21/03/2017 Scottish Parliament

It is important to set out why we have arrived at this point and also

in light of the significant change facing our country to reflect on the

importance of giving the people of Scotland a democratic choice over

our future. As a result of the Brexit vote, we know changes now

inevitable. The question is what kind of right for Scotland should

that be decided for us or by us. In the past two years, the Scottish

Government has made a number of proposals designed to protect

Scotland from the impact of Brexit. It is important to note that had any

one of these proposals been accepted by the UK Government, we would not

be having this debate today. We recognised early on the risks to

Scotland from the EU referendum. Before the referendum took place, we

proposed Brexit should be possible if all four UK nations voted to

leave. A provision common in federal countries like Australia and Canada,

it would have recognised the context of the UK as a multinational, not

unitary state. That proposal was rejected. Yes. Would the First

Minister recognised that the country is entirely devoted down the middle.

It is the job of the First Minister surely to heal those divisions,

rather than make them worse? I believe very strongly, when there is

a difference of opinion about the best way forward, the best thing to

do is to allow people to choose the best way forward. As a result of

that proposal being rejected, although Scotland voted by 62%, to

38%, to stay in the European Union, we face being taken out of the EU

against our will. With massive implications for our economy,

society and place in the well. Contrary to the promises made by the

no campaign before the independence referendum, our relationship with

the EU has been jeopardised. The Scottish parliament should have the

right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material

change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland

being taken out of the EU against our will. It is worth being clear.

That manifesto commitment, combined with result of the Scottish

election, turning out a pro-independence majority to

Parliament. It gives the Scottish Parliament and unquestionable

democratic mandate for independence referendum. I will make progress,

taken intervention shortly. There is an important point for those who

seek to question the mandate. To suggest that an emphatic election

victory, a clear manifesto commitment, and a Parliamentary

majority on an issue does not provide a mandate, that begs the

question, what does? Runs the real risk of undermining the democratic

process. I'm grateful to the First Minister, I know she will

acknowledge in that election she lost her overall Parliament to

majority. It is an important point, if we're talking mandates. Can she

tell us what assessment she has made of the view of the Scottish people,

the appetite of the Scottish people for the kind of referendum she

proposed last month? We won the election on the basis of that

proposition. Of course the vote that will take place in that parliament

tomorrow evening will demonstrate very clearly whether or not there is

a majority in this Parliament for that proposition. Notwithstanding

the mandate that we have. I want to make some process. Notwithstanding

the clear mandate we have, the Scottish segment did not referendum

on independence after the EU vote. Instead, we try to find common

ground with the UK Government. I want to make some progress. OK, I'll

take the intervention. From the point that the First Minister

raises, can I ask, where Mike is deceiving me, when I heard within

three hours of that vote, saying she had already instructed civil

servants and officials of the Scottish Government to drop the

necessary legislation for a second independence referendum? I know that

Ruth Davidson has a selective memory. She has of course forgotten,

but she said we should seek to stay in the single market after the

referendum. If Ruth Davidson had listened clearly, what she would

have heard me say, was that I was determined to explore alternative

options do independence. What I sought to do was to find a way of

allowing Scotland to stay in the UK, while also protecting the most vital

elements of our relationship with Europe. In other words, we tried to

sway the UK vote to leave, with the Scottish vote to stay. Respecting

have those voted in 2014 and 2016. We were encouraged by the initial

comments of the Prime Minister, he made a commitment last July to seek

agreement with the devolved administrations, before triggering

article 50. We argued in our published paper, that the UK in

holes should stay in the single market. That seemed the obvious

consensus position, in a state where 40% of voters, and two of four

nations voted to stay in the EU. That would have been in line with a

clear commitment in the Conservative 's own manifesto. I will make some

progress. Despite this, the Prime Minister ruled out single market

membership without any prior consultation with the devolved

administrations. That was a breach of the commitment she made in July.

The Scottish Government also proposed ways in which, with

political will, the option of Scotland staying in the single

market, even if the rest of the UK chose to leave, might be achieved.

We proposed significant new powers for this Parliament, short of

independence, protecting Scotland's interests in the post-Brexit

landscape. Powers that would have effectively deliver the federal

solution that some in this chamber say they favour. All of these

efforts are compromised. Each and every one have been rejected. There

has been no meaningful attempt whatsoever by the UK Government to

explore these options, and find common ground. Which brings me to

where we are today. Having voted to remain in the EU, we face being

taken out against our will. The probability is that our exit, taking

us outside the single market will be on harder and harsher terms than

most people, including many leave voters would have supported in the

run-up to the referendum. The voice of this Parliament has been ignored

at every step of the way. Far from any indication of new powers, we now

face the prospect of the UK Government using Brexit to reserve

for itself powers in areas that are currently devolved to this

Parliament. Now all of this raises fundamental questions for Scotland.

If the UK Government can ignore this Parliament on one of the most

fundamental issues the country faces, what meaning can ever be

attached to the idea that the UK is a partnership of equals? If the UK

refuses to guarantee the rights of EU citizens focuses on free

movement, that despite grinning our population is economically essential

for Scotland. What does that mean for Scotland's desire to be an open,

welcoming society? If the UK Government is determined to leave

the single market, despite the wealth of evidence that doing so

could permanently weaken our economy, risking jobs, investment

and trade, what does that mean that future living standards and

asperity? Because of the collapse of the Labour Party, the current UK

Government could be in power until 2030, or beyond. It becomes clear,

Scotland faces a fundamental question, it is a question not just

of how we respond to Brexit, but what sort of country we want

Scotland to be. The answer to that question is surely one which should

lie in our own hands. That is the fundamental point at the heart of

the day's debate. As a country, we cannot avoid change, but we can

choose what can change want. I understand why many people do not

relish the prospect of another referendum on another major issue in

the space of a few years. That is something that weighs heavily on me,

as I'm sure it does with others. However the alternative to planning

now, to give Scotland the choice is this, it is simply to drift through

the next two years, crossing our fingers, hoping for the best, while

fearing the worst. Knowing that no matter how hard we work to avoid it,

we may well have two except a hard Brexit, come what may, no matter how

damaging that turns out to be. It would mean accepting now, that at

the end of this process, we were not even have the option of choosing an

alternative pass, that the direction of our nation will be decided for

Russ. I do not consider that to be right or fair. The future of

Scotland should not be imposed upon us. It should be the choice of the

people of Scotland. I will take an intervention. The First Minister...

Sorry. I don't know if that indicates any preference. Alex

Salmond, the First Minister's foreign affairs spokesman said this

Scotland would only seek membership Scotland would only seek membership

of EFDA, not the European Union. How can she seek a mandate for

independence, if she were not in see full membership of the European

Union? The SNP's position in favour of membership of the EU is clear and

long-standing. What is beyond any doubt, if we do not become

independent, that membership of the EU is ended, because we're taken out

against our will. No, I will make some progress. I want to turn to the

question of the referendum. As a matter of principle, the timing,

altogether with decisions on franchise, and the device of the

electoral commission. It should be for this Parliament to decide, just

as it was in 2014. That decision should be taken in interests of the

Scottish people having an informed choice. Not driven by consideration

of what is convenient for any politician and party.

The Prime Minister has said that now is not the time and I agree with

that. The choice must be informed. It should not happen before the

terms of Brexit are known. In a speech she gave at Lancaster house

in January, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, I want us to have

reached an agreement on our future to partnership by the time the

Article 50 process has completed. The terms of that agreement will be

clear around six months in advance, autumn next year, to allow for the

process of EU ratification. The European Commission has said there

will only be 18 months for negotiation. That has led to my view

that the earliest time at which Scotland could make an informed

choice would be the autumn of next year. It is also important that the

choice is made while it is still possible in a timely manner to

choose a different path. Therefore it is also my judgment the latest

date for that choice, I will make progress, I have taken

interventions... The latest date for that choice should be around the

time the UK believes the EU in the spring of 2019. That is the time

frame I am asking Parliament to endorse today. Let me make this

clear, Presiding Officer. If the UK Government disagrees with that time

frame, they should set out a clear alternative and the rationale for

it. As I have said in recent days, I am within reason happy to have that

discussion to see if we can find common ground that I can then

propose to this Parliament. However, it will simply not be acceptable for

the UK Government to stand as a roadblock to the democratically

expressed will of this Parliament. It is of course entirely... I will

make progress. It is of course entirely legitimate for the UK

Government and for other parties in this Chamber to robustly oppose

independence, that is an honourable position albeit one I disagree with.

In the circumstances we now face, for the UK Government to stand in

the way of Scotland even having a choice would be in my view wrong,

unfair and utterly unsustainable. APPLAUSE

I will make some progress. Let me turn to the nature of that choice. I

have already acknowledged it must be an informed choice. That means the

people of Scotland need to know the terms of Brexit and be in a position

to assess the pros and cons before making that choice. It also means

they need to understand the implications and opportunities of

independence, on the economy, currency, Europe and many other

matters people have questions about. Those of us who advocate

independence have a responsibility to consider a range of issues in

light of the changed circumstances brought about by Brexit,

circumstances we did not choose to be in, and present that information

in a clear way. That is what we will do and we will do so in good time to

allow scrutiny and debate well in advance of a referendum that is at

the earliest 18 months away and by doing so we will allow people to

make a genuinely informed choice between being taken down a hard

Brexit path or becoming an independent country able to chart

our own course. That will be in stark contrast to the EU referendum.

Not only was there no detail and no answers before the vote, that

remains the case shamefully so nine months after that vote.

APPLAUSE Presiding Officer, let me seek to

end on a note of consensus. LAUGHTER

We might differ on the best way forward but I suspect that almost

all of us across the parties can agree we would rather not be in this

situation. The majority of us wish that the UK as a whole had chosen to

remain in the EU. We wish the UK Government was pursuing continued

single market membership. But we cannot avoid or ignore the

consequences of the vote or the UK Government's response. My

determination has been to stand up for Scotland's interests and the

support of this Parliament has been welcome. But nine months on, there

is no indication at all that this Parliament's voice has carried

anyway at Westminster. Instead the UK Government is taking decisions

unilaterally that I and many others believe will deeply damage our

economy, society and standing in the world. Whether we like it or not,

Scotland again faces a fundamental decision about what sort of country

we want to be. The question before this Chamber is simple. Who gets to

make that decision? The answer cannot be me and it cannot be the

Prime Minister. The decision about what kind of country we are and what

path we take can only be made by the people of Scotland. It is for that

reason I ask members to support the motion before us today. I move the

motion in my name. APPLAUSE

I now call on Ruth Davidson to move the motion in her name. On Monday of

last week, the First Minister announced her intention to demand a

second referendum on independence. On Saturday of last week, the First

Minister used her party conference to demand a second referendum on

independence. Today we meet here to debate the SNP's demand for a second

referendum on independence. At least this last week has shown everybody

what the number one priority of this Scottish Government really is. It is

separation not education. This week they have made clear what comes

first. Presiding Officer, we have heard the First Minister speak

today. Let me run through what you said about the second referendum in

times past. In August, 2014, a month before we voted on independence, we

were told constitutional referendum are a once in a generation event. I

take it she does not deny saying that. A few weeks later, she summed

up all her grammar has to tell her delegates but another referendum

would be wrong and we will not do at -- all her gravitas. A year ago she

and I addressed the Federation of Small Businesses conference in

Glasgow where a businessman asked her why she was dragging us back to

a referendum. Looking him in the eye, she promised him, if opinion

stays as it was in the referendum, there will not be another

referendum. She talks of outrage and I wonder how outraged that man is

feeling today. I would just like to ask Ruth Davidson why she has

omitted to quote the manifesto I was elected as First Minister on last

May. Don't worry, I am getting to that. What I will do is all through

her speech, the First Minister was talking about the will of the people

of Scotland. Let me read what John Curtis has said. He said each poll

has asked a somewhat different question but each has obtained much

the same picture are only a third said they should be a second

referendum, half recognition not. The people of Scotland do not want

it and it will not wash to have a First Minister washing her hands are

saying it is not me dragging us there, it is with a heavy heart, a

big Tory did this and run away. It will not do. Take responsibility. If

all of those quotes I gave you were not enough, for good measure, in the

live TV debates we took part in in April of last year, watched by

hundreds and thousands of Scotland's voters, the First Minister made

herself clear. Support for independence does not increase,

there will not be another referendum. Support has not

increased. Indeed according to the polls on the weekend, the impact of

her announcement last week has led to a drop in support for

independence. Never mind. If you are in the SNP, you do not need to

acknowledge old promises, still less honour them. We are told today to

forget about what was said and instead submit to the SNP's will. We

do not. We we will not. Let me set out the many reasons why my party

will oppose the motion today. It calls on this Parliament to call a

referendum between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of 2019. Order,

order. One day you will make it to the front bench, but it will not be

this week. The motion also insists it is only this Parliament which

will have a say over the franchise and details of the referendum. This

bulldozer approach is completely at odds with the way in which the 2014

referendum was held. The SNP won a majority with a clear pledge to

bring forward a Referendum Bill. UK and Scottish Government the map

worked together on proposals for a fair legal and decisive referendum.

The Edinburgh Agreement was signed with both sides promising to respect

the result. How different things are today. Under this First Minister,

the SNP lost its majority, with no clear pledge to hold a referendum, I

am sorry, but believing something should happen, if something else

takes place, it might be many things, but it is not a clear

mandate. Furthermore the SNP want to you Natalie decide on the timing of

the referendum and the rules. -- once to unilaterally decide. I

remind the SNP to they once described the last referendum with

the Edinburgh Agreement and unanimous backing in this Chamber

with 92% support across the public as the gold standard approach. This

today, this is not the gold standard, it is a tinpot approach to

the biggest decision we could ever be asked to make. Let us cut to the

chase. The SNP's plan last week was not about holding a fair and

decisive referendum. What it is about is a very well rehearsed game

which is to put forward an unworkable proposal to wait for

Westminster politicians to point it out and to rush to any microphone

with the angry face and to trot out the same tired complaints. Once upon

a time, it might have worked. But it will not anymore because most people

in Scotland are sick to death of the games. Most people in Scotland do

not want another referendum any time soon just three years after the

last. Most people see the plain common sense in our own position.

Brexit is going to be a major challenge for this country and none

of us know how it will play out, how we will come through it and the

impact there will be. That is exactly why we question how we can

make a decision on our future constitutional path at a time of

such uncertainty. Why start an independence referendum campaign now

at this very moment when the process of leaving the EU is only just

beginning? Why ask the people of Scotland to choose our future when

they have not had the chance to see it playing out? Most of all, how can

the SNP sit here today and demand another referendum when they still

cannot answer the basic questions of their own proposition on currency,

long-term ship of the EU, the cost of independence? -- long-term

membership. Another SNP conference has gone by and another opportunity

to answer basic questions has been squandered. In short, the First

Minister wants a date but she will not give Scotland a plan. Our

position is as follows. There cannot be a referendum until people know

what they are voting for, until the Brexit process is complete and they

know what the UK and what independence looks like. You do not

make a decision on leaving the UK by voting blind and we also believe

that there should not be one when there is no political or public

consent for it, not when we were promised by this First Minister it

would not take place for another generation, that it would not happen

without a change of opinion, when it will cause more division and

uncertainty for our country. I know my plea will fall on deaf ears on

the SNP benches, even among those who voted for Brexit and now see a

sense in the polls. They still have not had the guts to stand up for the

principle. We know the Scottish Greens are different. We therefore

call on them today to stick by their pledge to the people of Scotland.

They said it should only come about by the will of the people. There is

none. They said it should not be driven by the calculations of potted

little advantage. There is plenty of that, I'm afraid. -- party political

advantage. Their position as the self appointed moral guardians in

this place will be no more if they... I will give way to the cocoa

bean of the Green Party talking against his own manifesto pledge --

code convener. I am grateful to her for giving way and I'm interested

she raises manifesto pledges. When I read in the Tory manifesto from

2015, on the very same page as the commitment to hold this reckless EU

referendum, we are very clear about what we want from Europe, we say yes

to the single market. Have I misunderstood the meaning of that

apparently clear commitment? Ruth Davidson. The prime Minster has

already said she wants UK firms including Scottish wants to be able

to operate within and trade with the single market. It is fantastic. If a

new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the

people and not be driven by calculations of party political

advantage. Pin that to your friend as you go through the voting booths.

I know all the analysis and commentary to the debate has pointed

to a predetermined result. No point is turning up, we know how it is

going to end. The Greens backing the SNP as before. As Patrick has

admitted. Even in the Groundhog Day that is Scottish constitutional

politics I have a memory. To a time where parties across the divide

United for the country. In September of last year, this Parliament voted

for ministers to call NHS changes, six months on, no action from the

Scottish Government. In September, the Parliament voted to ban

fracking, I did not back it, the votes were there in the chamber, no

action by the Scottish parliament. In November, the Scottish Government

voted to abolish the offensive behaviour at football act, no action

from the Scottish Government. In January, the government voted

against SNP bands to abolish the Scottish Highlands and Islands

board. No action. Five times in six months, the will of the Scottish

Parliament has been clear, five times in six months, the SNP

government has chosen to ignore it. If to day the vote does go as all

the commentators expect, I hope SNP members will reflect, why do they

exclaimed that the Westminster government should recognise votes in

the Scottish Parliament, when the Scottish Government does not do so.

To those Scots who were watching at home, will be SNP explained to them,

why votes on crucial issues such as health, education funding,

enterprise, energy should be wilfully ignored by the SNP

government, but when it comes to independence, and only when it comes

to independence, Holyrood is sacrosanct? Presiding Officer, this

referendum is maybe this First Minister's priority, it is not mine,

and not that of my party. We say that this Parliament focus on the

issues we were elected to deliver on, better schools, a sustainable

NHS, a growing economy, and a strong Scotland as part of a strong united

Kingdom. I move the amendment in my name.

Presiding officer, I wish this were the start of a two day debate on

education in Scotland. We could focus on the need to close the

attainment gap, proposals for young people to give them the best chance

in life. To give 250,000 Scottish children the chance to get out of

poverty. Instead we are back talking about the only thing that has ever

really matter to the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon wakes up every single day,

thinking of ways to engineer another referendum because leaving the UK is

the only thing that matters to her. It is not improving education in

Scotland. It is not moving children out of poverty. It is independence

that will always come first. The truth is, it always has. When the

first majority Labour government established the NHS and the welfare

state, the SNP wanted Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. When the

last Labour government introduced ground-breaking anti-discrimination

laws, maternity and paternity leave, the national minimum wage, tax

credits, writes of work, and civil partnerships, the SNP were arguing

for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. When the UK Labour

government delivered a Scottish parliament, the expressed will of

the people following a referendum, these SNP still campaigned for

Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. Brexit is not the

motivation for a another referendum, just the latest excuse. Now we have

heard a lot from the First Minister about mandates. People have noticed

this shift in the SNP's language. They used to demand that the will of

the Scottish people be respected, but the will of the Scottish people

was very clearly expressed in 2014. 85% of our fellow citizens voted in

the first referendum, and they voted by a clear majority to remain in the

United Kingdom. More than two million Scots in the biggest mandate

ever given to any political leader in Scottish is rebated to remain in

the UK. That is the will of the Scottish people, that is what should

be respected. -- Scottish history. We have already heard from the

Scottish minister about the need to respect the will of this Parliament.

If only she had respected the mandate given to government by this

chamber before now. She had several local NHS services free from the

threat of closure hanging above their head. The First Minister would

have banned fracking, scrapping the football act. This Parliament has

had its say on the Highlands and Islands board, and the Scottish

Council. This Parliament wanted a change of course from the

Nationalists on education. Given it is her defining priority, surely the

First Minister will respect about? When this Parliament votes for

another referendum, as it inevitably will, thanks to the perpetual crux

that the Greens provide. Let's not pretend it reflects the will of the

Scottish people. Because it does not. The people of Scotland do not

want another divisive referendum. Last week the First Minister said

the 2014 referendum was not divisive. She obviously did not

speak to many people beyond her own party faithful. My experience, and

experience of the very many Scots who have taken the time to tell me

on the doorstep, the street and by e-mail is that their country felt

more divided than at any time in their living memory. Families

argued, colleagues fell out, communities were split down the

middle. They bask in their train, no pub, noting in the centre, workplace

or living room escaped the fallout. Last Monday, the first day of this

campaign, it felt just as hostile and polarised as the 847 and final

day of the last. Where does it end? Some of those who voted to leave the

UK, and the majority devoted to remain in the UK don't want to get

back to the divisions of the past. If there is to be another

referendum, if the First Minister must drag the people of Scotland

back there, the Labour Party will campaign with everything we have two

remain in the United Kingdom. And let me tell you why. -- to remain.

If you want to have a different result from the last time, you might

want to listen to people who do not agree with you. I believe in the

United Kingdom, not as a symbol of past glories, or a purist ideology,

but as a living and breathing union nations that delivers for Scotland.

The pensioners whose income is secured for a UK pension system.

This shipyard workers that are in jobs because of UK defence

contracts. The staff in East Kilbride who deliver aid to some of

the poorest countries in the world on behalf of all of us. The schools

that are built because of the extra money we receive by being in the UK.

The NHS we built together, and is sustained because we pool and share

resources across the whole of Britain. Businesses large and small,

he were able to thrive because of access they have two the UK single

market. Scientists carrying out life-saving medical research because

of funding from UK research councils. These are the things I

value the most. These other things that being part of the United

Kingdom has delivered for families Scotland. So much prosperity and

security. At a time when so much of the world is ravaged by division,

when the trend in too many places is separation, I value the fact that

our four nations come together to share sovereignty and resources. We

recognise that together we are stronger, more so than we ever could

be a part. I say do the members opposite, it is not this union

nations which is unjust or unfair, it is the actions of the powerful

within it. I hate what the Tories are doing to Britain, I have never

felt anger like it. Listen. Listen. The austerity programme is asked

destroying public services that we value and the poorest Will.i.am. The

SNP cannot escape from the facts. Leaving the UK would make things

worse for the poorest people in Scotland. In the six years I have

sat in this chamber, I have never once heard a convincing argument of

the country. Because separation... Lets see if Kevin can give us one.

As she has just mentioned, poor folk. As we see the Tories advancing

the austerity agenda, making poor folk even poorer, is she happy to go

around doors saying she'll be happy with the Tory government for the

next ten, 20, 30 years? The problem for Kevin Stewart, and indeed the

rest of the SNP members, they want to replace Tory austerity with

turbo-charged austerity. The truth of the matter is, separation would

mean ?15 billion worth of cuts. Cuts to schools and hospitals, the

government's and figures that. It means cuts to pensions. John Swinney

told us that. He entered the UK defence contracts keeping thousands

in work. Those are the facts. The Nationalists don't want to hear

them, they will howl and rage. Question the prejudice of those who

back unity over division. They cannot escape the reality. We are

stronger, richer, fairer and a better nation by remaining in the

United Kingdom. Tomorrow evening, Scottish Labour MSP 's will vote

against the divisive second Independence referendum. That was

our manifesto commitment to the people of Scotland, we will honour

it. I move the amendment in my name. By: Patrick Harvie to move the

amendment in his name. -- I now call. Nice to be given such a warm

welcome. Residing officer, if we are at the beginning of potentially two

years of debate on the independence question again, it is important we

recognise the mixed feelings that exist. I am sure I am not the only

member who has seen angry e-mails on both sides of the debate, telling me

an independence referendum is an absolute priority, or something that

must be opposed absolutely. Keyboard warriors on both sides. I have

spoken face-to-face with many people who remain unconvinced, or who have

mixed feelings. Equally, we have to acknowledge there are great many

people in Scotland, who believe whether reluctantly or with

enthusiasm that the future of Scotland has to be decided, not by

one parliament or another, or by one government or another, but by the

people who live there. Before our political future was thrown into

turmoil nine months ago, most independent supporters I knew

understood that this was more likely to be again a long-term aspiration.

We were going to build the case over the long-term. That included my own

party. We suggested one means by which the issue could be revisited.

In assessing what the will of the people means, as so many people are

keen to use the phrase. Yes, we have to acknowledge that 2014 was an

expression of the will of the people, but so was 2016. The 62% who

voted to remain inside the European Union, that is also an expression of

the will of the people that must be respected. Let me ask in the same

question I asked Nicola Sturgeon. What assessment has he done the will

of the Scottish people in 2017? The two clearest reasoned expressions of

the will of the people are 55% voting to remain part of the UK two

and a half years ago, and 62% voting to remain part of the European Union

nine months ago. If the UK Government had shown any interest in

reconciling those two positions, we might not be webby we are today.

On the very point he raises, will he acknowledge the question of 2016 was

about the UK staying part of the EU, it said nothing about Scotland and

will he also acknowledged there are thousands of Scots, including many

in this Chamber, who are furious their votes to remain has been

appropriated as some sort of vote for independence when it was no such

thing? There are such people and there are also those who are equally

furious that their vote no in 2014 is being taken as an excuse to take

us out of the EU against our will. It is, Presiding Officer, absurd to

suggest we should not respond to and react to the situation and the

fundamentally changed circumstances we find ourselves in. Ruth Davidson

said, do not just say a big Tory did it and ran away, good grief, I wish

they would, but they are dragging us with them, that is the problem. One

more. If at some point Scotland was to leave the EU, and under his

plans, should there be another EU referendum, if Scotland is ever to

seek to go back in? I am perfectly open to that debate when the time

comes. The question is whether we seek a section 30 order to argue, as

my party did five months ago in October, as we took that decision to

our party members, to ask whether they supported the call for a

section 30 order, and they did and I was happy to vote with them. The

situation has changed not only by the EU referendum result but by

everything the UK Government has done with it. The recklessness of

holding the referendum to resolve their internal squabbles, the utter

lack of a plan, astonishing to be told by Ruth Davidson now should not

be a referendum until people know what they are voting for after we

saw what happened with the lack a plan in the EU referendum and the

disrespect shown to Scotland's since then. The UK Government is using a

narrow UK wide majority not only to ignore their own commitments to the

single market as they mentioned earlier, very clearly, five, six

times on the same pages of the commitment to hold a referendum on

the manifesto, commitments to stay in and protect the single market.

But also prominent leave campaigners, Daniel Hannan from the

Tory party, absolutely nobody is talking about our place in the

single market, Owen Paterson, only a madman, his language, would never be

mine, only a madman would leave the market. Nigel Farage Arron Banks and

others. Look, Ruth Davidson as well, not just in the EU referendum debate

but after the result was in, I want to stay in the single market. Yes,

even if the consequence is retaining free movement of labour. Yes. I give

her credit for that at the time and I think her abandonment of that

position is disgraceful. APPLAUSE

Whether you believe in a deregulated free market or, as I do, if you

place value on the raft of social and environmental and economic

regulations which have come from the EU and protect our quality of life,

the argument about how a single market works, what it means, it is

critical. It must include a shared approach to regulation and to

freedom of movement. We have already heard and we will continue to here

terms like access to the single market, mealy-mouthed terms, it

cannot be taken seriously, that kind of language because it will not mean

access for people deciding where they want to move for work, it will

mean access only for business. If you are not free to decide unimpeded

where you wish to sell your labour, you are not in a single market. If

anyone is to be accused of breaking promises today, it is the Tory party

in both parliaments. The green amendment talks of the terms in

which this Parliament should set the franchise and the timing. Young

voters and citizens of other EU countries were deliberately excluded

from the vote last year by the UK Government. We should not be

satisfied at that. Neither group is expected to be particularly

pro-independence in 2014 but we all agreed they had a right to take

part, to determine the future of the country they live in. Those who have

chosen to come here from other EU countries in particular have been

treated in the shabbiest way possible by the UK Government. Their

lives, careers, contribution to our society and the future of their

families, treated as playthings. Even those who hold an affection for

the UK as a political union or for Britishness as an identity must

surely look at the way the UK Government is treating our friends,

neighbours and colleagues and be ashamed. In relation to the Labour

and Liberal Democrat amendments, they both, I am sorry to say, sounds

like wishful thinking. If fantasy of a federal UK that simply does not

exist. The idea of Scotland's strong place in a federal Britain which

does not exist... Labour have chosen to play the Gordon Brown card early

this time around. I wonder what they are holding back for the final weeks

this time. As for the Liberal Democrats... Yes, indeed. I

understand Patrick Harvie will spend the next two years campaigning for

independence but can he tell us will he spent all of his time doing that

or will he make the case for power is coming back from Brussels to come

to this place? I am not resigned to being taken out of the European

Union against the will of the people of Scotland and today's debate is

about holding against that. As for the Liberal Democrats, at UK level,

they are saying they are the only pro-EU party left, here in Scotland,

they want the Westminster Parliament to block our only remaining path to

EU membership. As for the Conservative amendment, it seems

bizarre to suggest that the Scottish Government must work together with

the UK when it takes two to tango. UK ministers have blanked Scotland

in this process is ruling out negotiations to respect the way

Scotland voted. Theresa May promised to develop a shared approach with

all of the devolved administrations before moving forward with Article

50. We can now see how empty that promise was. Finally, on the

question of timing, the idea of delaying this until after 2019,

after we have been given the opportunity to see how the new

relationship with Europe is working, it fundamentally misrepresents

leaving the EU as something good instead of the act of political

wreckage it is. Autumn, 2018, will be after the negotiation concludes,

when there is clarity about the arrangements. A deal negotiated by a

UK Government Scotland did not choose with an EU institution on

which Scotland is no longer represented about Brexit which

Scotland did not vote for either and then a period of ratification by

every other European country, that would leave the future of Scotland

in the hands of everybody else in the whole of Europe, the citizens of

Scotland the only people voiceless in that process. I do not think we

can accept that. I will not vote for it and I move the amendment in my

name. APPLAUSE

Thank you. Willie Rennie. Thank you. Liberal Democrats will vote against

the Government's motion tomorrow. We are opposed to another divisive

independence referendum. I want to address the issue of this cast-iron

mandate first. For the SNP, the mandate, for another divisive

referendum, it is based on the European Union. But now the SNP tell

us they will not seek or guaranteed membership of the EU with the

referendum, only, according to Alex Salmond, their official foreign

affairs spokesperson, that ex-1st Minister, very clearly said,

European Economic Area, that is what they are after. They will use the EU

to get the referendum even though the referendum will not get the EU

and we know the reason why. They are cynically courting one in three

independent supporters who backed Brexit. Some of them in this Chamber

here today. They are prepared to use pro-Europeans to get a referendum

but sell them out to independence. It is low politics for narrow game.

Whilst... We have that Greens. It seems like from a different time.

But we can recall the Budget a few weeks ago, the Triumph of a budget,

we secured funds, not a penny extra for the environment. Far from being

bold and green, it was a bland shade of beige. That was the first broken

promise. Now we have the verbal gymnastics of Patrick Harvie arguing

manifesto commitments do not count anymore. What happened...?

SHOUTING What happened to the 1 million names

on a petition? Where is the role of the people deciding whether to have

another referendum? Patrick's idea of legislative democracy is a few

Green members gathering on a wet Saturday afternoon in Perth to brush

up the manifesto commitment. How can the First Minister claim a mandate

if she is dependent on the Greens who did not even have it in their

manifesto? That is the mandate of the SNP. In just three months, two

manifesto commitments blown out of the water that people will remember

Patrick Harvie and his excuses. Tomorrow I predict the S and their

online bedroom warriors will be battering their keyboards, demanding

the will of the Scottish Parliament be respected. I do not recall those

masses demanding the SNP respect the will of the parliament when it voted

to save the Highlands and Islands enterprise for the Scottish Funding

Council or the outrage when they ignored it. I do not recall the

marchers on the street of this capital when the Government ignored

the vote on the offensive behaviour at football act or the local health

services or the education... I could go on. For these people, somehow

Parliament and the camps when it agrees with the Scottish National

Party trucker somehow Parliament only counts. This Parliament has

been systematically undermined by the SNP when it does not agree with

the SNP. But when... This Scottish Parliament is not the Parliament of

the Scottish National Party. The referendum in 2014 was a fair, legal

and decisive vote, as agreed and specified by the Edinburgh

Agreement, Presiding Officer. With great fanfare, I remember it, the

agreement was signed at a grand occasion, high up on St Andrews

house, with high security but nobody watching. A special broadcast by the

First Minister at the time was made to mark the special occasion, both

sides were supposed to respect the result. With such demands, today

they are breaching the Edinburgh Agreement. That is what this

Scottish National Party are doing. It does not bode well for the

ability of an independent Scotland sticking to international treaties

if they cannot even stick to this agreement that it signs now. Alex

Salmond said the referendum in 2014 was a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity. Some may have heard him at the weekend. He denied he ever

said it. Despite it being on the record. We have it on YouTube. Then

he denied that he denied it, despite that being on YouTube too. Then he

dismissed the whole thing as being complete and utter nonsense. It is

the fastest denial about a denial about a broken promise that has ever

been given. How long is for ever? Said Alice. Sometimes just one

second, said the white rabbit. Time is a relative concept especially in

Wonderland. Or indeed in the SNP's Scotland. Point of order. I hope

this is a point of order and not an interruption disguised as a point of

order. It is a point of order. In a debate, you need to show courtesy to

others in the Chamber. Not taking any interventions at any point in

your speech, it is not showing respect to other members in the

Chamber. That is not a point of order. Willie Rennie. I thank the

Presiding Officer, he knew the answer before he allowed the point

of order. Nevertheless, I am sure we have all heard it, in the last ten

days, the torrent of abuse from SNP supporters, three-year slumber, call

to arms by the First Minister. The feeling of dread that even the First

Minister of knowledge at the weekend that will divide families, it will

divide communities and it will divide friends. That is exactly what

happened last time and if they are deaf to that, they need to get a

life. The personal division is good enough on its own to oppose another

referendum. But there is wider division too. Division with Europe

is not resolved by division in the UK.

advocate a opposed last year. And I will oppose on independence, too. We

have an awful lot more to do in this country. This government is

distracted by their mission of independence. We just have seen in

the last few days, the excitement on their faces, the smiles, the

anticipation on these benches, slithering at the prospect of

another independence debate. But is distracted by its commission of

independence. Yet the performance of the education system is slipping

down international rankings. The poor mental health services that

Scotland this these things. They should be getting the government

excited, but today has blown apart any idea they were in this for the

greater good. They bravely in it for their good. We have made great

progress in reforming Abbey United Kingdom. In just 20 years we have

created this parliament based on proportional representation. Built

on the foundations of human rights. Gaining more powers, including more

recently overtaxed. We should be proud of what we achieved together.

Together everybody in this parliament, working together. But I

want to create a federal United Kingdom, with power shared across

the country, with a written constitution, fair votes, an elected

second chamber. These other reforms that are under way to make Abbey

United Kingdom even stronger. The campaign for independence undermines

that chance. It undermines the momentum. There is a positive case

for the United Kingdom. The economic case for the UK is even stronger

than in 2014. But it is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. It

is about the values we share. The compassion that has built some of

the best charities in the world. Like Oxfam, save the children from

the British charities spreading compassion across the world. It is

about the compassion that has built the second biggest aid budget in the

world. They do not like it, presiding officer. The compassion

that has built one of the best health services in the world. It is

not about flags, it is about the ties that bind us together. No

Scottish Nationalists coming here or anywhere else in Scotland will ever

tell me I should be ashamed of those ties and compassion. That is the

modern United Kingdom that I am proud to be a part of. The Liberal

Democrats stated clearly in our manifesto we would oppose another

divisive independence referendum, and that is exactly what we will do.

We moved to the open part of the debate, I will call Bruce Crawford

first summer followed by Adam Tomkins. Over the course of the days

in coming weeks as we debate whether the people of Scotland are to be

given a choice over the future direction of our country, one small

but very important word should be a byword, I have heard it used a

number of times, it is respect. A lot of the comments contain the

language of hatred and division. We should be clear it is time to stop

it, and stop it now. We in this place have a special responsibility

in a public duty to show leadership in respect to. How we carry this out

in the course of the debate. I saw a couple of comments last week, that

we should on. Firstly, an excellent blog from Chris Cregan from the

chief Executive of the Scottish commission for learning

disabilities. A comment on his blog showing his message, if we

characterise error-prone moments as divisive, we will divide. If we use

the language of eight, we will create bitterness. Secondly, an

important intervention from the Church of Scotland, saying there is

nothing inevitable about this debate being divisive and acrimonious. I

implore all those taking part in this great debate, particularly my

colleagues and friends from across the parties the Parliament and let's

lead from the front, show respect for each other's point of view. Yes,

of course the debate will be passionate, it'll be hard argued,

and we will be immensely disagreed other. Does not mean we need to use

language that creates division and bitterness. Presiding Officer, this

debate at its core is about the sovereignty of the people of

Scotland. The fundamental principle, given the choice on the future

direction of their country. Presiding officer, I hope I am

correct that the belief in the sovereignty of the people of

Scotland extends beyond the seats occupied by the Scottish National

Party and the Green Party. I understand fully there will be those

in this chamber, for the own legitimate reasons he believed that

the UK Parliament is sovereign. However, for those of us that the

legally principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, I cannot see

how we can come to any other conclusion, we need to enable our

citizens to have a right to choose their future. There are those in the

chamber he wants you that the people of Scotland decided in 2014 accept

them respected the result. Lastly, the EU results or 60% of

people choosing to remain in the EU. Providing Scotland with a Democrat

Tuttle, a Democratic conundrum if you like. Not a conundrum that

should or can be resolved by politicians in Holyrood or

Westminster. Only the people who pose a conundrum in the first place

have the responsibility, the right to resolve it. That is the people of

Scotland. That writer giving people a choice to decide their future was

of course strengthened by the election of an SNP government last

week. A government, and I say at the First Minister said, with a

cast-iron mandate, a manifesto declared. I want to repeat this, the

Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if

there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that

prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against

our will. In a delicious irony, the right of choice for our people was

given greater weight by the arguments given by the defenders of

the union in the 2014 referendum. They argued strongly and with

passion that Scotland's place in the EU would be jeopardised. It was a

central plank of the better together campaign. A central plank in the

campaign, a position neatly summed up in a tweet by the campaign on the

2nd of September 20 14. What is the process for removing our EU

citizenship, voting yes. A position very neatly summed up by that. As it

turns out, voting no in 2014 has proved to be the option of

guaranteeing the removal of our EU citizenship. I'm not taking

intervention. Plenty of time over the next two days for people to

contribute to this debate in a sensible way. Presiding officer, as

the First Minister of Scotland has rightly said. As soon as it was

clear what the shape of the Brickley deal means for Scotland. The people

of Scotland have the right to have their sovereign voice heard. Our

people did not choose the Huybrechts route proposed by the most

right-wing government that has existed in this country at any time

during my lifetime. The next two years will decide Scotland's future.

Westminster will get its say on the outcome of Brexit. The European

Parliament will get a say on the ad, Brexit. 27 remaining countries will

get their say on Brexit and the outcome of Brexit. Yet our citizens

will be denied, I don't think so. They have the right to make their

voice heard over our direction, before it is too late for them to

change direction. For those of us that believe in the sovereignty of

the people of Scotland, I say at this vision time tomorrow though too

that the people speak. -- at a decision time tomorrow. Ben

Thompson: Bruce Crawford in the debate. If Carl Taylor the debate

could be fun in that time, we would not be such a divided country.

States in the United States that there is no right to secede.

Constitutional approach takes the same fullback and the other

provinces in Canada at the right of the session. The Supreme Court in

Canada ruled in the clear desire to this user session will give rise to

all part of the response to that desire. Obligation in Canada and the

other would be to come to the negotiating table, not a duty

deliver secession. The position. But the illegal of its fizz of

government ship the gist set up in contrast with the United Kingdom, it

is clear. United Kingdom made it perfectly clear in 2012 and 2014, if

Scotland voted yes, Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and become

a new independent state in international law. Canada never made

this claim in the Qu bec secession referendum. United Kingdom takes

remarkable generous approach to secession. Much more generous than

the United States or Spain, more generous also than Canada. But there

is a political price to be paid for this constitutional accommodation.

Here, in Britain, secession proceeds by agreement, not by the unilateral

demands of a separatist government acting alone. Not at the moment. For

the Scottish independence referendum, that agreement was

reached in 2012, in the so-called Edinburgh agreement. One which were

together in First Minister. That agreement bound both United Kingdom

and the Scottish Government is to conduct the referendum in accordance

with the number of mutually agreed ground rules. Rules about campaign

spending, rules about the setting of the referendum question, the

franchise, and a rule, for what little it turned out to be worth,

that the result of a referendum would be respected by both sides.

Also agreed by the two governments was the question of timing. The

referendum had to be held within a certain agreed timetable. The

contrast between 2012 and the First Minister's unilateral demand for a

second independence referendum to be held between the autumn of 2018 and

the spring 2019 could hardly be greater. No state governor would get

away with that the United States, neither would a provincial premier

in Canada. The Prime Minister of this United Kingdom was right to

rule it out. Give way to the First Minister. I have set out what I

believe the sensible time frame, but I have said again in this chamber to

date I am willing to discuss that with the UK govern. The question is,

is the UK Government willing to come to the negotiating table to discuss

it with me? Does Adam Tomkins think the UK govern should come to the

table to have that discussion? The First Minister in her remarks

earlier this afternoon said the question of timing should be for

this Parliament. That is not how we did it in 2012, and 2014. The timing

was agreed between the Scottish game at ending United Kingdom government.

I would have thought that the first that have remembered that given her

signature is on the Edinburgh agreement. That was based on a

number of clear and firm principles. Not a free-floating compromise

resting on nothing more secure than the shifting sands of political

expediency. It was a principled agreement based on a mature

understanding of the right constitutional way to go about the

business of the session. It said an independence referendum had to be

fair, clear, legal and decisive. This is the second reason why the

Prime Minister was right to reject the SNP's unilateral demand for a

second referendum. In independence referendum triggered by the First

Minister's dismay at the UK's decision to leave the European Union

could not fairly be held until two things are clear and settle. First,

how the UK's new relationship with the European Union will operate, and

secondarily what an independent Scotland's relationship with the EU

would be? Would we be required to take steps to join the euro? To join

the Schengen free movement area? Compliance with the Maastricht

convergence criteria impacting on Scotland's ?15 billion deficit. What

would happen with the border for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Questions require to be asked and answered before any demand for a

second independence for random can be reasonably be exceeded to. As we

repeatedly saw last week, Scottish ministers are nowhere near being

able to answer any of these questions. They are clueless on the

currency, at sea on Schengen, in denial about the deficit and

bewildered by the border. Unable to answer even the most basic

questions. About the proposition they seek to put before the Scottish

people again. Bringing me finally to the point about consent. No new

independence referendum should be contemplated in Scotland and a clear

majority of Scots want one. And poll after poll after poll after poll

shows not only that there is no such majority, but a clear majority of

Scots do not want to go through this again. These are the words the First

Minister needs to hear, presiding officer. We are the people, we said

no, and we meant it. Can I remind members are in the

Parliamentary liaison officer and thank Adam Tomkins for the European

constitutional lecture, he might get a modern studies lecture from me

this afternoon. Behind you, Presiding Officer, our people, at

least the outline of people. That's what was in time -- that was the

intention when this place was designed. The eyes of the world are

on Scotland now watching. I know from my friends working hard the

length and breadth of the country in classrooms pupils are transfixed.

They will have been talked about the voting system, first past the post,

and one has been successful in four out of the five elections we have

held since this place reconvened. You might have noticed we don't all

agree when it comes to Scotland's constitutional future but today's

debate should not be completed with the arguments from 2014 with Gordon

Brown playing a not so funny version of Chandler. The debate has moved

on, the goalposts have shifted. Against the wishes of every

political leader in Scotland we made a choice as a country in 2014, we

all live with that choice every day but our manifesto commitment was

clear, is stated if there was a material change like Scotland being

dragged out of the EU against our will, that would be grounds for a

second independence referendum. That is hardly a state secret, we are the

Scottish National Party after all. This debate is a fait accompli, we

wait and see what London has to say. London, who yesterday forgot to

inform Scotland that Article 50 will be triggered next week. In June

2015, commenting in the Guardian Ruth Davidson said she didn't think

the answer no you cannot will play well in Scotland. You grew up across

the hill from me, you are correct on this point. Ruth Davidson is of a

different generation then I am... In fact we are four generations

apart if you go by Kezia Dugdale as micro maths skills! What about the

kids growing up across the water ten minutes from where I grew up

posturing Mark in 2013, 20 7% of children in one constituency were

living in port -- property. Scottish Government figures last week

reported roughly 260,000 children are living in poverty nationally, an

increase of 4% last year. The cause? Director of Child poverty action

group in Scotland has described the figures as devastating. He said last

week these statistics are stark reminder is why the Chancellor needs

to end the fees from family benefits. So today's debate matters

to these... There is a wee bit too much mumbling off. The debate

matters to these children, their future and ambitions and

aspirations. Earlier this month I attended the official opening of a

school which would not have existed were it not for ?25 million of

direct Scottish Government investment. Everyone who comes in

the doors of the school should expect the best start in life, they

were told, that is not a political statement. Unlike schools in the

Deputy First Minister's constituency, can you confirm that

school has enough teachers? I will be taking no lectures on education

from the Conservative Party who seek to provide selective education in

England at the moment and divide people according to ability. When

the pupils leave school they might be lucky and leave for the big smoke

to study at university or college but what about jobs? In recent years

my constituency has suffered disproportionately at the hands of

Tory austerity, we have had job losses in HMRC, Dulux, the paper

mill, Clydesdale bank... Yesterday afternoon as I was walking through

the Kingdom Centre I couldn't help but reflect on how the town and

changed since I was drawn up. The discount bargain stores and empty

shop fronts. Hard Brexit could cost 80,000 Scottish jobs within a

decade, it has been estimated, and cost folk ?2000 in their wages. I

will not pretend the status quo is delivering to my constituents, this

is not the chase. If MPs vote tomorrow against the Government's

position they are merely capitulating with Tory austerity.

Quite frankly Scotland deserves better so to the pupils studying

right now for their final exams, preparing their assignments,

remember this... The political parties of Scotland will take a vote

and that will determine your future and the opportunities you will have.

We say in the SNP that power should always rest with the people so let's

wait and see who is brave enough in this place to let the people decide

on Scotland's future. Thank you. Can I start by thanking her and saying a

generation represents four years. She said she regrets we are here,

the reality is she is delighted we are here because the truth is she

has not stood up for Scotland's interests, she standing up for her

and the SNP's interests by pursuing another referendum. She talks about

the will of Parliament but she ignores the will of the people in

Scotland while at the same time trying to hide behind the so-called

will of Parliament. And on the will of Parliament, why does she ignore

the will of Parliament when it came to cutting local NHS services? Why

does she ignore the will of Parliament which criminalised

football fans for offensive behaviour? Why did she ignore the

will of Parliament when she chose to damage the environment with

fracking, abolish the funding council, and pursue continued

failings in our education system. Every step of the way ignoring the

will of this Parliament when it suits her. Can I say to the Greens,

I have to thank them because they supported us anon on those issues I

raised. But I have got to say, when it comes to the crunch, as the

Budget showed, they will always seek to protect the yes alliance first

and Scotland second. This is a party that is meant to be

environmentalist, has made a campaign for climate justice. The

truth is Patrick Harvey is a nationalist first and an

environmentalist second. Patrick Harvey. He needs to decide whether

he acknowledges we challenge and vote against the SNP on issues that

matter to us or whether he thinks we are going along on any issue, the

two cannot be true. Does he not acknowledge the Labour Party bears

some responsibility of where we are now with the lacklustre Remain

campaign from Jeremy Corbyn after Labour voted in favour of the EU

referendum and then handed the UK Government a blank cheque Brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon spent the entire campaign is going to the rest of UK

attacking the Remain campaign, that was her contribution to the debate.

I said to Patrick, when it came to the Budget, he voted for cuts to the

community across the country. Let me say to every single SNP member,

let's stop pretending you are passionate about the European Union

and that's why you are being dragged to this referendum debate. If you

genuinely believed being in favour of the European Union would help the

case of Independence, you would argue that case because you believe

in nothing except independence. And you talk about democracy, Nicola

Sturgeon talks about democracy. The truth is we have had two a friend in

debates and the Nationalists don't accept the result of either one of

them. They only want democracy when it suits them, all they care about

is independence at any cost. Let's talk about the day job. Do you

remember the way for independence was to demonstrate perhaps the SNP

was a competent government? No more the case. After ten years of this

Assembly government, health inequality on the rise, the wealth

gap increasing, child poverty increasing, life expectancy failing

to rise for the first time in Scotland since 1851. That is a

record, that should shame every single member on the SNP bench but

instead it doesn't because for each and every single one of them they

prefer the anger and grievance than actually using their powers to make

a difference. The First Minister says about anger, she's right, I am

angry, I'm angry that we have a First Minister who would rather use

the powers to seek to divide the UK and divide Scotland rather than

transform the lives of the men, women and children of this country.

She should be ashamed of herself. We heard from Patrick Harvey about the

type of debate. I will tell you the type of debate we need, we need a

debate with the truth because we didn't give Scotland the truth in

2014. The white paper was a fantasy, it was a wilful attempt on the

Scottish National Party not to inform the people of Scotland but to

misinform the people of Scotland. And even if we take Nicola Sturgeon

at her word, that somehow she is genuinely upset about Brexit, how

can it be possible that she wants to multiply the consequences of Brexit

rather than minimise the consequences of Brexit? Is Patrick

Harvey said about the pledge to say if you vote no you will remain in

the European Union, there's a reason that was said. Because if you voted

yes in 2014 you would have left the EU at that point. Remember the legal

advice that cost ?40,000, it never existed. Instead they want to talk

about grievance with 15% of trade from the EU compared to 65% from the

rest of the UK. So in closing I oppose a second referendum because I

love Scotland. I oppose a second referendum because I respect

democracy. I oppose a second referendum because I want this

Government to focus on ending inequality and defeating poverty. I

oppose it because of my Labour values. I oppose it because I want

to unite Scotland, not divide it, and ultimately, and this is the key

difference, I oppose a second independence referendum because I

respect the will of the people of Scotland.

I'm sure many of us wish he would spend more time opposing the

Conservative Party! When we vote tomorrow on the motion before us we

will be laid down in on the milestone in Scotland's story. No

one predicted we would be here in early 20 seventeenths debating a

second independence referendum but the circumstances have changed

dramatically. Some say we have had our say, we should accept the

outcome and move on. In response I say we are lucky enough to live in a

democracy and it doesn't have an expiry date. We can't ignore how

Scotland voted in the EU referendum and its support for Remain. The UK

Government decision to press ahead with hard Brexit which means leaving

the single market and refusal to countenance a bespoke deal for

Scotland or even seriously acknowledge how Scotland voted

justifies the decision to give the people another chance to choose a

different path for our country and lay this motion before Parliament.

This week's vote is of Theresa May's own making. She says she's listening

but so far there is no sign she has heard a word Scotland has spoken.

The past nine months of also reinforced the view Scotland are

simply not a priority for the UK Government. The plea for a bespoke

deal has so far been completely ignored.

-- the question of compromise has time and time again with being

ignored by the UK Government. At no point in the past nine months, the

UK breaks the Minister has not found time in his diary to give time to UK

committee. They forgot to tell their Scottish counterparts about the date

for triggering article 50. Europe and the world has been shaped by

nations taking more control in their stated. Other debates have seen the

will of the people is not settled. A survey published last week showed

support for Scottish independence has doubled since 2012. Support for

independence in this country has doubled in four years. In these

momentous times we face further intense national discussion, and for

many people, as has been said by others, that will be difficult. Some

of our fellow citizens will have voted to remain in the UK in 2015,

and to leave the EU in 2016. They fear they have the most to lose from

another referendum. Others voted yes in 2014, and to remaining 2016, and

they feel they have the most to gain. Others voted across different

lines. All deserve another say on our country's future. That is why

another referendum, in line with the Scottish garment's mandate is the

only way forward. UK's lack of response to the Scottish result is

the catalyst for this we's historic votes. The next referendum will not

be a rerun of the EU vote. Brexit is the most profound illustration yet

of why we need to take charge of our own future. When our country faces

momentous change imposed from elsewhere against our express wishes

we must turn to the people for guidance. We must give people

choice. To empower themselves in the decider better, different path

compared to what would be forced upon us if we sat back and did

nothing. Our relationship with Europe and arrested UK will

determine the kind of country we want to live in, and the quality of

life for generations to come. Membership single market will

benefit my constituency and economy, leaving will damage it. Retaining

the free movement of goods and services, will help businesses in

our country, leading them will set us back. We need an escape route

from decisions taken by the UK Government. In 2015, only 40% of the

popular vote in this country, and had anyone member of Parliament

elected. Maintaining a meaningful relationship with Europe is

important to Scotland. The Scottish people must make a choice of

maintaining our long ties of Europe or continuing down the Brexit route.

Members of all political parties were arguing it would spell disaster

for our country. I hope and pray that the discourse in this

Parliament will rise to the occasion. In the aftermath of Trump

and Nigel Farage, I hope we can have as a litigant debate on competing

visions. What each choice means for future generations and the roads

open. We need to look at the opportunities we could grasp, and

the deep seated challenges. Projections tell us that between

2014 and 2039 the working age population in England is set to rise

by 30%, but only 1% in Scotland. With zero EU migration post Brexit,

our working age population is set to decline by 5%. With an ageing

population to care for, but shrinking tax base to deliver: we

need powers over immigration and other areas to secure the future. I

say to the other parties, how can we do our day jobs with less taxes, a

declining workforce, given the damage that would because if we are

completely of Europe. They study which says we face the worst year

for living standards in the poorest half of households since records

began, and the worst Margaret Thatcher for economy. Let's give

people a chance to choose a different path. That is why we need

this Parliament to vote for an independence referendum this week.

Let's remember the late poet, Edwin Morgan's words at the opening of

this Parliament in 1989, do not say we have no mandate to be so bold. As

members will be aware, when the take interventions, we have time in hand.

I have not heard anyone say, other than the visit and that can change

that Scotland finds itself in. Significant change, certainly from

these benches, we believe there is an unquestionable mandate to take

the course of action it has. The Scottish Green Party has an

unquestionable mandate to pursue the section 30 order. People have made a

lot of point in time, but nothing stands still, we have moved forward

considerably. In fairness to Reef Davidson, she referred to Brexit as

a major challenge to our country. It is unfortunate the options of the

single market are ruled out. Unfortunate there was no willingness

to engage in negotiations. People have talked about considering the

indications, that is what I would like to do in the brief time I have.

You may think that the most appropriate person would be the UK

Brexit secretary. I take assurance from the fact he says he does his

job on the basis of facts. We know that the PM has repeatedly insisted

that leaving the EU with no trade deal is better than a bad deal. Mr

Davies admitted that leaving the EU without a deal would lead to new

tariffs and barriers to trade. He did say he was not quantifying the

outcome. He did acknowledge there were significant implications for

that. I would like to list some of them. The loss of financial passport

in, the open skies agreement. The introduction of border checks

between the north and Republic of Ireland. Leaving the customs union

could also cause delays in customs. Not that that is not the case of the

moment, but it would be exacerbated. It would cost UK's tourist access to

free health insurance card. When asked whether the Tory government

had made an assessment of the economic impact, he said it is not

possible to calculate. He added, I cannot quantify that in detail. I

may well do in a year's time. He said you do not need a piece of

paper with numbers are to have an economic assessment. That is genuine

frontier governing, as far as I'm concerned. We know from a leaked

Treasury forecast, and the Chancellor George Osborne last year,

they estimated caching out of the EU on World Trade Organisation terms

would cost the UK 7.5% in lost GDP growth by 2030. The important thing

for me, what does this mean for our friends and neighbours who are EU

citizens in the UK? Loss of freedom of Europe with not despair when they

think the freedom of movement is crucial to the Green

Party international philosophy. It is pandering to the xenophobes in

the Tory government. And the Labour Party with the immigration control

Maxine. The UK has taken an unfortunate turn to the right.

Freedom of movement is fundamental. Not part of the Scotland we would

like to see. We know that applications are down to Scottish

universities. That is unfortunate, last year there was cross-party

consensus when I represented the group from the joint ministerial

team looking at the question posed visas. There was consensus. Liz

Smith from the Conservatives was helpful making representations to UK

level. Very unfortunate it is not only are these days. I thank him for

taking the intervention. Could you tell me if you think the First

Minister's priority is still education? I think the First

Minister will have to answer for the First Minister's priority. The

reality of the situation, there are the implications regarding research

funding, and the loss of valuable researchers. The Times higher

education paper talks about fantastic UK researchers heading for

Canada. The University of Waterloo recruiting UK academics will read

about the future. -- that I worried about the future. The University of

Waterloo is located close to the American border. A similar flow of

US academics are looking to move since Donald Trump came in. The

broader implications for research will have implications that climate

change and disease. We know that science is global. Many of the

leading programmes in which the UK are involving cannot be scaled down

to you national level. In these things, they should be the maximum

corporation. -- cooperation. I indeed hope we will hang around

for a vote, and a positive future. We know there are fears of EU

nationals leaving already. I know of one manager of a restaurant in

Inverness, a Polish gentleman, learning German, he sees his future

in Germany, not hanging around. We have a growing ageing population, we

need to celebrate that. The Highlands needs to import people. We

warmly welcome the first is the's invitation for people to come and

live in Scotland. Not how I keep things in the cold economics, but

people who have come on net contributors, and enriching our

country. The EU was set up with laudable aims, I think it would be

very disappointing if the fragmentation of the EU continues.

The time frame is right. The details of the negotiations will be known.

Scottish EU citizens can have their say. As Bruce Crawford say, -- said,

the people of Scotland are sobbing. There are two features, one is

uncertain, the bankers, and others benefiting from the inequality part

of the UK, and a chance to make a wrench races. In uncharted waters,

to make social and environment or just as the foundation stones of our

futures. Welcoming Scotland taking its place in the countless other

small independent nations of the world. Last week, the First Minister

gave up the pretence of being the First Minister for the whole of

Scotland. She revealed herself to be what we on the side of the chamber

have known her to be, leader of the SNP above all else, even above the

interests and wishes of Scots. Opinion polls have consistently

shown the support for separation has not changed since the EU referendum

last year. Poll after poll clearly showing that Scots do not want

another divisive referendum on whether we should remain part of the

United Kingdom. The first ministers should be getting on with important

business, improving public services. The temptation to have another go,

at breaking up Britain, has proven to be too great. Last week the

deputy residing officer, Scotland lost its government, but gained a

pressure group. Presiding officer, I got involved in politics for a whole

variety of reasons. I wanted to make my community a better place to live,

to make our schools and hospitals as good as they could possibly be. To

improve the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. To create

opportunities for people regardless of their background. I wanted to be

able to hand over our country to the next generation in a better state

than when I was born. It is clear that this nationalist First

Minister, these Nationalist MSP 's do not share my aspirations for our

country. We have been reminded to date and in the last few months that

the Nationalists got into politics for one reason and one reason only,

to tear Scotland out of the United Kingdom, to break up Britain.

Last week the First Minister went back on her word that the

independence referendum was a once in a generation event. She went back

on the Edinburgh agreement she signed promising to respect the

result for the 2014 referendum. She went back on her pledge she would

only call a second referendum if Scots clearly wanted one. Well Scots

clearly don't want to return to the division of the past. To propose

another referendum without strong evidence that a significant number

who voted no have changed their minds would be wrong and we don't do

it. Not my words, the words of the First Minister so I'd like to know

the basis on which she proposes a second referendum, despite what she

said in the past. She will have to rely on the support of the sixth

green MSPs elected on a manifesto which said that a second referendum

should happen and come about by the will of the people, not driven by

party political advantage. That's not a cast-iron mandate, it is a

weak and narrow-minded for string. Last week the First Minister's

speech was littered with incoherence. She said she wants to

compromise but has been working towards this moment since the

morning after the Brexit vote. She set out proposals but were

unworkable and not in the interests of Scotland. Even when the UK

Government has found common ground on important points like the rights

of EU nationals, workers' rights and cooperation over crime and

terrorism, the SNP failed to acknowledge this, ploughing on with

their grievance agenda. The First Minister repeated claims that

Holyrood may lose powers whilst the Prime Minister has guaranteed no

powers currently devolved will be taken to Westminster and Holyrood

will in fact gain more power is -- more powers post Brexit. I will not

take an intervention, when the First Minister stood in front of

journalists last week and refused to show respect of this Parliament and

took 22 westerns from members of the press and not one MSP... I will take

no interventions. These are powers over many areas like farming,

fishing, climate, education, business control and employment,

powers handed back to the UK and which the SNP want to hand straight

back to Brussels. My constituents on the borders voted overwhelmingly in

favour of the UK back in 2014 and I see no evidence they have changed

their minds. Indeed sense I get on the last few weeks and months is

that if anything they are moving towards a more firmly UK position.

The impact of leaving the UK would be hardest felt in my constituency

where people regularly travel and work south of the border. The

intention to be part of the EU internal market means a hard order

is inevitable, putting up barriers between us and our largest market

makes no sense and would be a disaster for businesses and

residents across the borders. My constituents want the SNP to focus

on getting the best deal for Scotland as we leave the EU but also

for the SNP to focus on the day job. Improving schools, supposedly the

SNP's number one priority, is needed in the borders more than anywhere

else. Teacher numbers have plummeted, teachers have been let

down by government obsessed with separation from the UK at any cost.

The SNP's record on health, policing, growth and employment are

poor but it is hardly surprising when everything they do was about

independence. The SNP is not Scotland, the country is not with

them, it's time they moved on to the things that mattered. Ruth Maguire.

The next two years are hugely important, they will determine what

kind of country Scotland will be. It's a privilege to contribute to

this historic debate on our country's future. In 2014 unionists

promised a no vote would deliver faster, better and safer change than

separation. The change has certainly been fast but it has neither been

safer nor better, and before things speed even more dangerously towards

a hard Brexit cliff edge, the people of Scotland must have the right to

choose a safer and better future. They can be no question that

Scotland should have a choice. The arguments of those who would deny

the people of Scotland that choice don't stand to scrutiny. We have

heard the decision made in 2014 was meant to settle the question for a

generation but democracy does not stand still and the UK, which that

generation was promised and voted for, no longer exists. The UK and

Scotland's place within it has fundamentally changed. The choice

facing us now is fundamentally different. The people of Scotland

should not be denied the right to make that choice. We've also heard

we have no mandate to give the people of Scotland a choice. Trading

mandates leaves the UK PM on shaky ground though I would say. In May

2016 the SNP won nearly 47% of the constituency vote, the highest share

of the vote in the history of devolution, the highest share in UK

terms in over half a century. The SNP won more seats in May than all

of the other parties combined. We were relaxed on a manifesto that

reserved the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant

and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014

such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. The

opposition might try to convince us we shouldn't honour the manifesto

commitment, they should know how absurd an argument that is. Last

week the Chancellor received a lesson on why reneging to the

electorate was a bad idea. His climb-down was a victory for common

sense and democracy. The SNP is a party that believes we should honour

our manifesto commitments and the First Minister believes relationship

with the Scottish people must be built on honouring our commitments

and that is why we will deliver on our manifesto commitments and give

the people of Scotland another choice about the future.

Circumstances which are fundamentally different to those

that prevailed in 2014. Lastly, and probably most disingenuously of all,

we have heard another referendum would divide our nation, tear

friends and families apart and lead to anxiety and fear. It will only be

that if we let it. It is incumbent on all SNP is not to feel feelings

of anxiety and division to further our own arguments but to lead by

example. Our communities in this chamber and online. I know there are

colleagues here who is deeply held views mean they will disagree with

loss macro with every fibre of their body and I defend their right to do

that but the existence of that disagreement is neither harmful

non-divisive. Political differences are healthy and normal, they are the

essence and lifeblood of democracy. There should be celebrated and not

feared. As this debate continues, all of us in this chamber have a

particular responsibility to lead by example in the language we use and

the way we conduct ourselves. As my colleague Bruce Crawford elegantly

laid out, leadership is needed. Our First Minister is leading by

example. At the SNP conference last weekend she implored us to argue

with "Passion and commitment yes, but at all times with courtesy,

understanding and respect". I will give way. Does the member therefore

agree with me it is pretty disrespectful to see another Cabinet

Secretary, Keith Brown, stand up and tell everyone in Scotland who

doesn't agree with the second referendum that they must be a Tory?

Ruth Maguire. Presiding Officer, I hope I have laid out in quite clear

language what I think would be an appropriate way to conduct ourselves

with. I hope that whatever our political differences, we can follow

the First Minister's example in setting the tone for the debate that

lies ahead, and language and tone are important. The world is

watching, Europe is watching and the people of Scotland are watching.

Let's have a debate respectfully and in the way we can all be proud of.

Douglas Ross. There has never been a political moment in my life when I

felt so relieved, elated and satisfied than when the returning

officer announced that 50% of the people in Murray have voted no to

independence. I will say at this point that in my first paragraph I

have mentioned the Murray constituency than the SNP members

did in his entire 15 minutes and he should feel ashamed. In September

2014, I felt relieved as a bitter, acrimonious and divisive referendum

was over. I felt elated because the result was correct in my eyes and I

felt satisfied as I knew we had a legally binding puzzles that both

sides would accept the matter was closed. Our once in a generation

result had been declared, and the result in Murray was replicated

across the Highland and Islands region I represent. In Argyll and

Bute 53 cents said no, in Shetland 63% said no... So why are we back

here again so quickly? The SNP will say it's because of Brexit. The

Nationalists can say that with a straight face despite the fact that

after the Brexit result was announced the First Minister was

telling the media she had instructed civil servants to draw up plans for

another referendum. They said if there were more SNP ministers

elected to Westminster, that would make the case for another referendum

or if tried and was renewed, basically anything they can hang

their hat on to call on all the referendum, they will use it. As

they said at the weekend, we will give folk another chance to answer

the question, correctly this time. We have already seen in just a week

how difficult the case was going to be for independence to be made.

Angus Robertson struggled, Ali Whiteford struggles... They couldn't

answer the most basic questions Scots want to know. It's clear that

Nationalists haven't been trying to strengthen their argument, simply

working on having the argument again. The SNP defence spokesman has

said they could build up a defence force from scratch. What does that

mean when the First Minister won't answer any questions on currency at

this time but it will become clear during any referendum campaign? I

think there's a number of questions the senior Tory ministers have not

been able to answer. David Davis in particular. Could the member

therefore set us straight today. Will UK citizens have the right to

healthcare on holiday in Europe? What will happen to the open skies

agreement? What about financial services and passporting rights? We

have had umpteen debate at the SNP's request and they put these questions

all the time. What I would like to focus on, if the SNP members will be

quiet to listen to an opposition view, I would like to focus on an

independence campaign you kicked off last week. That's what we are here

to discuss. But also in Europe, the SNP have had more positions on

Europe this week than the Greens have had manifesto U-turns and

that's saying something but what are they saying to people in Murray?

Communities who voted to remain part of the UK and leave the EU, when 49%

of people in Murray voted to leave the EU we know many of these votes

came from traditional fishing communities. How is the SNP mantra