22/03/2017 Scottish Parliament

suspended till further notice. OK. I believe that is a fair position

for everybody, because it gives the people the decision on the EU

membership as well as on the issue of independence. But for the record,

presiding officer, and I can't help but say this, particularly after Mr

Harvey's intervention, when it comes to the referendum on EU membership,

I find myself in a position where I found nor more appetising for, that

I would for it to be ruled by Mrs May, austerity from London and

austerity from Brussels, in my view, are equally damaging not just to

Scotland, but to the rest of the UK and indeed to the rest of Europe

There are big decisions to be made presiding officer. I believe if we

follow the three fundamentally democratic principles, we will be

living up to the vision and aspirations of this Parliament, and

we will earn the respect, we will all earn the respect of the Scottish

people if we conduct ourselves in a fair, transparent and democratic

manner. Thank you. . Thank you. As we set off on day two, I want to

start at the core. The fundmental difference between these benches and

the Government, our politics will seek to unite not separate people.

To heal, to pool sovereignty individually and collectively. The

SNP will look to separate this country and divide this nation.

I heard the Cabinet secretary talk of Brexit. Of course she is right.

Brexit is causing division, uncertainty. Anxiety and economic

damage. The solution is further uncertainty and greater economic

damage, is all the SNP's. The First Minister found her demands on a

manifesto commitment. That argument might carry some force if SNP

manifestos had not had the quality of letters in the sand. Fleetingly

glimpsed and washed away by the tide of its expend yen sip. Remember

establish student debt. Maintain teacher number, build the Glasgow

airport rail link and establish the council tax. All cast iron

commitments, and all is as disposal as well, disposal as a Scottish

Green Party election promise. No more and no more convincing, no more

convincing from this First Minister is her solemn plea that the

Parliament be respected. She herself has refused to do that cynically and

systemically. She had no answer yesterday when confronted with her

own contempt for Parliament, on frack, Health Services or education.

And when it came to the First Minister's argument for another

referendum, she announced it not here, but in her residence. She

elaborated it to her party conference, and she defended it in

any TV studio she could find before she ersaw fit to bring it here, to

this Parliament. Nor has she had the grace to acknowledge that she has

failed this Parliament. Last year, we mandated her, the First Minister,

with negotiating a way in which Scotland could maintain as many of

the advantages of the EU as possible, within the United Kingdom.

Now I accept that the Prime Minister has been utterly inept in her

response. But isn't the truth that whatever careful quiet negotiation

the ever concern you'll Mike Russell has, has been drown out by the First

Minister Easdalely megaphone diplomacy of indie ref two threats.

Nicola Sturgeon's referendum demand is an admission she has been found

wanting, the task this Parliament gave her last year, or worse it has

been a confession that the will of Parliament to find that compromise

was never more than a useful fig leaf in her indiref quest. Mr Grey's

acknowledged that Theresa May's inept. What's Labour Party's

response to that? The problem, the problem that we have, the conundrum

we must answer is not the Labour's, it is the Scottish people's. Because

it St the Scottish people who are caught between two intransigent

belligerent and inept Governments, they are not listening to each

other, and they are certainly not listening to the people. Those are

the people... I am grateful to Mr Grey for giving away. Mr Whiteman

asked a question about what the Labour Party's answer was, to that

conundrum, can we hear it please? Iain Gray, please. Please. Our

position is clearly that it is possible to create, it is possible

to create a much more federal United Kingdom which far better meets the

needs of the people across this nation. I said, said the two

Governments we are are not listening to each other, Mr Swinney makes it

clear take, are not listening to anybody else either. The First

Minister told the Scottish people that her defining Mags, her top

priority, her sacred responsibility was education. But our defining

mission is, was and always shall be independence. In 2007, independence

was our mission, we had a national conversation, a White Paper paper on

independence and another White Paper on an independent referendum. In

2011, independence was their mission, we had negotiations on an

independence referendum, and agreement on an independence

referendum, a section 30 order on an independence referendum, an

independence referendum franchise act, an independence White Paper and

the referendum itself. And this Parliament is not a year old, and we

have had national survey on independence, a draft independence

Referendum Bill, an independence growth commission, and now a section

30 demand. Presiding officer, this is not a two day debate, it has

raged and ravaged this country, for the three-and-a-half thousand days

of ten long years. And in that time, our schools have haemorrhaged

teacher, child provety -- poverty has soared. Literacy and numeracy

has plummeted. The NHS has reached breaking point, the economy has

stalled. And yet after ten year, there are still no answers, on the

big questions of currency, the EU trade terms, borders and the cuts

independence would require. The First Minister say, the people's

voice must be heard. She has conversed with them, consulted them

and asked them a once in a lifetime question, they gave their answer and

it was no. Now the people are saying enough is enough. Time to stop the

campaign, not restart it. To heel the wounds, not re-open them. Listen

to them First Minister. For the love of Scotland, listen to them. Thank

you very much. Much has been made in the earlier debate across both days

of who holds a mandate, given our nation has been dragged out of the

European Union against our will. Who holds the constitutional mandate if

Scotland faces a hard Brexit we did not choose with all the ensues risk

and damages that will bring. For clarity, let us be clear, the 2006

election manifesto stated we believe the Scottish Parliament should have

the right to hold another fund if will is a significant change in

circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland been taken

out of the EU against our will. The SNP won that election with 46.5% of

the popular vote and there has been a significant and material change in

circumstances, the Scotland have been dragged out testify EU against

our will with 62% expressing a wish to remain in Europe. That is the

context of this debate. Contrast that 46.5 of the popular vote and

reference to a future independence referendum, with the votes polled by

the second and third parties in the Scottish Parliament, they polled

little more than 22% of the vote each, combined, that is still less

than the Scottish share of the popular vote for this place. Yet

over both days we had opposition MSP after opposition MSP lecturing and

condemning the Scottish Government for applied a mandate. Not a mandate

for independence but rather a mandate to ensure the people of

Scotland, I would be delighted to. Can he tell us if any poll since

last year has shown a majority of Scottish people in favour of a

second independence referendum? But even clearer answer is the ballot

box Mr Kelly, OK O I have to say to Mr Kelly, what an of front to

democracy has been demonstrated by opposition parties here. Let us

compare the clear manifesto commitment and the sett evident

mandate of the Scottish Government with 46.5% of the Scottish vote with

previous UK governance. I don't recall a 2001 mandate under Tony

Blair. They got 43% of the Scottish vote, or 1987, a Tory mandate to

govern Scotland with 24% of the vote. Yet, the savage our

communities with the poll tax. How about more recently in 2010? With a

paltry 16.7%, the Tories got in Scotland and they brought the

despised bedroom tax and austerity to our country, presiding officer,

where is the mandate there? Answer that question. Opposition parties,

they do not have it. So let us take no lessons from

opposition parties and mandate, our Scottish Government simply asks to

afford the Scottish people the right to make an informed choice between a

hard Brexit Britain or a modern independent, sorry I don't have

time, my apology, that is all the choice they are asking for, I can

think of nothing more divisive in Scotland than for Labour, and the

Conservatives to tell the people of Scotland, irspecktive of whether a

person supporting independence o ordown you that Labour and Tory know

best, they are so convinced they won't allow the people of Scotland

to have their say. The most divisive thing that the political classes can

do, in any democracy, is to deny the people a vote in their own self

determination, that is precisely what the UK Tory Government is

seeking to do to Scotland. I believe one of the most stiff can't aspects

of the debate over the mandate to hold an independence referendum is

the first, is in the first place, is the growing really says noer what

what Scotland's Parliament decides, any Scottish Government of any given

party colour, we need to go cap in handtor, a right-wing UK Tory

Government, to ask for permission in the first place, presiding officer,

that might be the legal position, but it is is a democratic outrage.

I want, sorry apologise, no, I want to comment briefly on the remerging

project between the Conservatives and the Labour Party. In particular

with the reference to my local area, let me tell you about 2 Project Fear

alliance meant in my constituency of Maryhill, in the Labour Party should

really listen to this. It meant that three different worried individuals

turning up at the yes hub, in Glasgow, in my constituency,

complaining the Labour Party were targeting the doors of pensioners in

the area. Telling them that their pensions would stop not after

independence but the day after a yes vote itself. The lies, the fears and

the smears should have no place in any future Scottish referendum

campaign. APPLAUSE

I was delighted my constituency voted 57% for Scottish independence.

I want to place on record my thanks to the hundreds of volunteers who

are such an inspiration and positive yes Scotland preference, I want to

return finally to the theme of division, and in doing so I want to

repeat some of the comment I made in the Scottish Parliament debate on

24th September 2014. I spoke of the Friday morning after the referendum

result had become clear. I received a text from my sister, that I wanted

to share with the Parliament on that afternoon. For context Emily my

niece was nine and my sister's older daughter Beth was 14.

Here is what I said. Amelie just woke up.

Her first two Wordsworth, Emily, independence? No, darling. Is it

not? That was the reply. I did not realise that was a matter for

laughing, but I think the people of Scotland judge you on that. I just

found out my oldest daughter joined the SNP and plays ?2 for the

privilege. Well done Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire. View all worked

extremely hard. That was my hometown. My sister went on, even my

mum voted, and she is very frail. In his slippers, I was very proud of

her. We are all very proud in this household. My mum has since passed

away. I was proud of what she did that day. It made me criteria is of

pride. Not tears of despair. My nieces, my sister, my frail mother,

who has now sadly passed away, they were not driven by conflict and

division. They simply wanted a better future for their family. For

their community, and their country. So how dare Ian Grey come to this

place and talk about sowing the seeds of division? And how der

people talk about Nazi nationalism? The vast majority of people on both

sides of the constitutional debate -- nasty nationalism. People on both

sides of the constitutional debate won the best for their country.

Presiding Officer, let me finish by saying, I want an independent

Scotland. I should not tell people they should not have a vote. Let the

people decide. Please close. Please sit down. I notice the last two

speakers have gone well over. Can I ask people to stick to six minutes,

and may I also request those in the public gallery to please refrain

from clapping or otherwise in relation to any of the speeches.

Thank you. Joan McAlpine. Rise to keep my president to the

residents who sent me here. This debate is about holding another

referendum, but it serves as a proxy and has many times for the wider

discussion about our continuing place in the United Kingdom. These

islands run through May, from the Greater London Newtown my birth to

the hilltops of Wales where we scattered my grandfather. I will not

give way. No such courtesy was afforded to me yesterday and I will

not do it this time. I will not take an intervention. I have no time. My

children, born here in Edinburgh to a Scottish mother and to the distant

memories of my family origins in Enniskillen, these islands run

through me. I could not act to see the dissolution of their unity by

referendum any more than my colleagues could act to see a

referendum on EU withdrawal. In five years of coalition government, I see

no inconsistency in that position. There has been much talk of mandate

in this debate. I have my mandate. I stood for election on a commitment

to oppose a second referendum in exactly these circumstances. I have

my instructions. I have said I will not take an intervention. We live in

a time of political chaos, and the wheel has turned in ways we never

even thought possible, and yet we still have revolutions to come. At

times like this, I can only hold onto what I feel in my heart. To my

bones, I am an internationalist. I feel the political union of nations

does today lead the integrity or independence, or the strength, the

member states that form part of it. Any more than an orchestra

diminishes the violin. Because such unions forced a platform from which

solidarity, shared endeavour and prosperity can flourish. We have

heard many times in this debate the rancour and division of the past,

and I would put that behind us. But we have so much in this union to be

grateful for. I am a European Union... Passionate European, and I

am bitterly devastated by Brexit, but I realise that I may have to

campaign for the rest of my life to see closer integration to the eye to

kingdom... The chamber should remain in

lockdown. I think as most colleagues will realise, a number of Right

honourable and honourable members are also in other parts of the

estate, and for obvious reasons, are unable to be present for business.

There have been conversations through the usual channels. I hope

the house would agree that in the current circumstances, it would not

be right to continue with today's business. Discussions between the

usual channels will take place to ensure that the business that has

been interrupted can be rescheduled for another mutually convenient

date, and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will want to keep the

house, although we remain locked down here, informed about any news

that comes through from the security authorities, but in view of what I

sense to be removed of the house and the situation in which we find

ourselves, I beg to move that the house do now adjourn.

The question is, this has now adjourn. As many agree, say I? The

ayes have it. I will say, as soon as I get any information, I will share

it. We will keep you informed, so please, let's just make the best we

can have this horrible situation. But I will reassure you as soon as I

get something, I will come back to you. We can't go anywhere for the

moment, so for the moment, let's see what we can do.

The Empire has created a brutal, at times difficult period for us to go

forward in. Will the member taken intervention?

I will. What does the member see as the

future of the Liberal Democrats within the relationship with Europe,

and how does the members see Scotland prospering as part of our

friendship and gathering together? Alex Cole-Hamilton. I appreciate the

intervention. Our history together as a united family of nations is

incredibly important to the way in which this world reflects that

this... No, no, no, it is fine. I know, I know.

You are in your last minute, Mr Cole-Hamilton. So, these islands run

through me. Their history inspires me but also haunts me, and I

recognise that there are times in a parliamentarian's career that he

makes speeches he wishes he had not tried to learn off pat and had

actually brought with him into the chamber. But I reflect on this union

of nations, and that might ancestor, Arthur Cole-Hamilton, first of my

name, who was MP for Tyrone at the time of Wilberforce, so great things

happen in terms of the awakening of an entire nation. ... So I believe

we have so much to fight for in terms of this United Kingdom, and I

absolutely feel that I should discharge my mandate and vote

against this referendum. Thank you very much.

Before you begin, Miss McAlpine, there is something I would like to

say to members. Some members may already be aware, but I want to make

sure that all members are informed, so I wish to inform you that there

are reports of an incident at Westminster. Details are still

emerging, and the parliamentary authorities are currently liaising

with Police Scotland and keeping security under review at Holyrood.

We will update members once we have a clearer picture. Can I have Joan

McAlpine? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sure the thoughts of

everyone here are with anyone affected by that incident at

Westminster. It is bittersweet that in the week celebrating the Treaty

of Rome, we stand here debating Scotland's future as a European

nation. It is right we should praise the common values we share with our

European neighbours, solidarity, cooperation and multilateral as, and

as we speak about trying to preserve what we have, Europe is having a

conversation about the future, about how to tackle the big issues from

climate change and the environment to the challenges created Trump and

the West and Putin in the east. To paraphrase Donald Tusk, residents of

the European council, never has it been so clear that by working

together with our European allies can we be fully independent. But no

matter how important this is, this is about to Moxey. In a successful

union, one partner does not ride roughshod over the other's wishes.

-- about democracy. The great kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland has never been made of one nation. It is a set of unions

between nations based in theory upon common interest and outlook. This

theory is now being tested and I would argue it is being found

wanting. The EU referendum result was challenging, but it is the

aftermath that is more revealing. The differences of opinion within

the UK should have been accommodated, but when compromise

and collaboration was needed, only one side stepped up to the plate.

The government of Scotland has not only spoken for those who voted

remain-macro, but has also put forward a constructor plan to

represent all of Scotland including those who voted to leave the EU, but

crucially, not the single market. Scotland's place in Europe is a

serious and credible compromise, and the paper was built upon the

expertise of a standing council, which was made up of independent

experts and a range of political views. Remember, the aim of

producing some form of bespoke solution was supported by more than

just the SNP. Support for a bespoke proposal came from a majority of the

culture, tourism and external relations committee of this

Parliament. Perhaps more importantly even than that was that irrespective

of the detail of the proposal, that committee agreed that the UK must

consider the ideas contained within Scotland's place in Europe and

respond. To be clear, and answer should not be delivered via the

media, nor a speech to the public, but by a direct response to the

Scottish Government. So far, this has not been delivered. In fact, the

UK Government's most important statement to date has been their

announcement for the EU to leave the single market, which was made two

days before the GMC had the chance to consider Scotland's place in

Europe, and its first proposal that the whole of the UK should remain in

the single market. Although it has now been publicly announced that the

article 50 letter will be submitted on March 29, the Scottish Government

received no indication of what is in that letter. The shortcomings of the

GMC are obvious to all. The it has even failed to meet the

terms, its own terms of reference, which are to seek to agree a UK

approach to the Article 15 negotiations.

The reluctance to engage is even more office rating since there is

clearly a will in Europe to address this issue.

The Constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament has noted

that the EU should prepare to address the questions raised in the

Scottish Government's compromise proposal. However, the UK represents

cars in the EU and must deliver for Scotland by putting forward such a

request. If the UK refuses to put Scotland's case to the EU in that

letter and subsequent negotiations, then we are powerless. Do we just

sit back and see what is coming or do we prepare to make a choice? The

article 50 letter should include a demand to negotiate a differentiated

settlement for Scotland. One that will allow Scotland to continue the

benefits of the European single market, in addition to, not instead

of, free trade across the UK. This could be done, but I am not holding

my breath. We are here today because the people of Scotland should begin

any choice. This Parliament has a clear mandate to deliver that to

them through a referendum that will allow them to choose what kind of

society they want to live in. The bottom line is simple: Scotland's

future should be in Scotland's hands, and nobody should seek to

prevent that. Thank you. Can I have Annie Wells, to be followed by

George Adam. Thank you. I would just like to

reiterate the sentiments of Joan McAlpine. I'm sure our thoughts are

with everyone down in Westminster today. Here we are less than three

years from the once in a generation referendum vote, and once again, I

will defend my nation with my heart and soul, as I did in the last vote

in 2014. It was during the referendum that my political fire

was lit. I know there are many people like me who thought, it is

OK, someone else will fight this battle. We needed more, and they

battle it was. I did not expect that only 917 days since we last voted, I

would be standing in this Parliament, representing the

2,001,926 people who voted No. I am a Democrat, and I believe that we

should respect the vote of the Scottish and British public. That is

why, although I campaigned and voted to remain in the EU, I absolutely

respect the votes of the 17 million people who voted to leave. I will

not be taking an intervention. I know we have heard from the SNP

benches during this debate that Scotland has been dragged, Paul,

forced to leave the EU against our well. Well, we are the Scottish

people who voted no in 2014, and we are very much aware there was going

to be a referendum It was in the White Paper on the

consequences of voting no, no, I won't, thank you. Alsos a astound me

that we heard not once but twice from the film of Scotland, once in

her conference speech in 2015 and during her Scottish Parliament

election campaign there should be no second referendum until to 2021

unless there is evidence people want it. Even Job Swinney said it would

have been strong an consistent evidence that voters support

independence, and Stewart Hosie said a second round would have to be

until polling showed an overwhelming majority in support of holding

another referendum for three year, Deputy Presiding Officer, we know

that is not the case. With poll after poll showing no shift in

momentum for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, presiding officer,

this isn't Scotland's choice, so ironically titled by the Scottish

Government, this is Nicola's choice. I have been on the doors and I have

spoken to voters in Glasgow, I won't be taking any interventionion, I

will do what the minister who is responsibility it is for to secure

Scotland's place in leaving Europe and won't take any today, thank you.

I was at the door in the East End of Glasgow only a month ago. I remember

saying to someone on my team, I was at that door last year and the guy

was SNP, but as you do, you just go and you do it any way. When the

gentleman opened the door he said, I remember you from last year Scottish

Parliament elections when you were here, I told you I was SNP. So I

asked what about now? He said well I will be voting for you guys this

time. And only Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives can sort this

mess out. Not my words but a words of a Scottish constituent of mine.

People are starting to get tired with the SNP. How many times have we

heard it uttered that the SNP led Scottish Government needs to return

to its day job. How many times have people brought up the need to

concentrate on the issues affecting peep's every day lives just as

health, education. Do you know what, berate us all you like but public

polls are for us, a survey this week showed Scotland put's Theresa May's

approval rating 6% higher than Scotland's First Minister. So how

can the Scottish Government speak so confidently about having theman date

of the Scottish people. It doesn't. Presiding officer I would also make

a comment with regards to the Scottish Green Party's manifesto.

Regarding a second independence referendum. Which Scotland's First

Minister. So how can the Scottish Government speak so confidently

about having theman date of the Scottish people. It doesn't.

Presiding officer I would also make a comment with regards to the

Scottish Green Party's manifesto. Regarding a second independence

referendum. Which states and I quote "An assessing is public appetite for

second referendum would respect, a call for referendum, signed up to

buy a million people. Deputy presighing is officer myself and my

colleague have found no evidence of such a list, the retort that 62% of

Scottish people voted to stay in the UK does not equate by default, to

62% of Scotland's people wanting to leave the UK.

I am, no I won't. I am in this 62% for a start. As are a number of of

Scots who when push comes to shof would choose the UK every time. Does

his argument have any ten built when the Scottish Government can't make a

plan for leaving the UK? I would like to remind him of his TV

comment, the comments on 10th October 2015. That the public be

responsible for calling a second referendum, not political party,

carving a deal behind closed doors, so will the greens keep their

promiso is this door firmly shut on them and the SNP? To finish today I

would like to ask the SNP if they plans to debate two days of

Parliament time to tackle the crisis in lick service, there there be two

days to tackle failing education standards which Nicola Sturgeon says

is he top -- priority. Or waiting times in hospital, will there be two

days of time trying to find solutions to the problems... The

time for a second independence referendum is not now.

Please sit down. Point of order. Murdo Fraser. I think members are

distracted by the news that has come from Westminster of the violent

attack that appears to occurred there. Has in light of these

circumstances the presiding officer and the business managers considered

whether it might be more appropriate for this debate to be suspended

until the picture became clear and alallow members to concentrate on

the business in hand. That as been considered, and it has

been decided to carry on with business as usual.

Thank you. Now, I am confused. George Adam, to

be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you presiding officer I am

delighted to speak in this debate today, as this is not just a debate

about what is best for Scotland moving forward but a debate about

the democratic rights of our people. We haven willed to the same

arguments time and time again from the opposition benches so I feel it

is important to stress that the main point at the very heart of this

debate, is the right of the Scottish people to choose their future. This

debate is not about our personal or political view, this is about the

public and the rights of our nation. Today I am not here to be a staunch

advocate for independence, no matter how much I may want to be, today I

stand before you as an advocate for choice, as Parliamentarians elected

to represent the people of our constituencies and give every day

public a voice we must be advocates for that choice, despite our

differing opinions about how we wish to see Scotland move forward we must

allow the people to decide and give them the power to enact the changes

they wish to see. 2014 many people voted no because they felt hesitant

at the idea of change. That is an understandable position. Now we are

in a vastly different situation, change is inevitable. It should be

up to the people of Scotland to decide what that change will be.

Once the terms of Brexit are known. The ramification of the decisions we

make today, tomorrow, and in the years to come, will have a lasting

effect on the lives and opportunity of our children, grandchildren,

future generations in Scotland. We therefore must allow our people to

make these decisions. These decisions should not be made by

Westminster Parliament, at the moment we have a Prime Minister and

party at the helm who have never thought of Scotland as their equal.

Take what happened in Monday as an example. Our Government only found

that Article 50 will be triggered next Wednesday after watching the

news, if they can't pick up a phone to inform us, how can we trust them

to look for Scotland's interests in a post-Brexit world? The very real

concern for me and many Scots is the prospects of a right-wing Tory

Government until at least 2030 and being dragged out testify EU and a

single market against our will. Why would we seek to deny the public the

ability to choose a different option. We cannot and must no bury

our heads in the sand. Is Scotland must be offered a choice between a

hard Brexit and a more progressive future. I trust the people of

Scotland to make that choice. I believe the detailed arrangement for

a detail, should be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish

Parliament alone. The Prime Minister's blatant disregard of

Scotland during the negotiations and a flippant now is not the time only

demonstrates our voice and interests can be ignored at any time. The

Prime Minister's response to the first minister's announcement o now

is not the time shows she does not listen to Scotland but she is happy

to admonish us like unruly children. We have a choice between a hard

Brexit or take the opportunity to choose our own path, when the terms

of Brexit are known, while there is an opportunity to change that

course, the Prime Minister has been clear that in the Prime Minister's

concern of the timing, within reason she is happy to have that

discussion. Time and again the Scottish Government have been

willing to discuss alternative options and offered a compromise

which would mean Scotland leaving the EU if we could say in the single

market. But unfortunately, the UK Government has refused to listen to

this compromise. 2014, the people of Scotland were promised a vote, no,

would secure their EU membership and in 2016, 62% of Scots voted Remain.

This is why we will not allow a hard Brexit to be forced on Scotland

against our will. The only way to avoid this is to give our people a

choice. In the cold light of day the harsh truth is the cost and

effective of a hard Brexit will be immense, we could hose 80,000 jobs

as a result. Let us think about that number for a minute. 80,000 jobs

across the country could be lost as a result of Westminster's desire for

a hard Brexit. That is over 1,000 jobs in my constituency alone. I

don't know about you but the thought of 1,000 hard-working Paisley

buddies losing their job is not the future I want for Scotland. Now is

the time to offer our nation a chance to escape a hard Brexit, and

unending Tory austerity. No is the time to give the people of

Scotland an alternative. No problem. Job losses and austerity, but what

would the cost be of closing the ?15 billion deficit and what would the

cost be of harden, trading with our trading partner with four times the

rest of Europe. The member is obviously not listening to the

actual point of my speech which is effectively saying we are asking the

people of Scotland to make that choice, these are 80,000 jobs that

will be taken away from Scotland. This is about us making the choice

and moving forward. The member needs to take that in mind. It is not

about our personality, politics, it is about Scotland's future and

Scotland's choices, so presiding officer, now is the time to give the

people of Scotland an alternative but above all, above political and

personal views now is the time to be advocates for democracy and choice,

and allow the people of Scotland to decide for themselves what is sort

of country they want to be in and what kind of future they want.

APPLAUSE I call Jackie Baillie to be followed

by Alexander Burnett. Thank you, as has been said by many members, it

is, has only been two-and-a-half years since the last independence

referendum. At that time, we were prom itsed it was a once in a

generation event, and clearly for the First Minister, a generation is

barely five minutes. So that is a promise broken. Can I observer

having shadowed Nicola Sturgeon for a period of time when she was Health

Minister, I can tell the chamber what she means when she talks about

compromise. Compromise isn't meeting in the middle. It isn't listening to

each other's point of view and it isn't even about trying to find

common ground, and believe me I tried. In the First Minister's world

come pro-Mize means you just need to completely agree with her. So when

the First Minister talks about compromise, you understand that what

she really means is it is my way or no way at all.

A lot has been said -- absolutely. Would the member appreciate that the

proposals in Scotland's place if Europe was for single market

membership, which many people on the Leave side thought was correct, and

this Parliament voted for in a consensual debate which took the

Labour Party with it. I understand exactly how the First Minister

operates, and day after day, we have had demand after demand, position

changed after position changed. That is no way to engage in a negotiation

to be frank. A lot has been said about a cast Ironman date. But don't

reason to listen to what I have to say about it. In the words of Jim

sill her today's SNP Government did not win a majority, nor has it a

mandate because it did not ask for one, no amount ofs of Ching changes

the political weakness of the 2016 election result. He is so right. It

was in part tied to the EU, the reality is Scotland will be outside

the EU whether or not it votes for independence.

The SNP's ambition is to be a long way short of EU membership, if they

were being honest, they would tell you that they don't actually want

full membership of the EU. Just look at the changes to their position in

the last week alone, I remember the EU referendum well, in my local area

the SNP were notable by their absence, nowhere to be seen on the

streets or campaigning as one member told me they didn't want Brussels

rule, just as they didn't want London rule so they didn't care

less, members will know I hang on Nicola Sturgeon evesry word. But she

was very clear, there would be a triple lock against independence, it

neat needed to be in the manifesto and people had to vote for the

manifesto for getting a vote on independence. But the majority of

people in Scotland didn't do so. They didn't back the SNP

, and with the majority of people in Scotland saying they don't want a

referendum any time soon, the First Minister is in danger of doing a

David Cameron, leading the country into another referendum it does not

want, simply to satisfy the party activists. So I will vote against a

second referendum today, and there is much made of respecting the will

of Parliament, but only when it suits the SNP. They just ignore

votes on the Vale of leave and maternity unit, the Inverclyde

maternity unit, the children's ward at the Royal Islands and the

hospital, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, The Scottish Funding

Council, their abysmal record in education, the offensive behaviour

in football act, and the list goes on. Democracy only happens when it

is convenient for the SNP. I now want to focus on the economy,

because I think that is the biggest single challenge facing the country.

Of course, there are economic consequences from Brexit, hard or

soft. But they absolutely pale into comparison with the economic

consequences of independence. Indeed, there are economic

consequences of simply having a referendum. The Scottish economy is

fragile. Growth is down and revised downward still. Employment is down,

and the numbers of people economic week in active and growing. Against

virtually every economic measure, we underperformed the rest of the UK.

We must clearly do better in domestic policy in any event, but

before the referendum, the price of oil per barrel was $113. Now, it is

around $50 a barrel. Central to the SNP's independence white paper, it

was then only considered by the SNP to be a bonus. But we know just how

central it is to the Scottish economy, never mind the economy of

the north-east. Now, the SNP talk about how important the EU is as an

export market for Scotland, and yes, it is. But they neglected to tell

you that Scotland exports four times that amount to the rest of the UK.

Our biggest single market, our biggest trading partner, that we

would be cut off from in the event of independence. I am running out of

time. Just think what that would also do for key sectors of our

economy, and if you needed any further convincing, you only need to

look this morning at the economic commentary. The backdrop is that

economic growth has been slow. GDP is only 2% higher in the last

decade, and incomes of many households remain worse off. And

Brexit and a second independence referendum, they say, and I quote,

the current level of uncertainty is unprecedented. It is also different

from normal in that debates around Brexit and a possible further

independence referendum can serve the fundamental basis on which the

Scottish economy has grown and developed over the last 40 years.

Are we seriously wanting to tear apart for two years of progress?

Residing officer, a second independence referendum does cause

huge uncertainty, businesses tell us so, economists tell us so, investors

tell us so. It would be economic vandalism on a huge scale, and I

implore the government, please stop posturing. Get on with your day job.

I call Alexandra Burn it, to be followed by Kate Forbes. --

Alexander Burnett. Thank you. Today, we could be debating our

crippling NHS service, our failing NHS system, or our lining Scottish

economy, or any of the other achievements of a decade of SNP

rule. This morning, I was contacted by parents concerned with the

closure of their nursery. But here we are again, debating a

constitutional question we have already answered. But times have

changed, cry the SNP. We didn't know about the EU vote in 2014, they say.

And so we come to the first of many uncomfortable truths the SNP face.

On page 279 of their white paper, it says Scotland faces the possibility

of leaving the EU, because of Westminster's planned in/out

referendum. So despite their protestations, they did know about

the possibility of Brexit. Now, the supposed material changes that we

have left the European Union, but if that is the case, then it is only

thanks to the SNP. Not only did they spend less money campaigning and

Brexit than their Glenrothes by-election, but hundreds of

thousands of their own supporters voted to leave. And this is the

second unfortunate truth of the SNP, as they try to appeal to Remain

voters. They are more Eurosceptic than anyone in our Scottish

Conservative Party, both north and south of the border. Opposition

parties call us the League party, but Labour would the largest Leave

party in Scotland. The Conservative Party has done nothing more than

facilitate Labour and SNP support of their democratic right, and we will

respect their wish to leave Europe. I thank the member for giving way.

Would he at least except the timing of the Brexit referendum was wrong?

Because it was immediately after this Parliament's elections and

others, and that prevented all of us in all of the parties really getting

involved. I don't agree with that point, I'm

afraid. But back to 2014. My electoral region, Aberdeenshire,

voted overwhelmingly to stay in the UK. Also by a majority of the 60%.

So is their vote somehow considered different to when Scotland voted on

Brexit? Will the First Minister guarantee that in her referendum,

Aberdeenshire and 27 other regions will not be taken out of the UK

against their will by Glasgow and Dundee U macro -- Dundee?

Thank you very much. Mr Burnett, Alex Bernard stood at the 2015

general election on a manifesto that included safeguarding British

interest in the single market, we say Yes to the single market, we

benefit from the single market, and want to preserve the integrity of

the single market, we even want to expand the single market. How is it

going? I'm very optimistic it will go as well as it will. Since then,

we have had a referendum, and the people have spoken, and now the

government of Westminster have two deliberate. But what about another

uncomfortable truth, the value of our oil? In 2013, we were told it

would fund the SNP's obsession, with Alex Salmond predicting $150 a

barrel. Now he says Scotland only needs oil prices to be at 60, yet

today, it sits at 51, a price decided by a group of countries in

the Middle East. Is this what the SNP mean by taking back control? The

fact is that the economic argument was lost with even $100 a barrel.

The subsequent collapse in revenues would have been disastrous for an

independent Scotland had we voted Yes in 2014. And the SNP should

realise that this relentless talk of another referendum will only lead to

more job cuts and threaten investment in the North Sea. Not my

words, but those of respected global energy analyst would McKenzie last

Friday. So would the SNP give up the broad shoulders of the UK, that

supports our industry with a city deal, ?2.3 billion of fiscal reform,

and the highest tax cuts ever seen? The SNP would like us to believe

that this is an unpleasant and unneeded union. They say, stop the

world, Scotland wants to get on. But I say to them, we are already on,

and that what we have achieved together, ending slavery, fascism,

dictatorships. They forget that Britain was called the workshop of

the world, from the Industrial Revolution to the internet, and

everything in between. Our shared inventiveness has changed the world

over and over again for the better. Claire Adamson. I hear what the

member is saying, but given that we are living under austerity, people

are being left destitute by the Tory government, viewers broad shoulders

not seem just a little bit slow P? -- do those broad shoulders not seem

just a little bit sloping? I note the comment. I think it's the people

of and they have wanted, if they have wanted ten years of austerity,

then austerity Max is what they will get with another referendum. So why

let the facts get in the way of a good grievance? Or if one

commentator put it, if the SNP won the lottery, they would moan about

the price of a ticket. However, it is not up to the SNP when we have

referendums. They are not Scotland, they have no majority and no

mandate. The only reason they will get this to Parliament tonight is

down to the Greens, party which collectively. Leicester constituency

votes than I did in Aberdeenshire West. Another party with no mandate

for a referendum that will blindly follow the SNP were directed. So

will they be happy to see the end of renewable energy subsidies, funded

by consumers across the UK? Come to a close, please. Will John

Finnie be happy to see the end of CFTs for the islands and their

wings? Will Allison Johnson be happy to see

the end of the Barnett Formula? Will Andy Wightman be happy to give up on

localism? You must come to a close, please.

Joining the euro when sending control of our economy to Brussels.

You must come to a close, please. Will ever gain their voters' trust

again, or are they still an million miles from credibility? Thank you.

Can I say, when members go far over there speaking times, it

disadvantages other members. Kate Forbes, to be followed by

Johann Lamont, please. Thank you. My comments this

afternoon are drawn from conversations with family members,

friends, neighbours, and even if you taxi drivers. Why? Well, in the

words of the former president of the Czech Republic, genuine politics,

politics worthy of the name, and the only politics I am willing to devote

myself to is simply a matter of serving those around us. Serving the

community and serving those who come after us. The deepest roots are

moral, because it is a moral responsibility. And residing

officer, this responsibility weighs heavily on me, and I know that it

weighs heavily on my colleagues on all sides of this chamber, and yet,

despite what I believe is our common purpose to serve, there are

differences of opinion in this chamber and beyond this chamber. It

is a privilege to engage... Sorry to interrupt, I gather you have just

started, but members will be aware, and members of the public too will

also be aware from social media and other news reports that they are

following on their phones that there has been a serious incident at

Westminster, and Westminster itself has been locked down because of

security concerns. Now, there is no reason, and I have

no wish to cause undue alarm here, and security has been increased

here, but I am also aware, and we have discussed, that the fact that

our sister Parliament has had a serious incident is affecting this

particular debate, and is affecting the contribution of members, and so

it is for that reason we are deciding to suspend the sitting. We

will find time to resume this debate and have... Thank you. We will

resume this debate and we will be able to do so in a full and frank

manner, but I think to continue at the moment would not allow members

to make their contributions in the manner they wish to, so on that

note, I am going to suspend debate, and we will circulate information to

members about when chamber and business will be resumed. Thank you

very much. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to

have you here. I will ask the first question. First of all, welcome to

your new job. You bring extensive experience from the Foreign Office,

but you