog before. Again, Pauline McNeill pointed that. Indeed, Oliver Mundell, I think that the points around the customs union are helpful, the fact that there has been some concession around that. While we may not like it, ruling out a single market membership at least provides us with that degree of clarity, but it is important to recognise that Theresa May said that the importance of maintaining as free trade as possible, but perhaps most importantly are the transitional arrangements that she now concedes are important, because that gives us the opportunity to explore those options in full. A number of speakers, and indeed Willie Rennie highlighted that as well. Graham Day and Clare Adamson highlighted the personal aspect that the reality of Brexit is very much human in two key ways. First of all, the anxieties that are listed in people. It is important that, as we progress, we provide clarity as much as we can to people as we progress through this process, but also labour requirements. We need Europe to provide workers in key sectors right the way across the board, and I would also like to highlight financial services, because I think that it also highlights the complexity of this process. Financial services sectors are massively important to both the United Kingdom and Scotland. It is about 7 per cent of GDP for both the UK and Scotland. About a million people are employed across the UK and financial sectors, and another million are supporting functions. Scotland has broadly those same shares, with 100,000 or so employed and a further 100,000 supporting. It generates a £70 billion trade surplus at a time when the UK trade deficit is £5 billion. That is how important it is, but it is utterly reliant in this country on passporting rights, because passporting is what allows financial institutions in this country to sell them into other parts of the EU without restriction or impediment. Quite frankly, equivalence simply does not pride the same level of access—I will just take it in a moment—and certainly will not provide access to retail financial services, which will be damaging. So there is a danger that this may not be a big bang, but it certainly may well be a slow fizzle. Thank you. I draw members' attention to my ownership of shares in Lloydsbank, but the member refers to the international financial system and previously to globalisation. Does he accept that there would be a very good place for an ethical banking centre, which might be in the UK or might particularly be in Scotland, if we were able to deal with the secrecy of ownership and money transmission that contaminates so much of the global economy? I thank the member for that point, and I agree with him on much of it, but I would lay that not so much to the EU. I think that the EU has done a good deal to open up transparency and to something that the UK Government needs to address, but maybe a point for another day. I think that the Scottish Government's motion today is helpful. I think that it maintains the importance of exploring options, but it also makes clear the reliance that we have in Scotland on being part of the wider UK for trade. Indeed, I think that the paper published before the month made that explicitly clear in paragraph 95, and I would urge them to follow through on the sentiment there, where it explains that the Scottish Government seeks to work with the UK Government maintaining the UK single market. Is this the emphasis of options that is important? We must not have a binary choice of either choosing the UK or the EU. It simply cannot be forecast as crudely as that. Indeed, I do appreciate the number of options, and I think that Ash Denham and Ivan McKee did a good job of explaining what some of those might be. There are interesting options to be looked at at EFTA. However, they are not without complications. EFTA does not permit the substates to join. Indeed, some of the examples that they gave, such as the fair ones, are highly complicated. My understanding is that the Danish Government rejected that option on the basis that they could not expand the UK crown to encompass the fair option. Indeed, I could not find the fair option paper on the website when I looked at it. I would like to briefly talk about deals. Many on the Conservative benches seem to treat deals as if they will happen instantly or quickly, or indeed that they are simply an equivalence to being in the EU. That simply cannot be the case, given the size and scale of EU trade. Who would be holding the key cards? How quickly would that happen? We all know the controversies around TTIP and the erosion of social guarantees that that potentially entails. If they think that that was going to be controversial, could we even hope to guarantee social protections when we clearly would be at such a disadvantage in those negotiations? Briefly, we must explore all options, but we must be realistic. We must seek to influence the UK Government, and we must be mindful of the protection of jobs. That is why we will be voting for the Government amendment today, but we must be mindful of the red line that we must protect our position in the UK before seeking false and unrealistic options within the EU. In one of our very many debates on this subject, on 14 September last year, on those benches, we sought to make three points, all of which I think have been exemplified or repeated, in what the Prime Minister had to say earlier on today. The first point that we tried to make was that this debate cannot sensibly be reduced to a binary divide between hard Brexit and soft Brexit. It is not a binary divide. It is inevitably going to be messier than that. I know that there are those who are calling for a clean Brexit, but I do not think that it is going to be particularly clean either. Our relationship with the European Union is not clean now. We are in the European Union but out of the Schengen zone. We are in the European Union but we do not adopt the European Union's currency. Our relationship with the European Union is and always has been complex. Brexit is also, I think, going to be complex—not hard, not soft, but complex. For example, today, on the customs union, I thought that the Prime Minister very helpfully began to break that idea down. We are not going to be in the customs union or out of the customs union. The customs union is composed of various different components—the common commercial policy, the common external tariff, customs agreement with the rest of the European Union. Those are different components that might require—not at the moment—in the national economic interest different answers. The second point on 14 September that we sought to make, which I think bears repetition today, is that EEA membership is incompatible with the referendum result. EEA membership, the softest of all soft forms of Brexit, would require the United Kingdom to continue free movement of labour, as was made clear by Clare Adamson in her answer to my intervention earlier on, not taking back control of our borders. It would require the United Kingdom to submit to the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, so not taking back control of our national legislation, of our sovereignty, of our laws. It would require a continued financial contribution to the European institutions, so not taking back control of our national finances. Again, the Prime Minister stressed this in her speech today. None of this means that we do not want the fullest, the greatest access to the single market. What the Prime Minister said was that we seek the greatest possible access to the EU single market through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. Let me finish the point and then I'll happily give way. We want the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU's member states. Indeed, in one of the quotations that we haven't heard SNP members reflect on in the debate this afternoon, what the Prime Minister is doing in these remarks is echoing something that Mike Russell himself said on two occasions last month. He said this, in the strictest sense, membership of the single market is only possible if you are a member of the EU. Well, Mr Russell is right about that. He has also said that our strategic objective, that is to say that the Scottish Government's strategic objective, is involvement in the single market. Not membership of, but involvement in the single market. His words, not mine, and those are exactly the same as the words that the Prime Minister was using today. So I think that if we could hear a little bit more about what the Scottish Government and the UK Government have in common in pursuit of their Brexit agendas and a little bit less about what differentiates them, then I think that we might all be to the profit. I give away to Mr Lennon. Richard Lochhead. Can I thank the member for giving way and in terms of reflecting quotations? Given that his Scottish Party leader set in July, I want to stay in the single market even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour. Will he clarify, is that still the Scottish Conservatives position? If it is, will he get behind the Scottish Government's efforts to deliver that? Alan Tomkins. The Scottish Conservative position now is exactly as I articulated it from these benches on 14 September 2016, which is exactly the point that I have just been making if the member would care to listen. What we want is the same as what the Prime Minister wants, and it is apparently the same as what Mike Russell himself wants, which is to recognise that membership of the single market requires membership of the European Union, and what we are in pursuit of is involvement in, in our view, the greatest possible involvement in access to and participation in the single market. That has been perfectly consistent for months from these benches for all of the protestations to the contrary from the benches in the middle of this chamber. I want to move, Presiding Officer, to the Scottish Government's paper that was published last month, which I said on the day that it was published that it is a thoughtful document and that it deserves to be taken seriously. Having read it now twice, I am not quite so sure that it deserves to be taken quite as seriously as I did on that occasion. Let me identify if I can three problems with the Scottish Government's document. The first is the problem with EEA membership, and this is a problem that Ash Denham referred to in her speech earlier on this afternoon. The Scottish Government said only three years ago that the argument that membership of the EEA is desirable because it allows members to gain access to the single market without having to adopt all of the regulations that full EU membership requires is simply wrong. Not my words, but the Scottish Government's words in a document endorsed by the then Deputy First Minister and now First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. The odd thing about the Scottish Government's pursuit of the EEA option is that it fails to meet Nicola Sturgeon's own tests that, in Ash Denham's words this afternoon, Scotland's voice must be heard. The whole point of EEA membership is that your voice is not heard in the making of the very laws that apply to you. Having invited a response from Ash Denham, I am now very happy to give way to it. Ruth Davidson wrote today that many of the nationalist requests have been recognised by the UK Government. I wonder if the member could outline for us now what those concessions by the UK Government will be. Adam Tomkins Absolutly. Among the things that the SNP have been calling for for the last seven months are that workers' rights should be protected. So, what did the Prime Minister say about that today? What she said about this today was that, as we translate the body of European law into our domestic regulations, we will ensure that workers' rights are fully protected and maintained. So, there is an example of exactly what the SNP have been calling for, which is said by the Prime Minister just today. The second problem with the Scottish Government's paper published in December is the problem with the differentiated deal. This is the really odd thing about the SNP's paper. It is a very odd paper for a nationalist document that it fails to identify Scottish economic interests that are different from the economic interests elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The interests of Perthshire hill farmers are the same as the interests of hill farmers in Snowdonia or Yorkshire. The interests of our financial services industries in Glasgow and Edinburgh—I know that Tom Arthur and others want to deny the importance of financial services to the Scottish economy, but he is wrong to do so. The interests of the financial services industry in Glasgow and Edinburgh are the same as the interests of the financial services industry in London. The interests of universities and higher education institutions such as St Andrews and Aberdeen are the same as those in Oxford and Manchester. So, look, I am all in favour of differentiated deals, but differentiated not at the moment, but differentiated sector to sector, not nation to nation. Why? Because it is in the national economic interest to negotiate sector by sector. The great omission from the Scottish Government's document is its failure to identify why or even how Scotland's economic interests are different from those of any other part of the United Kingdom. The third problem with the Scottish Government's paper is thoughtful and deserving to be taken seriously, though it is. The third problem is with what it has to say about further devolution to Scotland. When I read this section of the paper, I had a terrible case of deja vu, because this is copied and pasted from the SNP's failed and rejected submission to the Smith commission a few years ago. This is devolution designed not to strengthen the United Kingdom but to break up the UK's domestic market, which is why it is so important that the Prime Minister today said in her speech that, as we go forward with our Brexit negotiations, our guiding principle must be to ensure that no new barriers are created between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, to living in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, to doing business between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but at the same time, of course, there will be no re-reservations to Westminster. It does not follow that all the powers that will be repatriated from Brussels to the United Kingdom will be held by Westminster and Whitehall. Some of them will be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For all of those reasons, I support the amendment in Dean Lockhart's name. First, I thank members for their contribution during this important debate. I think that there were some that certainly caught my eye. Clare Adamson, Pauline McNeill, Tom Arthur, Lewis MacDonald and Ivan McKee. Daniel Johnson, I did not agree with all of what he said, but there was a very thoughtful contribution in particular about the extent to which we were able to influence globalisation, and perhaps that is another subject for another day. On 23 June, Scotland voted emphatically to remain in the European Union, whilst England and Wales voted to leave. I should say that the point that is made by a number of Conservative members I accept is that 38 per cent of people in Scotland did not vote that way, and I recognise and respect their choice. I only wish that the Conservatives could show a smidgen of respect for the 62 per cent that voted to remain in the EU, and that was missing here today. We are facing a situation that we have not seen before, with EU citizens in a strongly pro-European nation being taken out of the EU against their will. Since the vote on June 23, the Brexit process at Westminster has been taken over, as has been mentioned by a number of members, by the right wing of the Tory party. That has led to the Prime Minister's confirmation that she wants not just to leave the EU but to be the hardest of hard Brexit. There will be many Tories at Westminster who now believe that they can do anything to Scotland and get away with it. It is up to us today, in this chamber, again, a point made by Tom Arthur, to make it clear that they cannot, we speak, in the Scottish interest. In these circumstances, the Scottish Government is determined to show leadership and to protect their vital national interests. We have sought to build consensus around maintaining both Scotland and the UK's place in the single market. Yes, I will. I am Tom Arthur. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Can the minister explain how it is, how this is a definition of the hardest of hard Brexit? We want the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU. That is what the Prime Minister said this morning, not the fictions of the minister's imagination. These are her words. How is that a hard Brexit? Because that bold assertion to free trade is assumed to be after you have exited the European Union and the single market. That is the Brexit that I am talking about. That is a hard Brexit. There is not one with transition. There is not one where we are going to try and keep some of the elements that are very beneficial to Scotland. It is a hard Brexit. It is not just the SNP that is saying this. Look at individual commentators. They will all tell you that it is a hard Brexit. Are all the TV and newspaper columnists lying about that? I do not think that they are. I think that they have the same understanding that I have. The Tories are after a hard Brexit. In these circumstances, it is down to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to show leadership and to protect their vital national interests. We have sought to build that consensus. Indeed, Ruth Davidson in the chamber, after the EU referendum, said that those were her words, retaining her place in the single market should be the overriding priority. Why did not one single Tory member mention the words of their leader today? That is what she said. She called on the Scottish Government to protect her place in the single market, not mentioned by one Conservative member today. It is now time for the Tories to demonstrate that they will put the overriding priority for Scotland ahead of the priority of the right wing of the Tory party. By contrast, we will set out constructive proposals, as we have done, in line with our commitment to explore all options to protect Scotland's interests. Aaron Tomkins fairly said that the document that we produced is not an overtly nationalist document. That was more or less his words. Of course it was not because, as the First Minister said, we have sought to reach compromise. We have tried to do that by the proposals that we have put forward. If only Theresa May had sought to try and reach compromise as well. The Scottish Government set out its proposals, and we will continue to do that, and we will also continue to show a willingness to compromise. In my office last week, I had a visitor, a woman that came in who had lived in Scotland for 17 years. She would be married to a Scottish person and she had three children. She was in tears for the entire time that she was in my office, because she thought that she was either going to have to try and find the money to take out UK citizenship, prevent it from passing that, or she would have to leave the country. I am not saying that that would necessarily happen to her, but that is a level of fear that is there. It is appalling that, today, when Theresa May had made that statement, she gave no comfort to the EU nationals who are sitting wondering about their future in this country. It is extremely important that the UK Government respects the legitimate expectation of those who have exercised their treaty rights and chosen to make a life in Scotland. We have continually sought guarantees from the UK Government on the immigration status and rights of all EU nationals that are residing in Scotland, and we do so again today. The Prime Minister pledged that the Scottish Government will be involved in the development of the UK-wide position. She said that the Scottish Government's proposal should be given proper consideration, but we have not yet seen evidence that Scotland's voice is being listened to or that our interests are taken into account. That has to change. Our proposals include our firm view that has consistently expressed that any outcome must include retaining membership of the single market in all its aspects, something that Ruth Davidson supported after the referendum decision. We should also support movement of free movement of people and protection of rights and close co-operation with EU partners on, for example, justice and research. The Scottish Government, just to repeat the point previously made, greatly values both the contribution that non-UK EU nationals bring to our economy and society and the benefits of freedom of movement enjoyed by our own citizens. Non-UK EU nationals are an important part of Scotland's future in terms of contributing to sustainable economic growth, mitigating the effects of democratic change and enriching our culture and our communities. Just as the UK is planning to take account of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, we have heard that in the Prime Minister's speech today in Gibraltar, so we believe that they should do the same for Scotland. Differentiated approaches, as we have heard from a number of speakers, are not unprecedented for the EU, and our aim is to be more fully integrated with the EU rather than, as most of the cases of special arrangements, the reverse of which I will give way to Dean Lockhart. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that a number of his colleagues could only justify the differentiated approach that is set out in the document by reference to the position of the Faroe Islands, the Channel Islands and Liechtenstein? Is that really the limit of the SNP's ambitions for Scotland? Is that being stronger for Scotland? Because Norway, the head of the Efter commission in Norway, has said that your position is not acceptable. None of the members that mentioned those examples in their were, others like the Isle of Man, drew analogies between Scotland and those areas. They pointed out that differentiated approaches had been agreed, currently existed, so it is possible to achieve a differentiated approach. We do not underestimate, of course, the significant challenges that are associated with those options, but the paper that we produced sets out the basis of how each of those challenges of a differentiated approach could be overcome if the political will exist to do so. We have a different proposition from the UK Tory Government. Both Richard Lochhead and Pauline McNeill mentioned the Prime Minister's statement today, when she said, that there are two ways of dealing with differences. You can respond by trying to hold things together by force, tightening a vice-like grip that ends up crushing into tiny pieces at the very things that you want to protect, or you can respect difference, cherish it even, cherish difference. That is what the Prime Minister said today. Surely, if you want to cherish difference, you must at least acknowledge the different approach of the people of Scotland who voted 62 per cent to remain in the EU, which is properly expressed through this Parliament and the Scottish Government's views on the settlement. Surely, you should respect and cherish that difference, but we have seen nothing of that from the Conservatives in this chamber this afternoon. Those were the words, as I say, of the Prime Minister. I agree that Scotland voted differently, and I, for one, cherished that difference. Instead, the Tories that we have here have been parroting Tories in the UK Government, and they always keep saying that we must work together. What they mean is that we must do as we are told. We must work together with the UK Government and do exactly as we are told by the UK Government, and we are not going to do that. We are here to represent the people of Scotland. I should also say that a picture emerges from what the Prime Minister had to say of the hard Brexit beloved of Nigel Farage and now wholly embraced by the Tories in this chamber, like new believers. Part of that particular picture, portrayed by the Prime Minister, is a specific contempt enunciated here today by the Scottish Tories and UK Ministers. That contempt leads them to ignore, to deride, to attack and to frustrate any expression of Scotland's aspirations. We thought the Apagee of Right Wing—I know that it is mentioned by a number of members today—the Apagee of Right Wing Tories was in the 1990s and 1980s, but this group of right wing wannabe UKIPers that we have in this Parliament is reaching far beyond even market thatcher. Remember market thatcher, according to the Tories themselves, was the champion of the single market. Even the architect of the single market, but we see a completely new breed of Conservatives, new not just before they came into this Parliament, but changed since they came into this Parliament. Like Ruth Davidson expressing demanding that the Scottish Government protect Scotland's place in the single market, and now to a person, each one of them opposed to that apparently, it cannot be through conviction, it must be through expediency. I will do, yes. Just your reference to UKIPers, does that mean that 400,000 SNP voters who voted to leave are also UKIPers? Unlike Dean Lockhart, I have acknowledged the fact that 38 per cent of people in Scotland did not vote to remain. Would you please, for once, acknowledge that 62 per cent of people in Scotland did choose to remain and show some respect for that position? It is also true to say that the potential for new market opportunities is difficult to understand. What I do not understand is which country in the world is going to enter into a trade agreement with the UK, where the rules are entirely what the British say it will be. If there is any dispute about the rules, it will be sorted out by the British Government. Those are not my words, those are the words of former Tory Cabinet Minister, Ken Clark. He does not understand how you are going to achieve those free trade agreements. As a Government, we, by contrast, have been very clear about the benefits that we receive from EU membership. The prosperity and the economic opportunities that membership of the single market brings to our nation, as well as the social protections that it brings to our workers, the human rights that it affords our people and the important standards that protect our environment and keep our food and consumer goods safe—not to mention, of course, our water quality and water infrastructure. We are also a nation that believes strongly in European solidarity so that we can tackle today's global challenges such as climate change, terrorism and the refugee crisis together in solidarity. The Scottish Government is determined to find solutions that will respect the voice and protect the interests of Scotland and to ensure the values of European solidarity, co-operation and democracy prevail. EU membership is part of Scotland's sense of itself. It is about the contribution that EU citizens make to Scotland and the contribution that people from Scotland are making throughout the EU. It is about the idea that strong independent nations can come together for the common good. This debate is at the heart of the kind of country that we want to be. It cannot—well, interesting, on independence—accounted a lost count when it got to 16 mentions of independence by the Conservatives. There were six from the Lib Dems. Who is obsessed by independence is only one group in this Parliament. It cannot be the vision of those on the rights of the Tory party, the new UKippers, who favour a low-wage deregulated economy in which companies are forced to compile lists of foreign workers, even one proposal to try to charge £1,000 to employ an EU foreign national. Is that not a barrier to trade? Is that not a barrier to free movement of people? Is that not contempt for the rights of people? I think that it is, but it seems that the Tory party now believes that it can do anything to Scotland that it likes. It believes that it can do that, no matter how damaging, and it believes that it can get away with it. Our position and the position of the Scottish Government is that it is time that we made clear that it will not get away with it. I ask members to support the motion in my name. That concludes our debate on future relationship with Europe. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 3375, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the appointment of members of the Standards Commission for Scotland. I would call on Liam McArthur to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the corporate body. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak to the motion in my name on behalf of the SPCB appointment panel to invite members of Parliament to agree to the appointment of Michael McCormack and Trisha Stewart as members of the Standards Commission for Scotland. Under the Ethical Standards in Public Life, Scotland Act 2000, members of the commission are appointed by the SPCB with the agreement of this Parliament. The role of the Standards Commission is to encourage high ethical standards in public life, and it does that by promoting and enforcing the codes of conduct for councillors and members of devolved public bodies. The SPCB sat as a selection panel on 12 December 2016. I chaired the panel alongside Gordon MacDonald and David Stewart. On behalf of the SPCB, I thank Louise Rose, the independent assessor, who oversaw the process and is confirmed by way of a validation certificate that the appointment process conforms to good practice and that the nominations are made on merit after a fair, open and transparent process. From a very strong field of candidates, as I say, we are seeking the agreement of Parliament to appoint Michael McCormack and Trisha Stewart as members of the Standards Commission. I would also like to thank on behalf of the SPCB, the outgoing members, Ian Gordon and Matt Smith, for their services to the commission and wish them well for the future. Turning to the candidates themselves, we believe that Michael McCormack and Trisha Stewart will bring to the Standards Commission high levels of integrity and discretion and a strong commitment to encouraging and promoting high ethical standards in public life. I am sure that the Parliament will want to wish both Michael and Trisha every success in their new roles. I move the motion in my name. Thank you. The question on the motion will be put at decision time. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. I wish to remind members that if the amendment in the name of Dean Lockhart is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie falls. The first question is the amendment 3427.3 in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to amend motion 3427 in the name of Michael Russell be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3427.3 in the name of Dean Lockhart is yes, 31, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 3427.1 in the name of Lewis MacDonald, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Russell be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is the amendment 3427.2 in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend motion 3427 in the name of Michael Russell be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3427.2 in the name of Willie Rennie is yes, five, no, 117. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 3427 in the name of Michael Russell as amended on protecting Scotland's interests and negotiating our future relationship with Europe be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 3427 in the name of Michael Russell as amended is yes, 86, no, 36. There were no abstentions and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 3375 in the name of Liam McArthur on behalf of the corporate body be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Stuart Stevenson and we will just take a few moments for members to change seats.