 The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the First Minister's statement. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press a request to speak better now. I call on John Swinney. It is my pleasure to open the second part of the debate that we have had on the First Minister's statement. I think that one of the observations that can be made safely about the debate that we had yesterday is that, in the aftermath of the result of the referendum, no matter the disappointment that those of us who were on the yes side of the campaign feel and how we exhilarated those on the no side feel about the result, there is a general accepted conclusion that the whole process of the referendum, the engaged debate, the level of participation by members of the public, the legislative agreement around the holding of the referendum through the Edinburgh agreement between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government, created the conditions in which Scotland could have a full, open and engaged debate about the constitutional future of the country. The outcome of the referendum debate has been a credit to Scotland in the way in which the debate has been conducted on all sides of the argument. There are so many strengths that come out of that debate in terms of the level of voter registration, the level of participation, the level of turnout and, particularly, uniformly accepted across this chamber, the credit that the participation of 16 and 17-year-old voters were to the process that Scotland can look to the referendum as an example of the democratic process that has taken place to the highest possible standard here in Scotland. We now find ourselves in the aftermath of the referendum looking forward, looking ahead to what comes next in Scotland. I want to confirm to Parliament that yesterday afternoon the Deputy First Minister and I met Lord Smith of Kelvin to confirm, as we have confirmed publicly, that the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party will participate fully in the process that Lord Smith has taken forward in trying to secure agreement around the additional powers and responsibilities that will come to Scotland in the aftermath of the referendum. Lord Smith said quite fairly yesterday that his task is not an easy one. It is important to consider at the outset of that process just the issues that Lord Smith has got to resolve. The Prime Minister said during the referendum that if people vote no, business as usual is not on the ballot paper. The status quo is gone, the campaign has swept it away, there is no going back to things the way they were. A vote for no means real change. Gordon Brown said that the plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament that we seek agreement on is for nothing else than a modern form of Scottish home role within the United Kingdom. He has also quoted as saying, we are going to be within a year or two as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population. Just for completeness, Danny Alexander said, Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system, an effective home role but within the security and the stability of our successful United Kingdom. Those are the solemn commitments that were made to people in advance of the referendum last Thursday. What we are engaged in and what we are happy to be engaged in is a process of dialogue over which Lord Smith will preside to bring together an agreement that lives up to the expectations that were set out in all of those statements. Of course, those statements, in a whole number of different ways, go way beyond the proposals and the propositions that were put forward by the three Unionist parties well in advance of the referendum. Indeed, Gordon Brown's comments about taking us within a year or two to a position of being as close to a federal state is dramatically different to the proposals that his own party put forward prior to the referendum. I think that that sets an important benchmark of the type and level of agreement that has to be secured if there is to be a faithful commitment delivered to those who, in good faith, voted no on the expectation that additional significant powers were going to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I welcome his commitment to participate fully in the process. Does he think that the process should be judged at the end of the process instead of negative comments being made by some before the process has even begun? I do not know why Mr Brown feels the need to raise that with me. I am the epitome of positivity in all my contributions to this debate. I thought that Mr Brown would have moved on from his narrative before the referendum. We are all positive now, Mr Brown. My next positive remark will be that I welcome the terms of reference that Lord Smith published yesterday in which he said that he is to facilitate an inclusive engagement process across Scotland to produce by the end of November heads of agreement with recommendations for the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. The key word in there is inclusive. We have excited alongside politics and Parliament a tremendous amount of democratic engagement, as the Presiding Officer properly said to us as we commenced our proceedings yesterday. The real test is whether we can capture the enthusiasm, the ambition and the energy that was represented by that mammoth turnout in the referendum and ensure that the settlement proposed by Lord Smith captures those ambitions and puts them forward in a fashion that can give confidence to people in Scotland that, despite the fact that my side of the argument was unsuccessful last Thursday, the powers of this Parliament have been decisively enhanced for real purpose to enable us to address the challenges and the issues that face the people of our country. Last week's referendum was indeed the biggest exercise of popular sovereignty in Scotland's history. As John Swinney said, record numbers of people registered to vote and record numbers took part. I met some inspiring voters who were born a century and more ago when only adult male householders over the age of 21 had the right to vote and who were determined that their voices should be heard. Many other voters, like my younger daughter Iona, were born in the last 17 years after we agreed in our last referendum that there should be a Scottish Parliament. Each and every vote in last week's referendum was of equal value. In response to the question of whether Scotland should be an independent country, a clear majority voted no. Scotland and England have shared a common head of state and head of government for over 400 years. We have shared a common Parliament for more than 300. Last week, for the first time, the whole people of Scotland were invited to vote on whether or not to sustain that union. We, the people of Scotland, have determined for ourselves that our country should continue as part of one United Kingdom. The 2 million people who voted no were not, as has been suggested, merely the largest minority in an electorate divided among no-voters, yes-voters and non-voters. They were rather a clear majority of those who chose to take part. Alex Salmond yesterday described the Scottish Assembly referendum of 1979 as a botched job because non-voters were counted as if they were against the majority view, with the result that the side that gained most votes was unable to have its wishes put into effect. Those who lost the vote last week should not make the same mistake as was made in 1979. They should accept the result of the sovereign will of the people of Scotland, expressed by a clear majority of those who chose to exercise their sovereign rights. The idea of popular sovereignty has deep roots in Scottish history. The community of the realm in the 1300s or the 1600s was a much smaller and more limited elite than the mass electorate of today or even the electorate of 1914. The point about popular sovereignty is that it is the final word. Those who support the sovereign to the people must not then pick apart the results to find an additive that suits them better. Two million people voted for Scotland to stay in the union, and they did so because in their judgment that was the best direction for Scotland to take. They were not gulled or tricked into making that judgment, nor did they do so only in response to the issues that got most attention in the short campaign. Polish voters in Aberdeen, for instance, voted for Scotland to remain in the UK for much the same reasons as most other Aberdonians voted no. They, too, value the benefits of Scotland. I will give way in a moment. They, too, value the benefits of Scotland's membership of the wider British Union. The claim made yesterday that Poles voted no through fear is an insult to their intelligence and a slur on the integrity of those who argued that these nations are better together. I thank the member for giving way. There were many many Poles in Aberdeen who were threatened by no campaigners saying that they would be deported if there was a yes vote. It was so severe that the yes campaign wrote to many Poles voters. Does Mr McDonnell deny that that happened? Mr Stewart would have done himself a favour by accepting the proposition that I put to him, that voters of whatever ethnic group and national origin made a decision on the basis of the information in front of them and did so with an intelligent understanding of the issues at stake. It is equally wrong to say that pensioners voted for the union only because they were misled or that they failed to take into account the interests of future generations. Denunciation of older voters should have no place in the discourse of a modern democratic society. The wisdom and experience of elders is highly valued in many cultures around the world, in part because older people think more than most about what the world will be like after they have gone. I believe that it was precisely because of what they judged to be in the best interests of their children and grandchildren that so many older people voted for Scotland to stay in the British Union and future generations, I think, will be grateful for their maturity and judgment in doing so. The truth is that all those who had a vote had a choice before them, between independence and a self-governing Scotland within the UK, and over 55 per cent of those who voted chose to devolution and not independence. That majority included majorities in most age groups and most local council areas, but Scotland was for this purpose one constituency and the will of the Scottish people as a whole has been made clear. The commitments given by the Labour Party and other parties over recent weeks and months will lay the basis for future revolution, which will be delivered following next week's election. Alex Salmond said last week that he accepted the verdict of the people and called on everyone else who had campaigned for Scottish independence to do the same. I am glad that Nicola Sturgeon has made a commitment this morning to work with others on taking forward proposals for further devolution. I know how tough it can be to lose the vote at the end of a hard-fought campaign. It is easy to believe that you are entitled to win because you think you have made your case. It is easier still to go into denial or to look for somebody to blame when you fall at the final hurdle. However, I think that we all now need to accept and move on from last week's clear decision and to work together across parties to secure the kind of changes in our country that will make it an even better place in the future. One of the many positive aspects of the campaign was the sheer level of engagement. Members of our communities engaged at all levels, whether it be social media, public meetings or the big television debates. People were extremely interested in the debate and who would not be interested in the biggest debate, most important debate that Scotland has ever had. It was a busy campaign, regardless of whether you were yes or no. I am quite sure that the energy drink sales probably went through the roof with many campaigners all the time, although I am currently trying to get many members of team Paisley off of that kind of addiction almost at this stage. I am glad to say that the people of Paisley voted yes. They are a yes town. Traditional working class areas wanted independence for Scotland, Glenbar, Foxbar, Paisley's East End and Fergusley Park. Traditionally, low turnout numbers came out in massive numbers to vote for this type of radical change. That is the type of engagement that we must embrace as politicians. We must ensure that those people still feel powerful and still want to engage, because they felt that their vote would make a difference. My fellow buddies embraced that change and really wanted to go for something different in the future. I hope that the Westminster elite stick to that and remember that when they make their decisions. The many campaigning stories that we have all had and were mentioned yesterday had young men and women going to school shaking their hands at the polling stations. Congratulations for the work that we are doing. I had another young man walking through the streets who had already been to the Parliament and shouting at one end, George Boy. George Boy, let us talk to him. He was voting and he was telling me how. He was voting. Matthew, who works for me, actually says, what other politician is actually treated that way in Paisley streets? I take it as a compliment myself, actually. Someone else said that there is no one else called George in Paisley. There was another awkward moment when a young voter came up to me from Paisley grammar and said that she wanted to take a selfie and, while she was taking the picture, she said, I adore you, George. I found that quite awkward and creepy at that stage, but it just shows you how the voters, the 16 and 17-year-olds, got engaged with the whole process. They became engaged with it. We even had a situation where young women from Paisley, the Paisley girls, spoke to Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander regarding child poverty and they recorded it at the same time. They were asking Mr Miliband, what about child poverty? What about all the young people I am voting for independence? What can you offer me and my children for the future? He looked at her blankly, Mr Miliband did, and Douglas Alexander tried desperately to explain, and she said, you are paying for trying, and I cannot get a house in Paisley. That is the kind of issues and things that we are talking about. Independence is a way forward. We also had the Margo mobile and Jim Stillers coming out on a number of occasions. It was great to campaign with them again. At one stage, it reminded me of my younger days in 1988, when I had Ian Lawson, Gil Paterson and Jim Stillers all campaigning in what was the modern equivalent of a snappy bus, and it was really good to be in some of those areas. We went to areas in Foxparl at Morder Drive, which was bedeckt in yes posters and everything else, because, again, a low turnout area, they were desperate to see that they could see this radical change. The sheer magnitude of the yes activists working with the Scottish Parliament and the Green Party was absolutely fantastic. There was one woman who came up to me, and it was on Saturday, just after the campaign, and it was in my local bar. I was on my second pint by this time, and she said, George, she says, can you tell Alex Salmond, the First Minister, that why did he give up, because he was the person who convinced me along with Nicola Sturgeon to vote yes? Why are we at this stage to do that? And who can forget the actual fact that, when we stood there in Paisley, where thousands of us walked through the streets of Paisley, and we actually had people walking through from all over the county in blue and white, saying whether yes banners, saying that they wanted a difference, they knew exactly what was happening and how important it was. But the thing that we are doing locally is we are making sure that we engage with all those people who were part of that campaign. We have to keep them political. We have to make sure that they do not get fed up and that they do not feel disenfranchised as the Westminster elite think that it is business as usual and go back to their traditional games, because we have almost had a situation where the Labour conference yesterday was almost as if that did not really happen. Let us just carry on with the Westminster's games. That is not a game. This is people's lives that we are dealing with here. Clearly, whether they voted yes or no, they voted for change. And when you ask yourself what happened to the vow, what happened to the actual vow, well, let us talk about the vow. Surely it is not like a Lib Dem pledge. Surely it meant something. The Scottish Parliament was meant to be a permanent and extensive new power for the Parliament and will be delivered by the process and to a timetable agreed and announced by our three parties starting in 19 September. I think that timetable is a wee bit behind, because things started changing as the morning of 19 September came round. Things started changing and all I am saying here is that Scotland demands change. My constituency demands change and they will be watching along with myself, will be watching the Westminster establishment and the elite as they make these decisions over the next couple of years because they have to do something and this is not business as usual. Thank you, Mr Adam. After that story about your constituency adoration, can I say that there is no accounting for taste? Sandra White, followed by Gavin Brown. I did not want to interrupt your full flow there. I am sure that George Adam will perhaps be a point of order a few words later on. I am not too sure, but thank you, Presiding Officer. I just say that it was absolutely great, fantastic to see so many people engaged in Scotland's future and what it really meant to them. I really want to thank all of them most sincerely for the work that they carried out from people belonging to political parties to people who were involved in local communities, women for India, radical independence, Generation Yes, national collective, Labour for Independence and so many more. I apologise if I forgot some. I can only say to them that they were absolutely inspiring. Inspiring from pop-up cafes, which popped up from everywhere obviously, street stalls, public meetings, debates taking place, pubs and buses and subways and streets, the place was alive and it was so compelling and it was great to be absolutely part of it. Glasgow in particular was awash with the Yes campaigners, Yes window posters, events all conducted—I really mean this—all conducted with great humour and positivity and confidence. That was the one word, confidence. It was fantastic to watch and it was resounding to say to people, please go out and vote and become engaged in that. Of course, Glasgow in my home city, in my Kelvin constituency, throughout Glasgow, we delivered a resounding Yes for Scotland and I am very proud of that. Our job now is to continue this engagement with people to ensure that they continue to take part and become even more involved. This is one of the central planks in the aims of the Yes campaign. It was to keep people involved then in particular to push them forward and become involved as well. However, I have to say to others that the genie is out of the bottle, it will not go back in, it is definitely out of the bottle and we have to actually look at what we are going to do with the confidence that the people of Scotland put forward in this campaign. Particularly when we now see the vow, which so eloquently put forward an outline by John Swinney a few minutes ago, it is absolutely unravelling before our eyes. How that could have been allowed to go forward when we had a perder of eight months and three days before an election, they are allowed to come forward with what I would call false promises. It is unravelling just now and I hope that it will work and it will come forward. The better together parties will pay a heavy price for what they did during this campaign. In fact, they are already paying a heavy price. There is word there that looks like the membership of the SNP in Scotland is greater than the membership of Labour, Tory and the Lib Dems in the whole of Scotland. They are paying the price already. I want to turn to the actions of the No campaign or should it be the misinformation and fear campaign, led in particular by the Labour Party. It is absolutely true, frightening pensioners and vulnerable people, our own migrant communities. I honestly have never seen such a campaign in people's stoop so low. Pensioners, here is a letter, pensioners being told that they will not get their pension, they better stock up on foods and yet there is a letter here that I gave to all the pensioners groups from the ministry saying that nothing would happen. It reads out if Scotland does become independent, it will have no effect on your state pension. Why was that not put forward in the media? Why did the TV companies not cover that? Why was it not? It was left up to activists to tell the pensioners, to tell the pensioners. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. Vulnerable people, people with learning difficulties on disability allowance, being told under doorsteps that their allowance and disability benefits would stop. Imagine stooping so low as to say that to vulnerable people and that did happen on the doorstep. Polish migrants and others being told that they will no longer be able to say in Scotland how can you hold your heads up, how can you hold your heads up when you said that to people, you should be holding your head in shame. It was not a victory, it was not a victory, it was an absolute misinformation and you should be ashamed of yourself. I say again, why wasn't this represented in the media? Why didn't they cover that? I think that's something that we really have to look at. I thank the Sunday Herald for actually going out there and printing the truth of the matter. The rest of the media, I think, also have to look inward and look at themselves, the way they produced and projected this referendum. It wasn't a fair referendum when there was misinformation and fear going out and in fact I could pensioners coming to me now saying they were, they were, no I won't take an intervention, I won't take an intervention. Now we've got the result we had. In the yes campaign I said this to the many many young activists who were hanging their heads on Friday morning at the count. You have nothing to be ashamed of. You worked as hard as possible. The yes campaign was a fantastic campaign. These people here are the ones that have to look. They did nothing. They relied on the fear in the British state to do their work for them and that will come back and haunt them. I want to make a forward looking and constructive contribution to the debate today. I'll start by saying I genuinely welcomed the speech by John Swinney, both what he said and the tone in which Mr Swinney said it. He said quite clearly that the Scottish Government intended to participate fully in the process with Lord Smith of Kelvin. I welcome that entirely. I think that that's the right approach. He also said though that we are all positive now and I have to say that the last couple of contributions we have heard completely contradicted that statement. He has no control, of course, over the speeches that have just been made, but I think that it's really important that if we are all, as Scotland and the UK, to get the most out of this process, it needs goodwill and it needs the best endeavours of all Unionist parties and the Scottish Government and the Green Party and, indeed, civic Scotland and the people of Scotland. I think that John Swinney in particular has a great deal to add to this process via his experience under LBTT, his experience under landfill tax and his experience under, so far, the Scottish rate of income tax. It's critical that the Scottish Government means what they say when they say they're going to participate fully. That does mean, Presiding Officer, that we can't affect what was said at the weekend, what was said over the course of this week and, even, indeed, what's been said this afternoon, but I do think that it's important that the Scottish Government stands by what Mr Swinney said and actually don't snipe from the sidelines on the process and criticise it before it has begun. If they don't like the outcome, in a second, if they don't like the outcome, if they don't think the process, over time, has delivered, then I'm sure they will say so, but to criticise it and to say that it's not delivering before it has started, I think, is quite wrong and I think it's critical that they do put everything into it. I'll give way to John Swinney. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Could he clarify for us or assure us that, once the three parties at Westminster have reached an agreement as to what powers should be devolved, they would then be willing to negotiate on that position and it would not be a fixed position which the SNP or the Government would have to accept? John Mason has seen exactly what I've seen over the course of the last week. Within an hour of the referendum result being obvious, the Prime Minister made a formal statement to the country and appointed the hugely respected Lord Smith of Calvin, a man respected by the Scottish Government for his work in youth unemployment, which led to the appointment of Angela Constance for his work with the Commonwealth Games, but equally respected by the UK Government for his work with the Green Investment Bank. He's made it clear from his statement yesterday, he's speaking to the five largest parties within Scotland, but he intends to go outside the political process in terms of forming views and then ultimately a recommendation. I think that we should all welcome that. Again, I have to say that it's really important, I think, if this process is to succeed, if it has any prospect of delivering for Scotland, then everybody has to get on board and we mustn't snipe from the sidelines before the process has fully begun. The other message that I really wanted to push forward today is this. The eyes of the world were on Scotland last week, but I think that the eyes of the world are still on Scotland and they will be on Scotland for the foreseeable future. I think that it's really important that the Scottish Government in early course makes it very clear that Scotland is open for business. There has been uncertainty over the last couple of months. We have had some investment decisions put on hold as a result of the referendum and it's critical. Once there was one in the Edinburgh Evening News yesterday, the point hotel in Edinburgh where there was a specific clause in the contract that the sale of that hotel would go ahead only in the result of a noble. That's just one example. We know, of course, from the property market a number of property sales again had referendum clauses within them. We know that investment in some cases has been put on hold and I think that it would be better for the cabinet secretary to make it very clear that Scotland is open for business instead of questioning some of the facts and evidence that is actually out there. We've heard statements from business in the last couple of days. It's now in standard life. It's now important that we all move forward with respect and work together constructively in the best interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom. Philip Shove invested north of the border. It will be important for the Scottish Government to assuage the business community to neutralise any risks that the Indus debate tempted some companies to read domicile or transfer some of their options, operations to England or Wales. I don't know who's closing for the Scottish Government today but I would welcome a formal statement from them that Scotland is open for business and they will do all on their power to help our economy to grow because more than ever the economic growth has a direct impact on the Scottish Government's budget whether it's the land buildings transaction tax coming into force in April of next year, whether it's the Scottish rate of income tax coming into force in 2016, there will be a direct impact on our budget if we get this wrong going forward. Perhaps one way the Scottish Government could begin as my final point is this. Every year that I've been a member of this Parliament, the first meeting after the summer recess has had a programme for government. The very first act of the Scottish Government has been to stand up and to tell the chamber at Scotland at large what bills are happening over the course of the next year and what the Government plan is for the next year. As far as I'm aware, we don't have a programme of government this week. As far as I'm aware, we don't have a programme for government next week. The week after that I don't think business has been finalised, but I think it's critical that the Government tells us today when will we have a programme for government so that everyone can see that Scotland is genuinely open for business. Dennis Robertson to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Perhaps in response to Gavin Brown, we believe that Scotland was close for business. My recall, Mr Brown, is that we have had inward investment in Scotland over the past year. We had record investment in oil and gas, but that's not close for business. Scotland has been open for business and Scotland remains open for business. I heard Ross Martin this morning from the SCDI saying that the Government should work together. My understanding is that Scotland didn't stop working with the Westminster Government. Perhaps Westminster Government had closed its ears to the needs of Scotland and Scotland's people. I can associate myself with the comments from the Cabinet Secretary this morning this afternoon. Again, I endorse everything that he said, but I'm just wondering when Mr MacDonald's contribution—I was slightly concerned about the tone, because he's asking us to work together. He's asking us to put aside our differences. He was asking us to accept the result and to which I do. I always felt that what he was saying and his tone and the fact that when Mr Stewart, my colleague and friend here, asked him about the accusations with regard to the Polish immigrants in Aberdeen. Mr MacDonald would not deny that there had been a fear campaign in Aberdeen. I would not subscribe to any fear campaign or any such behaviour at all. I've come back to this chamber enthused and excited, but I was actually enthused and excited before I left for the perder period. Part of that was because the EET committee had a fantastic session of inviting not just politicians but civic Scotland and people from all industries talking about their aspirations for Scotland, whether it be a yes or no vote at the end of the day. We were energised, we were excited and I believe I still am. Part of that is because the people of Scotland came out in their droves. 85 per cent of the people wanted to take part in that decision making process. The 16 to 17-year-olds who came out for the first time energised and enthused perhaps many more people. They perhaps encouraged many of their parents to come out and vote again for the first time. I was in the contour polling office and two young girls in their school uniforms came out skipping, singing. They had been voting for the first time. I have no idea, Presiding Officer, which way they voted, but their enthusiasm, their excitement was something to behold. In another polling station, I was advised that a gentleman had come in and voted for the first time. He was 66. Again, I have no idea which way he had voted, but he felt compelled to come out in this occasion to vote. We have a lot to be proud of. We should be proud of our people. Our people came out and they came out to vote and to take Scotland forward. It is a Scotland for change. It is a Scotland that will go in a different direction. I am not a narrow-minded nationalist. I do not believe that I have ever been a narrow-minded nationalist. I believe that I am someone who has great vision for this country. I believe that I am someone who has a vision for a future of this country and for the people of Scotland. I believe that the constituency that I represent has enormous potential for Scotland. Within the north-east of Scotland, the oil and gas industry, the renewables, we are world leaders, Presiding Officer. I come from a very mixed constituency. There is great affluence within the constituency that I represent. Yes, I represent the royal decide. I have no idea what Her Majesty was actually thinking with regard to the referendum, despite what Mr Cameron said at the end of the day. Presiding Officer, I have also got parts of my constituency that is not so affluent. Those areas that we are looking towards Scotland and looking towards, I think, the Yes campaign to give them self-belief and perhaps an opportunity to move forward, too. I was enthused. I was excited during the campaign. I remain enthused and excited because I believe that we have an opportunity to move forward. It is not that we are better together, Presiding Officer. We are better when we work for the people of Scotland. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Presiding Officer, many speakers have emphasised that there is a great deal to celebrate in what has happened in Scotland in the last few weeks, particularly the turnout and the level of the political engagement. However, I have some regrets. I will only mention one, because I do not really want to dwell on the past, but I regret the polarisation that we saw. It was, to some extent, inevitable, but I think that it was intensified by the tendency to invent the enemy rather than respect the other side. What do I mean by that? I suppose, from my point of view, one of the things that particularly annoyed me was the way that some, I am not saying all, some Yes supporters took upon themselves the mantle of social justice and thought that it was their exclusive preserve and therefore accused many people on the other side of voting out of selfish purposes, perhaps, or for their own interests. Whereas I think that respect would have required the recognition that we, too, believed that what we were doing was in the interests of social justice and equality. We just thought that there was a different way of achieving it. I give way to John Mason. Accepting what the member says, but would he accept that, on the whole, it was richer areas voting No and poorer areas voting Yes? I think that that is an over-genialisation. I am going to come on to that point. I am not absolving my own side from also sometimes misrepresenting the other side, but I think that we should let the past be the past. There it is, mutable. What we should concentrate on now is the future, creating a future that does not exist but will be determined by the decisions that we make. Now I think that it is the time for respect, for abandoning polarisation and coming together as much as possible and certainly for nurturing the culture of participation and involvement that was boosted so much by the referendum campaign. In that context, I welcome much of what Nicola Sturgeon said this morning. I send her my best wishes. I was going to say a few other nice things about her, which she may not have welcomed, but since she has abandoned the debate, I will leave that for another day. I want to mention one concern, however, that I have about what Nicola Sturgeon said this morning, and that is that she refused to rule out a referendum in the next Parliament. That is completely contrary not just to what the present First Minister said during the campaign, but also what she said about this being a decision for a generation. It seems this morning that a political generation may have become a mere five years. I was hoping that Nicola Sturgeon would respond to that point in the wind-up that I thought she was going to make, but it may well be that somebody else is going to do that. The two big issues for us looking forward are the new powers that we will receive and, of course, how to make use not just of those powers but of the powers that we currently have. Very important, as the new powers are, and I think that they are even more important and urgent, is how we use all the powers that we will soon have. I know—and this responds in part to the point that John Mason made—that many people in the communities that I hold most dear did vote. Yes, not by no means all, but many of them did. They were doing that, I believe, basically, in the hope of more social justice. I believe that the challenge for us is to start delivering on that social justice with the powers that we have now and the powers that we will soon acquire. Why, for example, is it that there is not a poverty and inequality assessment of all the policies and all the legislation that we do in this Parliament? I give way to Dennis Robertson. I thank the member very much for that brief intervention. I understand what you are saying, Mr Chisholm, but we do not have the powers to change welfare reform, which is impacting on some of our most vulnerable people in society at the moment. Malcolm Chisholm? Yes, but what I regret is that all we hear about in relation to the debate about social and justice inequality is what we cannot do, whereas we need to concentrate far more on what we can do. There is no doubt—I made the general point—I give way to Dennis. I am grateful to Mr Chisholm for giving way. I am a bit surprised by his remarks about the lack of equalities assessment, given that he knows that, on an annual basis, I publish an equalities impact assessment of all the Government's budget measures, which summarise the entirety of public expenditure under our control. Of course I know that, but there is not a focus on poverty and income inequality, and that is really what I was referring to in that remark. Just to give one other example, much as I support more devolution to local government in general, why are there not more national initiatives for combating poverty and disadvantage, such as the Fair Scotland Fund, which, of course, the current Government abolished? Certainly, issues of social justice inequality are going to be my number one priority for my last 18 months in this Parliament. I know that there will be the number one priority of the Labour group in this Parliament, and I hope that it will become the number one priority of the Scottish Government. One minute left to deal with powers—two things, therefore I will say it. First, there is a clear timetable, and contrary to what Sandra White said, there will be delivery in accordance with that timetable. Secondly, and this is something that I have noted in the comments of many yes supporters in the last few days, what was promised by the leaders, and indeed by Gordon Brown, was not Divo Maxx. I can see that some people are trying to set this up as if it is not Divo Max that have reneged on their promise. They never promised Divo Max. You know that Gordon Brown does not support Divo Max. Everybody knows that none of the better-together parties support Divo Max. Divo Max does not exist anywhere in the world, but what I will say is my final words. I certainly support extensive fiscal and other powers coming to this Parliament, and I in fact may not be entirely satisfied with the level of devolution that is delivered, but I will certainly welcome it. Devolution is a process, not an event, a process that we can continue because of the novel last week. What I know is that, in the very near future, we will have the start of a semi-autonomous state within a ffiscally federal UK, and I hope that everyone in this chamber will welcome that. Joan McAlpine, to be followed by Christian Allard. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, like others, congratulate all those who have participated in the democratic process, whichever way they voted. Most of my speech today will, in fact, focus on the 2 million Scots who voted no, but I start by saying thank you to the 1.6 million Scots who voted yes and who went to the polls with hope in their hearts, and I am truly sorry that those hopes were dashed. I welcome Lord Smith's appointment, and I implore him to remember that 1.6 million or 45 per cent. He must also include the wider grassroots yes campaign in his discussions, not just political parties. I would like to now draw attention to my register of members' interests as I write a column for the daily record, which published the now infamous vow by the leaders of the three main unionist parties before the vote. The vow was, in fact, presented as offering substantial powers to the Scottish Parliament. Surveys like the 2013 Scottish social attitude survey show that 63 per cent of Scots favour either independence or the devolution of all powers except defence and foreign affairs, and that is what the vow was sold as delivering. The daily record itself said, quote, that all three UK party leaders are now committed to offering devo max powers to Scotland. The Edinburgh evening news, which serves a city where the no vote was above the national average, said, vote no and we get more say in our own affairs through devo max. Other papers made similar statements. The vow had in effect as did the intervention of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown a week earlier. We know this from the Ashcroft poll of 2,000 voters conducted on 18-19 September, which found that one in four who voted no did so mainly because they believed that more powers were coming to the Scottish Parliament. I am absolutely sure that substantial more powers will come. She has quoted newspapers. Can she quote any of the politicians involved at that time who used the words devo max? Gordon Brown said in his speech to the Lonehead miners welfare on Monday, 8 September, that the status quo is no longer an option. He said that his proposal was like home rule in the UK. We would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85 per cent of the population is from one nation. The author and Better Together donor, Joanne Rowling, clearly believed that she was putting her money on devo max. On 6 September, she tweeted about the fact that she would back anyone who delivered devo max. On 10 September, she tweeted to her 3.7 million followers on Twitter. In the event of a no vote, we are being offered home rule plus the economic advantages of the union. Whether you call it home rule, devo max or federalism, this offer goes well beyond existing offers by the unionist parties. Malcolm Chisholm says that there is no example of devo max in the world. Certainly in Europe, it is regarded that the Basque country has a system of devo max. The regional governments are raised and retain their own revenue and give a quota back to Madrid to cover defence and foreign affairs. The word federalism has been used, too. Let us look at examples of that system. For example, Alberta in Canada has access to a share of its oil revenues, as do Texas and Alaska in the United States. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act stipulates that 37.5 per cent of all revenues from offshore oil in the Gulf states are shared with those states, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Scotland gets none of its oil revenue and none of the unionist parties plan to offer us a share. However, it was not just the vow in Gordon Brown that influenced no voters. The Ashcroft poll shows that the biggest reasons for voting no were concerns about economic wellbeing. Throughout the campaign, the UK Treasury produced material claiming that we would be better economically better off in the UK. As I recall, the figure for this union dividend used by Danny Alexander was £1,400 ahead. Of course, we on the yes side disputed that figure, but I do not want to rerun the arguments of the referendum campaign. However, I want to say that the union dividend depends on the Barnett formula remaining in place. The Barnett formula, let us not forget, was a soft to Scots in the 1970s, designed to compensate us for the loss of our oil revenues. The only way that Barnett could be scrapped in a way that would not leave Scotland worse off would be via true-devil-max. That means 100 per cent allocation of the taxes raised here in Scotland. Last December, the Prime Minister wrote to the First Minister to dismiss suggestions of any threat to Barnett. The vow also said that the Barnett formula would remain in place. That was a repetition of promises made by better-together politicians at every level of the campaign. I can recall lots of local debates that I had with David Mundell when he accused me of scaremongering when I suggested that there was a threat to Barnett. This week, the Times newspaper has quoted Downing Street as saying that Barnett will not be retained in its current form and Tory and Labour MPs are lining up to demand that Scotland's funding is cut. Without Barnett or true-devil-max, there is no union dividend and we could lose £4 billion a year from our budget forcing us to raise taxes to make up the shortfall. If that happens, thousands of people will have been misled into casting a vote for no. The unionist parties in this chamber now have a moral obligation to stand by their promises to the electorate and if they fail to break their solemn vows and promises, then in the words of Billy Connlay, there will be hell to pay. Thank you very much. I now call on Christian Allard to be followed by Dr Lynn Murray. Presiding Officer, here we are. Six days have already passed since we, the people who live here, voted no to Scotland becoming an independent country. This is very important to testify this. We, the people who live here in Scotland, voted no. 55 per cent, a majority of the people voted no, we voted no. And yet, Presiding Officer, this side of the chamber seems to be, after the statement of the First Minister yesterday and the Cabinet Secretary today, this side of the chamber seems to be serene, positive and full of energy. While the other political parties who decided to campaign against independence looked deflated and unhappy, who would have thought that a resigning First Minister would have a spring and step. The North East MSP is, this North East MSP, is as positive about the future as the Aberdeenyshire East MSP are sharing office with. Presiding Officer, I witness how much the member of Aberdeenyshire East is loved across the North East, to a point that campaigning with him the last few weeks in his constituency in Inverillory, Teraff, Elan, Numaka, can only be described as a huge flash mob. People voting yes or no, SNP or others all wanted to thank the First Minister for giving us the opportunity to rediscover democracy. I couldn't do it yesterday, so I'll do it today. I would like to add my personal thanks to Alex Salman, our leader, the man who changed Scotland forever, and more importantly, for the better. I look forward to work alongside the MSP for Aberdeenyshire East as long as he stops going on about his successful Beyoncé diet. Presiding Officer, people of the North East won't be surprised to hear, but I also look forward to joining the hashtag team Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon came many times to the North East, filled the room of more than 300 people in Inverillory. We ran out of chairs. We camped in the stone haven together with Nigel Don and more in what MSP when we ran out of umbrellas. Nicola Sturgeon stopped in Aberdeen on the industry to support all the groups for yes that emerge in this campaign. Again, just like with our Deputy First Minister, run out of time to speak to everyone who came to Greta. Who in the new campaign can claim to have received such a welcome? David Cameron, Ed Miliband or John Lamont knew better not to be seen in the streets of the North East of Scotland. I look forward to our new incoming First Ministers, many visits to the North East. I'm immensely proud of the campaign in the North East, a campaign that not only energised people, but empowered them. Mark McDonnell MSP spoke yesterday about coins for India, and I agree with him. Jillian Martin and her sister Lindsay and many more North East women made a fantastic contribution to this campaign. I read online that Jillian Martin will be featured in the document, and then you win. On how the people of Scotland and women in particular have built the biggest grassroots campaign Scotland has seen in living memory. Other groups made a massive contribution in the campaign reaching people who, we, politicians, have failed to reach over the years. National Collective has been a revelation to many, a revelation that politics should not be left to politicians. Ross David and Alex from my wee town of West Hill, where at the forefront of the movement will challenge us to imagine a better Scotland. This generation, yes, is not going anywhere. We are not going back to eat the cereals. Lastly, I mention, if I may, presenting officer for the many people who have been active on both sides of the debates the last two years. I'm proud to have chaired a platform in the many public meetings I have, I was asked to participate in with Kenny Anderson from Business for Scotland a group who is keeping going after Thursday. Articulate, fax in hands and so inspiring, Kenny just like Jillian and many of us would make a real different sitting in this chamber. And I dare say a fantastic contribution on the green benches of Westminster as early as next year. Online in the street at public meetings at the doorstep at work or at home, the debate has been electrifying. And I understand why the people of Scotland never want to feel disenfranchised with politics again. We have shown the world with this fantastic turnout of 3.6 million people that for democracy to stay alive, it must be exercised. More powers for Scotland is a must. And my vote is to the 2 million of us who voted no for more powers from Westminster and that I will do all I can to get the most powers. I have for the many disenfranchised people in England who don't have a voice. My advice to them is to choose a candidate that will empower them with policies like extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 years old in the 2015 general election as early as this. And also to people like me, EU nationals living here, staying in the UK. Some of you will know that I don't have a vote for next year elections. And of course to support a candidate with other policies like getting rid of trident or to address the democratic deficit in the UK by establishing an English parliament similar to this one. We all have a voice. Most of us have a vote, use it and become what you want to be. It seems that today what everyone wants to be in Scotland is to be a member of the SNP. The summer of independence may be over, but the age of self-determination has only just begun. We watched on our TV the Arab Spring, the world witnessed the Scottish summer. Let's encourage the rest of the people in the western world to engage with politics like never before. I call on Dr Lane Murray to be followed by Bob Dorris. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 2011, 61,964 electors cast a vote in the parliamentary constituencies of Dumfrieshire and Galloway in Western Fries. Last week, 106,653 people cast their votes in the referendum. 87.5 per cent of the registered electorate of which 70,039 voted for Scotland's remaining part of the United Kingdom, so more people than Dumfrieshire and Galloway voted no than voted for all the parties in the last Scottish parliamentary elections. Our sampling at the count suggests that in the Dumfrieshire constituency support for no ran at over 70 per cent. Not surprising considering the closeness to the border or our links with Carlyle, which, as I have said in previous speeches, is our closest city and the city to which we look for work, leisure and transport connectivity. She also accepted that the gap between Dumfrieshire and Galloway and the national average for the yes vote was closed from 1997 by eight points. We are eight points closer to the national average for a yes vote than we are in 1997. The vote in 1997 was rather different from the vote this year. Over the many months of the campaign, it had become clear to me that the majority of my constituents supported the remaining part of the United Kingdom, not because they were scared but because they could see positive benefits from membership of the United Kingdom and our close association with Cumbria and Carlyle. The changes that could come through increased evolution to a local level, both in Scotland and England, can lead to better co-operation across the Solway Basin and the economic development that would benefit both sides of the border. When the First Minister announced his resignation on Friday, I felt that he had taken the honourable course, notwithstanding his references to holding feet to the fire, which I find rather an unpleasant analogy. I believe that it cannot have been an easy decision for him. Although I strongly disagree with his views on the best constitutional arrangements for Scotland, no-one can doubt the sincerity of his passion for his country. Of course, I will miss, at First Minister's questions, being told that I will be the first person to welcome some success of the SNP Government. I expect that Mr Dyn will develop her own put down lines. Some of his statements since then and others have caused me greater concern. I think that there have been a lot of assertions made about how different sections of Scottish society voted. Many, based on Lord Ascroft's poster referendum poll, some of that data is based on very small samples—only 14, 16 and 17-year-olds and only 84, 18 to 24-year-olds, for example. I really doubt that much credibility can be attached to those results. I also appreciate that supporters of independence are extremely disappointed and angered by last week's result. That has been cleared. I have to say from some of the constituents of the debate and, indeed, from the torrent of abuse that I have received on social media for suggesting that we could work together in Scotland. However, I also find the fact that people are being blamed. Certain sections of the electorate are being blamed for the result. Older voters, for example, I find that disturbing, like Lewis MacDonald. Over the months when I have spoken to voters over 55 and over 65, they have thought long and hard about how they should vote. On the basis of what was the best thing for their children and their great-grandchildren, not what was best for them. I agree that we all want to move on, but in terms of the scaremongering tactics that led people to those decisions, can Elaine Murray remind us, surely aware of the pension, the DWP pension guarantee letter, just how many better to gather billboards? Billboards says, do not put your pension at risk. I have never scared among anybody, and I respected all through this campaign, I respected the views of people who disagreed with me, even if they did not respect my views. I also say, with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds voting in elections, that Labour has already agreed to this, and I think that the referendum demonstrated why young people should permanently join the franchise. The engagement of 16 and 17-year-olds, whether it was through school hustings or in the streets or on polling day itself, was encouraging and refreshing. Last Thursday, I was outside one of the polling stations, and I've had enough, thank you, when the school bus left in the afternoon. The passengers were obviously excited to see the activity around the polling station. Some put their thumbs up when they saw me, other put other fingers up, but I think that it was probably meant in a cheerful sort of a way, and some who were voting on their way home from Stool didn't quite get the nature of a secret ballot. They eagerly shouted out their voting intentions as they entered the polling place. Can I finally turn to the central issue of further powers for the Scottish Parliament? There has been an attempt to portray UK politicians as having reneged on this. Ed Miliband, for one, has made it quite clear that he is not going to do so. However, I think that David Cameron's attempt last weekend to make further devolution dependent on a timetable for English devolution was ridiculous. It would be a nonsense to link this process with devolution in England. Powers for a Scottish Parliament have been discussed in various forms for several decades, and there have been no such discussions about how devolution in England could work. That is why there should be a constitutional convention on English devolution after the next general election, but progress on Scottish devolution must start now and must progress to the timetable. Finally, we must not make the mistake of thinking that further powers for the Scottish Parliament is the end of the story. This Scottish Government has centralised power, resulting in parts of Scotland, including Glamphys and Galloway, feeling remote from Edinburgh. That, too, has to change. Devolution must also involve seeding power from Edinburgh to local authorities and enabling people to have a real influence on local decision making. That is the way to forward to a bright future for Scotland, its regions and for the UK. That, I believe, is indeed the dawn of a new era. That is an exciting new chapter in the story of devolution in the UK. Personally, I think that it is a great privilege to be part of it. Thank you. Now Colin Bob Dorris to be followed by Chick Brody. Presiding Officer, around 6.30 am, on Friday morning, after the referendum result became clear, I received a text from my sister and I would like to share it with you. It said, Emily just woke up, that is my nine-year-old niece. Her first two words were, Mummy, independence. No darling, is it not, was her reply. Just found out my oldest daughter, that's Bethesies 14, joined the SNP. Paid £2 for the privilege. Well done, Glasgow and Western Bartonshire. Y'all worked extremely hard. I have never seen a veil like this before, that's my hometown, Presiding Officer. Even when mum voted, she's very frail, voting her slippers. I was very proud of her, Robert. Try and sleep both of you. We're all very proud in this household. It made me cry. It made me cry tears of pride though, not tears of despair. I tell that story because similar conversations will have been had right across Scotland as 1.6 million people voted in huge numbers for a positive vision to empower the Scottish people, enhance all our futures and win our nation's independence. There seems to be a suggestion from some in the no campaign that such a huge groundswell of aspiration and hope for the Scottish people will simply melt away. It won't. It has not. Do not underestimate the civic pride that is felt by our truly amazing grassroots campaign, being no doubt it will grow, strengthen and prosper. The realisation of many, including I suspect many who voted no, is that the natural end point shall be an independent Scotland. Let me also be clear—I accept the verdict of the people of Scotland—that, as yet, they are not ready for Scottish independence. They were ready in Glasgow, Presiding Officer. 53.5 per cent of them wanted to see our nation independent. I focused my efforts in the campaign in Maryhill and Springburn and saw wonderful volunteers do so much to make our independence dream become a reality. Libby, Ronnie, Blair, Gillian, Fiona, Peter—I could go on listing the names—I could go on and on. Those people gave freely of their time—their head, their heart, their soul—and I am extremely grateful for all who did so. 57 per cent of Maryhill and Springburn said a clear yes to Scottish independence. It was former Labour heartlands that voted yes in a big way in Maryhill and Springburn. That is despite Labour standing outside polling stations with posters declaring Labour says no. They just did not get the fact that this was about the people of Scotland, not politicians. Labour regularly said that the referendum was, and I quote, Scotland versus Salmond, the demonising of a man and an independence movement, playing party politics and playing on fears. Such tactics has left Labour nowhere to go in Glasgow and I suspect nowhere to go in Scotland. They should be thoroughly ashamed of those tactics. However, despite the 50 per cent yes votes in Maryhill and Springburn, it is my democratically elected job to represent all of the electorate, including my electorate, that voted no right across Glasgow region. The mandate given by the people of Scotland following a no vote and following the vow made by three desperate UK leaders to give substantial more powers is the delivery of a powerhouse parliament within the UK. One that can defend the Scottish people against the attacks that the UK Government now routinely makes on our most vulnerable. A parliament that does not just have extended borrowing powers but sees the wealth that we generate here in Scotland returned directly to Scotland with full tax powers sitting in this place. Let us reinvest the wealth protecting our most vulnerable in society. Let us not send wealth that we generate into the hands of a right-wing Tory chancellor to decide what is returned. If the devil max is the mandate given, then let Scotland retain all our wealth. If that is the decision to sign a check back to Westminster for defence and foreign affairs, that is one possible model that I will always fight for independence. That will let the people of Scotland decide whether the UK is really a good deal or not. The people of Scotland have given the UK a mandate to deliver in such a vow, and if vows are broken, a new mandate should be sought. However, it will not be the 45 per cent across Scotland who should ask for that renewed mandate. They have made their position clear. Perhaps it will be the 25 per cent of no voters who said their central reason for voting no was the vow of substantial more powers. However, it is my duty to make new powers short of independence work as best it can for Scotland. Work for the 100,000 disabled adults at risk from DLA reforms. Work for the carers who get a raw deal with the UK benefits system. Work for the sanctioned benefits claimants who do not have a humane system. Work for the mothers who want transformational childcare. The no campaign said that it would work for all of them. They have to step up to the plate and prove that it can. Finally, when the story of Scotland's independence movement is written, I have no idea how many pages will be in that book, but I am confident that the final page will read Scotland as an independent nation. That will open a new chapter in Scotland's history, one that will see the flourishing of a nation and realise the vision that all of the people of Scotland have for a better future for future generations. Several months ago, my good friend Mike McKenzie eloquently put it to me on the topic of the referendum that we are lucky to have front-throw seats in the theatre of history. So did we all, not just those of us in this chamber but all the many that were engaged in the theatres that were the streets, the houses, the countryside, the pubs, with thousands of players and actors doing so with good humour, some cases tears, but many kindnesses. On Friday morning, however, I then reminded myself of Henry Ford's quote that history is more or less bunk, but Mike's position was much more persuasive and tenable than that of Henry Ford's. We have lived. We are living through a major period of history where nothing politically, economically and socially in Scotland will ever, ever be the same again. It is a credit to both sides of the campaign that we have. We are and we will embrace the ultimate consequences of this period. It is not finished yet. On Friday, some of us may have been down but definitely not downhearted. The Monday before the election, we held a meeting in the market in the air of 100 organisers and team leaders, people of various political parties, of associated organisations and of none, a collective vibrancy in pursuit of the one overarching aim. On Friday nights, we had a party and it was a party in Airtown Hall and that fortified them with the view that their team and their cause should continue. However, I congratulate the no-side on the outcome temporary, though it may be. In general, we cannot castigate the Scottish-based press and media, which presumed to a fairer degree of impartiality, and they should be commended for that. That, of course, was not reflected by their colleagues in the London press and London media. A daily wail that suggested pestilence was to be spread across the land, that monster mice and birds were invading and aliens had landed, added nothing to the constructive debate shared by both sides of the campaign on the ground. We will each have an event to write in our own personal history books. Mine was receiving a ticket to attend a Gordon Brown speech to the Labour, not the better together, Labour faithful at Rugby Park in Kilmarnock. I was told that it was to start at 11 o'clock. I wouldn't say that I'm suspicious and I wouldn't dare to comment on the event's competencies or organisers' competencies, but I did check elsewhere and found that it was to start at 10.15. I got there from here with minutes to spare. I was stopped at the door while stewards went off to make, as they said, a phone call. On Wittlenay, while that was happening, I was shown in to the meeting by a young, unknowing steward. You can imagine my total despair at the end of the meeting with questions ready that the chairperson then said there were to be no questions. I wonder why democracy at work. Lewis MacDonald is no longer here. I'll share it with him in some of the details that were not recorded in the press of that meeting. Now, I don't diminish the role that the former Prime Minister played in the result. What is unforgivable in my book, however, were the roles played by those less directly and affected, involved by others. Let me give you just two examples. Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, of which TNS, the polling company, is an arm, warning us about uncertainty and independence. With the uncertain future of quarter of a million children living in poverty in Scotland, we should not have received lectures from someone who is sitting on a £30 million annual income. Secondly, Bob Dudley, the chief executive of a BP, who predicted uncertainty around oil incomes and longevity. That was just after workers on the monster, Claire Ridgefield, had been given full salary to the end of September and told not to come back until the end of September. At the same time, having just placed an order for £150 million for oil drilling equipment in Korea, all of that coincided with a secret visit by the Prime Minister—no journalists, no cameras—and a visit that Alasdair Campbell apparently said to a local Shetland journalist was the best-kept secret west of Shetland. It is not now, Alasdair. The integrity of the campaign on the ground in Scotland applied by both sides was commendable, but it was not commendable where the noises of stage right like those I have just mentioned, those outriders for the Westminster Government. We now move forward to another page in the history books. I believe that those in the Scottish body politic will address the proposed new powers if they are so determined, of course not without some partiality but with that integrity that I mentioned before. I trust that the same will be applied by the UK Government, but I doubt it. On the relegation of hours that oil, for example, is declining, that they borrowed £120 billion in 2012—it would have been £131.5 billion without the oil—and a debt, a debt of £1.57 trillion by 2017. It had a duty in this campaign to explain to the pensioners, the carers, the health workers, those on benefits and others how that debt will be paid by the UK Government—the manifestly failed. Despite those concerns, we accept the verdict, but we also accept that, while we cannot rewrite history, we recognise the continued need to meet the aspirations particularly of the young people. Many of whom were at that party last Friday. As we write to the future, we have to ensure that our vow is a promise well kept. Else, the UK Government shall reap what it sows. I welcome the contribution that was made at the beginning of the debate by John Swinney. I think that he struck the right tone. He made it very clear what his view and the view of the Scottish Government is. In actual fact, it was in stark contrast with some of the contributions that have been made from his back benches since, because I felt as though I am sitting in a therapy session for a support group for people who are clearly suffering. I understand some of that. I actually do not mean that to be flippant, because some of it I do understand. I have known Sandra White for many years going back to Renfrew district council days. I know just how passionate Sandra White is about independence. It is something that has driven her all her life. I can well understand why people who lost out on the referendum last week are feeling anger, bitter, frustrated and disappointed. That is only natural. Sometimes I think that those of us who are on the other side of that debate just need to accept that it will take some time for some of that to work through. I do however think that it does not excuse the comments, for example, that were made by Christian Allard when he made the threat to opposition politicians that you better not be seen in the streets of North East Scotland, because I do not think that contributions like that have got any place. I would like to precise what I was saying. I was saying that it was absolutely not a threat. I was saying that the leaders of the opposition were not seen in the street of Aberdeen. That is it. I did not say that they were not welcome in the street of Aberdeen, certainly not. That was not what I heard in the earlier contribution. We will go back and check the official record to see exactly what that said. I suppose that it is might be part of that anger therapy to listen to Bob Doris where he says, in one sentence, there shall be an independent Scotland. In the very next sentence, he says, I accept the verdict. The verdict of the silent majority last week was over wellmanly that Scotland did not want to leave the United Kingdom and that Scotland clearly said no to separation. By all means, get it out of your system and express all your frustration and your feelings in here. We also need to recognise that we now have an endorsement that has never previously been made, and that is a positive endorsement, a historic endorsement that Scotland wants to be part of the United Kingdom. I think that the view of that silent majority needs to be accepted, and we now need to move on. Alex Salmond, speaking previously on behalf of the Scottish Government, said that this was a once-in-a-lifetime referendum. No-one from the Scottish Government or the SNP contradicted him. Let's just accept that, yes, if there had been a one-vote majority for independence, we would have had to have accepted that vote. However, now that there has been a decisive almost 400,000 majority the other way, we need to accept that and move on. Can we not now move on to what happened in that historic referendum with that huge vote across Scotland? Yes, people were voting to stay within the United Kingdom, but, in many respects, people were also, as many speakers have said, voting for change. People did not want to see a continuation of what was happening just now, and many people—some people may have voted for additional powers, but, frankly, the majority of people that I spoke to who said that they were voting yes, including Labour voters, said that they were voting against austerity, they were voting for better public services, they were voting for a better future. They thought that there was something on offer from the yes side. Clearly, the majority did not accept the economic arguments and the social arguments that would have been made by the yes side. However, if we accept for a minute that there is a mood to change, then we should be willing to reach out across the parties and work together to make that change happen. We should accept, for example, that there is unhealth. Let's get all the rhetoric about privatisation and so on put aside. There is no party in this Parliament that wants to privatise the health service, so can we all now not work together to look at the problems that are confronting us in the health service in Scotland? Can we not put all our collective wit and minds together to come up with solutions? Can we not say that young people in this country want the chance of a college education and let's look at what we can do to make that possible? Can we not say that, yes, our local government services are under threat and there are financial pressures facing the Scottish Government, the UK Government and, indeed, Governments across the world? Can we not work together to come up with solutions that protect the vulnerable people in my constituency in Renfrewshire South whose services have been squeezed because of the lack of money going to them? Can we not now say that people have spoken, let's move on and let's work together to make a reality of the aspiration for a better country? Presiding Officer, I would firstly like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the First Minister. The Scottish National Party has made incredible strides under the 20 years of its leadership and we have gone from being a party with little elected representation to winning two Scottish elections in a row, the second of which gave us, of course, the mandate for an independence referendum. That is in no way due to chance or luck. The First Minister's leadership has effective partnership with the Deputy First Minister and the policy has put forward to make Scotland a more equitable society even in the light of Westminster's austerity programmes. All those things clearly struck a powerful chord with the Scottish electorate that we were unable to achieve independence this time round speaks not of any failings but more of the desperate and, frankly, sometimes unsavory tactics of Westminster who had foolishly assumed a no vote was in the bag. I have been a proud member of this party for many, many years, perhaps even as long as Stuart Stevenson. I have seen capable leaders come and go and it is truly my belief that the First Minister has led the party to its greatest achievements to date. We only have to look at how our membership has risen dramatically since the polls closed last Thursday, and we see how people are attracted to our ideals. Our overall membership is now over 58,000 and an increase of 33,000 in the past few days. We are now the third biggest party in the UK, and I gladly welcome all new members, especially in my role as party treasurer, and I am keenly looking forward to both next year's general election and the Scottish election in 2016. One thing that we do know from the referendum is that politics in Scotland has changed for the better. I think that we can all be proud of the fact that the Scottish people have never been as engaged in a political event as they were in leading up to last Thursday's polls. A truly incredible 97 per cent of the electorate registered to vote, called turnout reached almost 85 per cent. To put that in perspective, turnouts at the 1979 and 1997 referendums were 63 and 60 per cent respectively. Clearly, the vast majority of people in Scotland were energised and involved in this debate. When voters were asked if they felt it, deciding Scotland's future was something that they could be proud of, 82 per cent said yes, and that's the ones that don't know as we're excluded. Conversations over the referendum sprang up everywhere, from trains and buses to pubs and clubs to golf courses and football matches. Scotland can take pride in being able to hold a largely mature and sensible debate among its citizens, and I believe that we provided a democratic model for the world to follow. Once we look at the statistics, the yes campaign's use of social media was not only innovative but also a key factor in reaching new demographics. While almost all the traditional forms of media advocated a no vote, the yes campaign successfully utilised Facebook, with over 322,000 page likes compared to 219,000 for Better Together and Twitter with 100,000 followers compared to Better Together's 40,000. I think that we harnessed the social media skills to engage with the wider electorate, and this methodology is clear in that we were able to bypass editorial bias and Westminster pressure to get our message across plainly and simply. Allowing young people to take part in the referendum is a step that should now be extended to all elections. I met with many 16 and 17-year-olds speaking to groups of up to 100, 150, and it was usually satisfying to discuss independence and other issues with them. Some of them had told me that they had originally planned to vote no, sometimes influenced by what their parents were planning to do, but the more they read and talked about it, the more they came to the conclusion that independence offered them a brighter future. It was clear to me that these teenagers were some of the most well-read of my constituents with regard to the independence debate. So where do we go from here? As part of the referendum process, we know that the Westminster parties have offered the people of Scotland new powers and apparently agreed to a timetable under which those powers would be delivered. 25 per cent of no voters voted no because of this promise, resulting in a clear majority of voters who wanted some form of change for Scotland. The leaders of the Westminster parties were so desperate to win that they even declared their commitment to more powers on the front page of the daily record. Yet, not hours after the result had been declared, this pledge was apparently falling apart. The first to break ranks was David Cameron in effectively linking further Scottish devolution to solving the West Lothian question, and Cameron has effectively admitted that his signature on the pledge is worthless. No doubt Cameron was pressured by the actions and statements of his own backbenchers, and I am sure that those quotes will live long in the memory of our electorate, who voted for more powers than the Scottish Parliament. There would be a bloodbath, we were told. We should recognise that there is no guarantee that the pledge would be implemented in the United Kingdom Parliament, said Christopher Chubb, Tory MP for Christchurch. Noreen Dorris, the Tory's very own celebrity MP, spelled out her own thoughts when she mocked Scotland being subsidised in order to eat deep-fried Mars bars, and I do hope that Ms Dorris does not speak for her whole party. No sura had Michael Gove jumped on the bandwagon, the red miller bin was forced to jump off, agreeing with David Cameron on more powers than the Scottish people was one thing, but putting that on a platform with English votes for English people was a step too far, and I wonder why that had not been thought of prior to the referendum vote. Let us not forget that, at no less a leading light than Gordon Brown has promised us that these plans will come to fruition, according to the clear timetable that he set out. I am sure that the keen ear to mung ear will have noted that, despite Mr Brown being largely credited with saving the no campaign, his name was curiously absent last Monday when Ed Miliband thanked those Labour party members who helped to win the referendum. Make of that what you will, but it does not fill me with confidence that the devolution timetable has been taken all that seriously. We will be watching every step that Westminster takes. We may have lost this battle, but I am absolutely confident that we will win the war and achieve independence for this nation. Before we move to closing speeches, I remind all members who have taken part in the debate yesterday and today, unless they have let the Presiding Officers know that they will not be here for good reason, that they should now be present for the closing speeches. Scotland has voted no, and I respect the democratic outcome of the vote. However, Scotland did so much more than vote. Scotland became a participative democracy, and the change was almost palpable. We must strive to maintain this level of participation. The vote did not deliver the result that the majority, but not all Greens, campaigned for and supported, but it has delivered change. We may not have the opportunity to develop a written constitution, but constitution is a word that we use to refer to our physical state as regards vitality, health and strength. In that regard, I feel encouraged and optimistic. Alex Salmond was right yesterday when he said that a new spirit is abroad in this land and that we are a better nation today. I agree, because people who have never attended a political meeting in their lives came along and took part in the debate. People who would not have come along to traditional hustings where politicians debate their manifestos came along with their questions, comments and, indeed, their own manifestos. There are those who feel that other issues were sidelined, as we discussed the constitution, but that is not a view that I share. It is not the experience of the thousands of people who debated Scotland's futures in the meetings that I attended in church halls, in school halls and even in the stage of Dumfermillans Alhambra Theatre. A narrow debate would never have energized Scotland in the way that campaign has. The debate was broadened, deepened, energised and, given a life of its own, by the many diverse groups, organisations and individuals who took part. A woman attending a discussion with an all-woman panel at Edinburgh Art College stood up and said, I cannot believe that I am standing up, speaking in public, taking part in a meeting about the way in which my country is governed. So many people found their feet, their voices in this campaign. Woman for independence, the Radical Independence Convention, Commonwealth, the National Collective, Business for Scotland—many more groups made sure that people from all walks of life were involved and represented in this campaign, and we can learn so much from those groups about engagement. Social media was invaluable in this campaign. It helped what was a very unlevel playing field in support from corporate print media. The nature of campaigning itself was transformed in this campaign. I took part in debates with people from all the organisations that I mentioned, and from none. I was unfailingly impressed. I took part in debates with and attended by our youngest voters, and they demonstrated why they should be fully involved in the democratic process. I welcomed the growing consensus for votes at 16. A meeting in Falkirk, organised by National Collective, will be long remembered by all who were there. Young actors took part. Speakers, poets, prominent playwright, Alan Bissett, I was staggered by their talent. It was a Friday night, and even when there was an interval, nobody left. The meeting carried on way past schedule. Six sort of traditional political speakers interspersed by outstanding Scottish artists—a model for the new politics in the new Scotland. A woman with disabilities was at this meeting. She relies on benefits for her income, and she told the meeting that she felt that she was voiceless and that this campaign was finally giving her the means to get her message across to those politicians whose policies were making her life ever more challenging. The insistent, growing, confident voice led to the announcement of the vow by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband when they realised that the status quo is simply unacceptable. As tight as the timescales are that Lord Smith has been given to work to, we must do all that we can to ensure that those who contributed so much to the debate are given every opportunity to contribute to this process, too. Debate in Scotland has flourished not in spite of, but because of the diversity of speakers in both the yes and the no campaign. It is no secret that the Greens in the SNP have many policy differences as do the better together parties, but we have common ground, all of us, and we must all work together for the best outcome now. Ken Macintosh suggested yesterday that among those who had lost the vote, there might be a temptation to lash out in anger, not at all. He said that people were genuinely scared, and Murdo Fraser said that even the debate was a threat to their identity. My experience was a far more positive one—people questioning assertions, yet relishing involvement. I hope that this debate has demonstrated to all that we can disagree with one another and remain friends, and we in this chamber have a duty to continue to demonstrate that. Presiding Officer, I do not accept the narrative of a hostile and bitter campaign that has been fruitful forward by some. I do believe that we should focus on the overwhelmingly positive level of engagement—the level of participation and participation in the vote. The campaign was carried on in a passionate yet respectful manner. It was intense, but by and large it was tolerant, engaging and, at times, even entertaining. The narrative is a positive one. What now? The vow must be made real, and we must deliver for all—all of Scotland's people, all who voted and all who did not. Presiding Officer, Greens weren't campaigning for a wee version of Westminster. Let's engage with the cosla paper on democracy on my own party's review. The debate has shown us that democracy begins at street level. In this energy and resource rich country, fuel poverty persists, food banks proliferate, equal pay feels far away, and regardless, who takes on the Westminster reigns in May, we have more austerity promised beyond anything yet experienced. Those who got off their cities, as Presiding Officer said yesterday, aren't going back to them. Politics in Scotland must be open to all who wish a fairer and more equal nation. We should be ambitious in our vision for what we can do and willing to work together to make it happen, because if we do that, another better Scotland is possible. Before I call Alice McKinnis, I want to point out to members that this is a continuation of the debate that started yesterday. It would not be unreasonable for those people who took part in the debate yesterday to have been in the chamber for the closing speeches. I have a note of their names, and I say that I am not pleased. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It has been a long and interesting debate, a necessary debate, I think. We all agree that there are a number of remarkable things about the referendum. Firstly, the turnout at 85 per cent is a victory for democracy. There is no doubt that there was an appetite to be involved, that people realised that their vote counted. Voter apathy? I do not think so. On 18 September 2014, indifference was conquered. Secondly, votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. While, like everyone else, I was delighted at how those new young voters got involved. Liberal Democrats have long supported votes at 16, and it is great that there is now cross-party agreement to look at extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for all elections. Our decision to extend the franchise for this most important of decisions here in Scotland might now act as a catalyst for change across the UK. Thirdly, engagement in the political process. This was no dry constitutional debate. It enlivened people around the country. Debates and discussions took place in village halls, student unions, church groups, youth groups and in living rooms and around kitchen tables. Books were written, plays and poems penned and acres of newsprint, comment and analysis was created. The BBC, pilleried and picketed by the nationalists, actually provided an immense amount of coverage on all its platforms, radio, TV and online. It gave direct voice to citizens through countless debates and phone-ins, and I would particularly praise the way it gave voice to young people in Radio 1's big conversation with Edith Bowman and the big, big debate at the hydro. People around Scotland agreed that we could and should have a better future, that we all wanted a fairer Scotland. What we disagreed on was whether we needed to leave the United Kingdom and set up a completely new state to do that. However, what we must all now agree on is that the vote was fair and robust and settles the question, and that everyone's vote counted equally. Many insults have been thrown over the last few months. Many of them can be dismissed as the actions of hotheads. However, when the First Minister says that there is no such thing as a no vote, only a deferred yes, that no voters were tricked and duped, that older no voters should look in the mirror and justify their vote to the younger generation, that what is now established as the set of will of the Scottish people can somehow be overturned, those are insults of a different order to Scots around this country. Alex Salmond might have announced his standing down, but he is still the First Minister of this country and he should be speaking on behalf of all Scots and abiding by the Edinburgh agreement. Section 30, which he says was included in his own insistence, states that the outcome will be respected. Was he so cocksure that a yes would win that he thought that this was a one-way obligation? Let's hear it loud and clear from him and his nationalists. The sovereign will of the Scottish people is that we remain part of the UK. His role now, and that of his successor, is to work on that vision of a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. There should be no more stalking of the fires of division. One of the things that was palpable on polling day was the sense of purpose as people poured into the polling stations to cast their votes. There was a quiet determination among many of the voters, and that was evidenced by the result. I have talked to thousands of voters over many months, face-to-face on the doorstep. More importantly, I listened, and the shy knows were there all along. If he took time to listen on the doorstep, the message was there. And yet, in the fervor of their cause, the yes voters made a lot of noise, they talked a lot, they partied a lot, but the mistake was that they forgot to listen. They drowned out the quieter voices, sometimes carelessly, just not understanding that many people preferred not to broadcast their views, but that nevertheless they had thoughtful and strongly held views of their own. Sometimes it was deliberate when better together street stalls were visited by crowds of yes campaigners, when Jim Murphy's street corner talks were disrupted, when, on the eve of Paul in Inverruri in Aberdeenshire, nine better together helpers, not political activists but helpers, were surrounded by hordes of chanting yes campaigners in the most intimidating way for half an hour. It worries me that this is still happening. Many of those who voted yes are asserting that there was somehow the right vote, and either they were robbed or that somehow the no votes counted for less. And the danger is that the binary choice in the ballot created that polarization. But we need to remember that everyone who voted cared about Scotland. And we must now all work together to bring about the better Scotland that everyone who voted agreed was worth striving for. And that's why I was so pleased to hear Nicola Sturgeon say this morning that she would work with others and seek common cause on the issues that unite us. We all agree that we need to sustain the energy and interest and political discourse. There's much we can do to renew our democracy here in Scotland, and it's not all about what Westminster devolves to us but about how we here in this Parliament share our power. Alex Rowley was right yesterday to argue for stronger local government. You know, Scotland is one of the most centralised countries in Europe. We now have a unique opportunity to reexamine the relationship between local and national government in Scotland, and to put it on a formally codified footing. COSLA's local matters report and our home rule for Scotland both offer routes towards that. So let me end by returning to what the Presiding Officer said yesterday. It's now for us to embrace and nurture the desire for political expression. It cannot and must not be business as usual. In responding to that, I would acknowledge that we do not have all the answers. Politics is too important to be left to the politicians. We could do worse than look at the electoral reform society's democracy max, a 13-month-long citizen-led inquiry into the vision for a good Scottish democracy. Friends, let's keep listening, let's work together, let's make Scotland better. I thank Alison McInnes for her speech in the end of a very long debate. Can I single out one contribution in particular? That is the one we heard just before five o'clock yesterday afternoon from the First Minister himself. Here was a First Minister at play with the Parliament. I think a First Minister thoroughly enjoying himself in the summation speech that he gave at that moment. It was a master class in summation speeches in that he smiled warmly to everyone who had made a contribution on the debate and then embraced those who disagreed with him with a stiletto. I think he had enjoyed his afternoon immensely. Who can begrudge him that? Because it did come at the end of what had been a torrid and turgid and dramatic week for him. And let us just, because I don't think that this was always clear from many of the contributions that I heard during the course of this debate. It was in fact an emphatic defeat for those who had sought to seek the independence of Scotland from the United Kingdom. It was emphatic in the sense that when the Labour Party beat the Conservative Party in 1945 and what was called a landslide, they did so by eight points. In modern political terms, the great height campaign of President Obama when he won in what was described as a landslide was secured with a majority of six points. This was a majority of 10 points. If it had been a presidential election, 28 of the 32 states voted to stay with the United Kingdom. The 85% of Scotland who spoke now stand at odds with the 50% who voted for this Parliament. As Neil Findlay said yesterday, the sovereign will, the term so often expressed by the party of government, the sovereign will of the people of Scotland has spoken and it is that Scotland will remain within the United Kingdom. Yes, I too welcomed the contribution of 16 and 17-year-olds. I have to say that it was a contribution remarkably free of cynicism. I do say to those people who now seek to say, we will pay lip service to the result but we will then set it aside and seek to ignore it and carry on as if it was not the result that we actually achieved, that you must not betray the young people who contributed to this debate with a cynical response to the voice of that democracy. I also want to pay tribute to MSPs all across the chamber. I thought the contributions of Kezia Dugdale, of Nicola Sturgeon, of Patrick Harvie and of Ruth Davidson all demonstrated how this Parliament contributed positively, enthusiastically and well to the debate that took place. Patrick Harvie said that the concerns that some had had that we would find ourselves split asunder did not come about. Can I tell one short story against myself at the risk of doing so? Patrick talked about the families and friends and neighbours who found themselves divided. Such was my own family. I have to say, one of my sons was persuaded by the arguments of the party sitting there. Can I tell you what he did? I voted by post. He voted by post too. He mixed our two ballots together so that when I was photographed posting my ballot, I actually have no idea what it was that I actually posted at that point. But it was because we didn't have a result, as the First Minister said, that was determined by one vote. Had it been determined by one vote either side, there would have been recrimination across Scotland by people who said only if you had. It was the decisive nature of the result, which allows all those who were on different sides of the argument to come together. There has been some discussion over the powers. I want to rest with the epitome of positivity that Mr Swinney claimed himself to be this afternoon. It is important that the Scottish National Party, the Government, participate in the debate. I hope that we arrive at a conclusion that is the sum of, and not the division of, the ambitions of the party's policies that were put in terms of the new powers that come forward. In the immediate period ahead, two areas that I do not think have been touched upon have been leadership and the challenge for this Parliament itself. On leadership, I hope that there is a contest within the Scottish National Party for the leadership of Scotland. It was a democratic affront, apparently, when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair in office, according to that party. It was a democratic affront when John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher. However, in one important respect, the SNP is to join the establishment and that they now believe that Nicola Sturgeon should succeed as First Minister without there being any input from the public. I think that it is even slightly more embarrassing than that. If we look at the ballot paper that people completed in 2011, it says that Scottish National Party Alex Salmond for First Minister. Hundreds of thousands of Scots elected the Government on the basis that it would be Alex Salmond who would be the First Minister. There is the democratic deficit writ large for all to see. Now, Edwin Morgan, when this Parliament was founded, said, No, thank you, Mr McKelvie. I know that you have rolled yourself out from the speech that you gave yesterday afternoon. It was Edwin Morgan who said, a nest of fearties we do not want. So I do hope that if there is not to be a contest for the position of First Minister, there will be for the deputy leader. I say it because contests provoke ideas. The difficulty that we have just now is that I do not think that we are altogether clear what the SNP believes the next 18 months of this Parliament will be used to do. For the last three years, we have been told that the only solution to anything is independence. The solution of independence is now off the agenda. When Gavin Brown challenged John Swinney as to when we might have a debate in the Government programme, Joe FitzPatrick shook his head as if this was completely unreasonable. I do hope that we are not going to be expected to wait until the outcome of the SNP leadership election in November before this Parliament is told what the actual business of the next 18 months is going to be. We need to know what the SNP's ambition for Scotland is on the issues that now need the attention that has been denied them for the next 18 months. I see that Mr FitzPatrick wants to tell me when we will have that debate. I do hope that we get a proper contest from the SNP in relation to the deputy leadership. I want to see Chick for chief. I want to see Joan for justice. I want to see Sandra for Glasgow UDI campaigns up there and about. Yesterday, I saw Mr Mackay and Mr Yousaf having a granita-type conversation in the Scottish Parliament canteen. I hope that they all stand forward and give us the opportunity to have a proper contest. The final challenge is one for you that you alluded to at the start of our proceedings yesterday. In 2016, this Parliament will be quite different. The MSPs who are elected need to understand what the contract of employment will be. The business that we will have to conduct will be quite different. Hugh Henry, myself, Jack McCall and others in the last Parliament queaded the way in which we are established. It may well be that we will require to sit more days of the week. It may well be that this Parliament will need to ensure that the MSPs who are here on the next are properly resourced. It may need to be that we see MPs who have previously seen their career at Westminster as being here. I would like to see Labour MPs come. I would like to see Liberal Democrat MPs come a bit harder for us. In the case of the SNP, he is certainly a lot less productive. The people of Scotland are now looking at the referendum result in the rear view mirror. The view now through the windscreen is forward. It is to the business of the next 18 months. It is to the establishment and delivery of the additional settled powers to this Parliament. It is to ensuring that this Parliament, which meets after 2016 when those powers start to arrive, is capable of giving proper scrutiny and leadership to the people of Scotland. I now call Iain Gray, Mr Graych of Minutes. Many members have spoken over the past two days of the privilege of participating in the referendum campaign. For me, there was the added dimension of fighting that campaign in my constituency of East Lothian. For not only is East Lothian the birthplace of the saltire by legend, a gift from God to King Angus of the Picks, but it is also the birthplace of the very idea of a union between Scotland and England. John Mayer, philosopher, rationalist, born and talented and educated in Haddington was the very first to suggest 500 years ago that collaboration in a negotiated union rather than destructive competition in those days, often on the battlefield, was a better future for Scotland. Now it was an idea which waited 200 years for its time to come, and as the First Minister himself pointed out yesterday, waited 300 more for democratic endorsement, which it now has and resoundingly so. But of course, that endorsement was not for the union envisaged by Mayer, but rather for the vision elaborated last century by an adopted son of East Lothian, John P Macintosh, who argued the case for a powerful Scottish Parliament in his strong and modern United Kingdom. We stand now in the very embodiment of that. Macintosh's words etched into the very stone of our Parliament on the threshold of the Donald Jewel Room and devolution etched into our very body politic by not one but now two referenda. I am proud that last Thursday East Lothian said no to independence and yes to a devolved Scotland, part of the United Kingdom, and that Scotland itself followed suit. Many have praised the electorate and celebrated the fact that an unprecedented 85 per cent of them turned out to vote, and rightly so. But it is not enough to praise the electorate or celebrate their numbers. We must respect their decision or we treat them with contempt. It is quite wrong to suggest, as the First Minister did at the weekend, and Joe McAlpine did again today, that no voters were tricked by promises on new powers. I could easily argue that yes voters were gulled by wildly exaggerated promises of oil revenues or dishonest threats to the NHS. As for promises unraveling, I could ask what happened to the promise that the referendum would settle the independence question for a lifetime. How many hours did that promise last? The truth is that any politician who tries to tell voters that they were fooled is not but the fool themselves. I take the point that the member is making. Would he accept that the day after a Conservative Lib Dem victory at Westminster, he and his party would accept that and respect that, but he would immediately start working for another victory? The member cannot seriously be equating a fundamental constitutional question like this with the normal run of elections. Anyone who thought this campaign knows that however people voted, they had thought long and hard. There was no monopoly of logic, skepticism, altruism, enthusiasm, pride, passion or above all patriotism on either side of the ballot paper, nor of hope or fear. Let me make a general point about hope, because many speakers have talked about it. Hope is a precious commodity and politics should always nurture hope, but the peddling of false hope is the prerogative of the snake oil salesmen down the centuries and we should call it out whenever it is offered, as Lewis MacDonald made clear in his contribution. Democracy denies us the luxury of claiming people were voting for or against this or that. It demands we accept the verdict that they delivered on the question we put before them. We on the no side must acknowledge that a substantial number of people voted yes and the yes side must accept that the outcome was decisive, a majority of over 10 per cent, almost 25 per cent more people saying no to independence than said yes, but above all we must all respect the decision. Someone once wrote, When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gaze is also into you. It has been an energetic and inspirational campaign and many members have provided stories of that, most memorably perhaps Georgie Boy Adams and perhaps most eloquently Alison Johnson towards the end there. However, we have also heard stories of its divisiveness, not least from Alison MacKinnon's enclosing. Of another nation, Lincoln said that a house divided cannot stand against itself. Historic decision has been taken, but real choices remain. We can on this side ignore the message of that substantial yes vote, but that would be foolish. No vote was still a vote for a changed Scotland. We must deliver and we will on the promises made. On the Government side, they can choose to lead Scotland into the endless revisitation of the people's decision and condemn this nation to continuing uncertainty. That would be irresponsible. Or we can unite behind the outcome, disagreeing where we must, but on the fundamental question of independence healing the divisions because we can, and that is surely at our obligation now. Let us seek then not distinction between how young and old voted, or men and women, or city in rural Scotland. Let us not look for ambiguity in our results, which is clear. Instead, let us look for common ground that voters yes and no want Scotland to prosper and to be fairer. Take our economic prospects. Last week Alex Salmond talked to the Scotland of Adam Smith, but Adam Smith said that the union was a measure from which infinite good has been derived to this country. That is the authentic discourse of the Enlightenment echoing down to us, but you can find it right here, too, in the white paper. Look at the economic platform. It says that we must have a stable currency union, Bank of England's lender of last resort, membership of the EU, a single energy market, a single financial services regulatory system, UK-wide research funding, access to MOD contracts and, of course, free movement of people, goods and services across the UK. Those are the real job-creating powers that we have now, secure. Having rediscovered that, our job is to rededicate ourselves to using them to the maximum benefit of Scotland, its businesses and its people, to win even more investment in a renewable industry, to help our universities attract yet more funding for research ever more imaginative, innovative and brilliant. Then let us turn to the thirst for social justice, which this campaign revealed on all sides. How profoundly have we had to revisit those principles of pooling and sharing resources and how we distribute not just wealth and opportunity but power too? The people have decided that we do that but that we do it in the framework of a united kingdom but with devolution strengthening. So let us dedicate ourselves not to questioning that but making it work. One example. The announcement yesterday that Labour will tax properties worth £2 million and use the proceeds for the NHS. In truth, there may not be many such properties, relatively speaking, in Scotland. However, it is exactly the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK, which means that we can tax the mansions of Belgravia and redistribute some of the proceeds to employ GPs and health visitors in Easterhouse and Muirhouse and Whitfield if we only have the will to do that. Finally, the coming round of the franchise. I have to agree with so many speakers that the exercise of their votes by 16 and 17-year-olds was exemplary. I simply add my voice to those from all sides who say that they should have the vote now in all elections. If we choose to look forward from this referendum decision, not always back to it, if we choose to stand on the common ground that has cleared for us and if we do so with open minds, then we can see that we are at the foothills of great progress now. Presiding Officer, it is no secret that I once aspired to be First Minister, nor that it was the people's will that this is not my destiny. Damn them. But if Ms Sturgeon does, it seems likely that she will succeed to that privileged office. She will have earned it by her hard work, but it will be hers only by that very expression of the people's will three years ago, which I interpret rather more generously than Mr Carlaw did. Yet, she will also inherit the solemn mandate of last Thursday that the people of Scotland charge her with taking this nation forward in the enduring historic partnership of the United Kingdom, four nations but one family. She can choose to accept that mandate and seek to unite us or she can choose to dispute it and she will certainly divide us, but she cannot do both. She cannot speak truly of unity in the language of division. She cannot heal with words crafted to wound. She cannot have Mr Swinney at 240 describing the referendum as a model of democracy and Sandra White at 3pm saying that it wasn't fair. She cannot declare one Scotland on Friday morning and declare permanent revolution on Sunday, as the First Minister did. We will hear what Ms Sturgeon has to say in the days ahead, but, as politicians, we should remember every day. The voice of the people is the voice of God. Scotland's people spoke last Thursday. They spoke in plain English, in Lallans, in Doric, in Norn and even, in what my leader calls, the tongue of God, the Gallot. They said, we are better, we are bigger and we are always stronger together. Can I now ask John Swinney to wind up the debate? Cabinet Secretary, you have full five o'clock. Presiding Officer, the debate this afternoon has been a fascinating tour around the referendum campaign from all perspectives, and we have had some intriguing insights into how people occupied the last four weeks of their lives. I am glad—I don't often say this, but I am glad that I wasn't in Paisley during the referendum campaign, because I would not have had to be an observer on what on earth George Adam was getting up to. We have heard accounts from around the country of all that has been going on. Perhaps the greatest test of our imagination was the one given to us by Jackson Carlaw of a granita-type conversation in the Scottish Parliament canteen. I am still wrestling with that concept in my mind as to how Jackson Carlaw could inadvertently have conflated the granita restaurant with the Scottish parliamentary canteen. I can think of—well, the similarity, I suppose, is food, but there I suspect the similarity ends unless he is going to a different part of the canteen than one I am going to, but nonetheless it was an interesting point of the imagination. Let me reflect on one of the points that has run through his debate, on which everybody has been agreed. Alison McInnes made the point very forcefully, Ian Gray has just made it likewise, and others on all sides of the chamber have made this point. That has been about the contribution of 16 and 17-year-old voters to the electoral process. Well, not everybody said that it was a good idea. I seem to remember there was division in the Parliament about whether that should happen, if my memory says we are right, but we got to a point of agreement, it happened, it was legislated for and everybody in this chamber now believes that it is the right thing to do, and we cannot do anything about it. We do not have the legislative power in this Parliament to effect what every single one of us agrees is the right thing to do. I do not say that to put division out there. I just say it as one of those indelible facts that Ian Gray was just going on about, and that Jackson Carlaw was just going on about. It is a fact. We are all every one of us, totally invigorous agreement, about the 16 and 17-year-olds having the right to vote in all elections, and we cannot put that into practice. I am most definitely loyal. I am grateful. I agree with him that we should, of course, have the ability to resolve that issue among other electoral issues for this Parliament here in this Parliament. However, if we do, or if this is done in some other place and votes at 16 becomes the norm, voter education for young people, particularly in a school context, is going to have to be achieved, and the consistency that we sought during the referendum that was not achieved everywhere is going to have to be achieved as well. Does he agree with me that voter education is something that we could crack on with right now while we continue to make the case for votes at 16, whether it is decided here or elsewhere? Yes. I am all for effective, dispassionate voter education. One of the things that I have to say irritated me during the election campaign was that people said, I do not have enough information. I could hardly get in my front door for information sitting at the back of the front door on a daily basis. Yes, there is a lot that we can do in encouraging and motivating voter education in a dispassionate way, and, of course, the Government will play its part in that. I come back to the point that I made, that there is a consensus, a universal opinion in this Parliament, that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all contests, but we do not have the legislative ability to put that into practice. Of course, we will argue and I will happily sign. I am sure that the political leadership of the Government will sign a letter with all the other political parties to the Prime Minister to say, look, we should have the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. I am all for that. We can all work together on that, but, crucially, we cannot control whether that happens or not. That is one of the points of regret that I have about the outcome of the referendum on Thursday. Of course. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary. Will he accept that the election of a United Kingdom Government next year that legislated for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote would bring that benefit not just to Scotland but to the rest of the UK as well? Of course it would. That is a statement of fact, but I am only making the point that here we are, a bunch of grown-up people elected by our electorate in Scotland to represent the interests of our country here and we cannot take that decision. We have got to wait for somebody else to decide that it is right to do so. That is just simply a point of regret that I have about the referendum last Thursday. One of the major points of debate today has been about the whole focus on the issue of inequality that emerged in the referendum, and none of us could have failed to be struck by the amount of the debate that concentrated on the desire of individuals to tackle the issues of enduring inequality that have built up in our society. We debated endlessly before the referendum. The argument that was put forward by the Government is that the United Kingdom is the fourth most unequal country in the world. I seem to remember Mr Fraser and others who would be taking an issue with that point. Nonetheless, all of us would reflect the fact that inequality was a central part of the debate that we had during the referendum campaign. It also had an effect on motivating very substantial turn-outs from areas of the country that Sandra White, my friend and colleague, George Arran, talked about, of very high levels of turn-out from areas of the country that previously did not participate in elections or contests because they never saw any point in it. Why was that? They could see the opportunity of the referendum. Some of them may have been coming out to vote no, but many of them are coming out to vote yes. Crucially, lots and lots more of them would normally not vote in electoral contests came out because they saw that as a means of addressing the inequality that exists within our society. I think that he makes a very serious point, but can I ask him why there was so little redistributive policy within the white paper then? With the greatest of respect, Mr Finlay, I am trying to move the debate on to some of the issues that we… To move the debate on to some… Are we not supposed to be moving on positively, Mr Brown? I hear you give falling, Mr Brown. I thought that we were supposed to be moving on positively. However, the point that I am making is the fact that people were motivated by the desire to tackle those issues of inequality, and we as a Parliament should take that message seriously in what we advance in the arguments that we take forward, which left me somewhat bewildered by the contribution that Malcolm Chisholm made about essentially asking the Government to do something to assess income inequality if I understood them correctly, over which the Government has very little ability to affect issues of income inequality, but we do have issues, we do have the opportunity to assess the policy commitments that we make as a Government through the equalities impact process that we undertake on an annual basis as a Government. I would have thought that that would have been welcomed to Mr Chisholm. Briefly, my point was in terms of all the policies of the Government and, indeed, the legislation of the Government to see what effect that has on various income groups and to what extent it is actually part of combating poverty. My whole point is that that is done by the equalities impact assessment of the Government. I would have thought that Mr Chisholm might have known that. One of the other points that was made in the debate was about the importance of decentralising commitments and provisions to different parts of the country. Mr Chisholm criticised us again for apparently abolishing the fairer Scotland funds, which were all about tackling inequality. We did not abolish the fairer Scotland fund, we devolved the fairer Scotland fund to local government, exactly in the fashion that the Labour Party demanded that we decentralise significant resources—£1 billion of the fairer Scotland fund. We devolved it to local government, exactly in the fashion that they asked for it, and they moan like billiol about what we have actually done. Perhaps we would take it a little bit more seriously if it came in that fashion. One of the other central points in the debate was the issue about the promise of more powers. I set out in my earlier contribution the willingness of the Scottish Government to take part in the process that Lord Smith is presiding over and to give it goodwill and commitment. Dr Murray said that David Cameron's attempts to link the Scottish process with the process in England was ridiculous and unacceptable. I agree with Dr Murray in that respect, but that rather explains why we were getting rather agitated over the weekend that there was some backsliding going on on the solemn commitments, the vow. We cannot call it the pledge because the pledge is a somewhat devalued term in some parts of this parliamentary chamber, but that is why we were getting concerned about the danger of backsliding. It is maybe why Alistair Darling felt that it was necessary to say on television on Sunday that it was promised that it has to be delivered and that anyone who betrays on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come. It was not just the Scottish Government thinking that there was some backsliding going on. It was clear even in the heart of the Better Together campaign that there was backsliding going on. That brings me on to the nature of what was promised because John McAlpine went through all of that detail expertly in her contribution. In the course of the referendum campaign, we were promised deval max, we were promised home rule, we were promised akin to federalism—call it what you want—it was an offer, a proposition of extensive powers, which is where Mr Carlaw made a very helpful contribution. I never thought that I would live to see the day that I would say that, but Mr Carlaw said that he was embarking on the discussions with Lord Smith from the position that the sum of the position was what had to be achieved out of Lord Smith's work, not the divisions of the propositions that were being put forward. That captures in the sense of the point that I was trying to get across in my earlier contribution. If we go into that, trying to just tick a few boxes, get a bit of an agreement on what powers might be transferred without thinking about those commitments that were made to the people of Scotland by the UK political parties, as John McAlpine talked about, without living up to the expectations that were delivered there, the people who—the 85 per cent of the population that came out to vote, the overwhelming majority of them who were voting in favour of more powers for this Parliament—the 45 per cent that voted yes were clearly voting for more powers for the Parliament—but there would be a sizable proportion of those who voted no. As we have been told, a no vote was a vote for change as well, that those individuals were voting for extensive powers, then there is an overwhelming mandate in Scotland for extensive additional powers to be granted to this Parliament, and the Smith process, if it is to be successful, must fulfil those expectations across the political spectrum. Does he then disagree with his backbenchers who say that the vow will not be honoured, the promises will not be delivered? Is it wrong to say that at this stage? Well, let's just let this process take its course. I've gone—exactly, exactly. Well, I'm agreeing with Mr Brown. What's he getting all agitated about? I don't know. This is what gets me about parliamentary debates every so often. This is what gets me where the Government is trying to advance an agenda, which reflects the fact that we are trying to meet genuine progress to address the need to strengthen the powers of the Parliament. Why can't that be represented with some goodwill from the Opposition parties, rather than the sneering that we get all the time? In the coast of the referendum campaign, a lot was said about the national health service, and I want to say a couple of words about the national health service. On 17 September, the Labour Party tweeted to the assembled country quotes, worried about the future of the NHS, it's safe with a no vote. On 22 September, the Labour Party tweeted to the assembled masses, want to be part of saving the NHS, join Labour, it only takes three minutes. The point that I'd make about that is that the Labour Party embarked throughout a referendum campaign telling us that a no vote would secure the national health service, but yet we all know Andy Burnham is telling the country today that a no vote is delivering privatisation of the health service in exactly the way that we feared during the election campaign. Mr Orffith's Patrick said that I would set out to Parliament before I close details about the programme for government to respond to Mr Brown's point. The programme for government will be published once the new First Minister is elected, and that has been conveyed to business managers today. I would also say to Mr Brown that Scotland is open for business, it's always been open for business. The chancellor came to Scotland in 2011 and told us that Scotland would suffer because of having a referendum that inward investment would dry up in coming to Scotland. Since 2011, we have had record years of inward investment success, so the siren warnings about somehow the constitutional process undermining the economy of Scotland when unemployment is falling, employment is at record high, economic inactivity is lower than the rest of the United Kingdom. All of those siren warnings have been to no avail given the economic performance of Scotland. I will give way to Mr Marwick. Mr Marwick. Thank you very much for that. What are you saying that Scotland has to be on pause again while the SNP gets its leadership into order? We are carrying on doing all the things that we normally do, like expanding apprenticeships, delivering childcare, abolishing priscars and charges, making sure that council tax is frozen, delivering free education for the higher education students. Those are all the things that this Government has done in using the full powers of a devolved Parliament as we are able to use them to deliver economic success for the people of our country. The Scottish Government's programme has been well set out to people in Scotland. We will continue to implement the policy programme of the Government. We will set out our budget on 9 October, reaffirming our commitment that we have made to the people of Scotland that we will use the resources at our disposal to strengthen the Scottish economy, to ensure that we protect public services in the manner that we have done to date, that we ensure that we take forward the investment in the low-carbon agenda and that we deliver on our commitments to the people of Scotland. The referendum last Thursday was an exercise in significant democratic participation in the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. The people came to their conclusion, and this Government accepts that conclusion, but what we will also do is continue to be ambitious for the people of Scotland to deliver the very best that we possibly can do. That has been at the heart of this Government since 2007, and it will remain at the heart of this Government. That concludes today on the First Minister's statement. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10978, in the name of Dolfas Patrick. On behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for tomorrow, Thursday 25 September. Any member who wishes to speak against motion should press a request to speak but now. I call on Dolfas Patrick to move motion number 10978. No member has asked to speak against, most therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is, that motion number 10978, in the name of Dolfas Patrick, be agreed to, are well agreed. The next item of business consideration of business motion 10979, in the name of Dolfas Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member wishes to speak against motion should press a request to speak but now. I call on Dolfas Patrick to move motion number 10979. No member has asked to speak against, most therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is, that motion number 10979, in the name of Dolfas Patrick, be agreed to, are well agreed. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is decision time. There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business, so we now move swiftly on to member's business. Anybody who is leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.