28/03/2017 Scottish Parliament

live coverage of the Commons on the red button service or on our

website/ parliaments. It is worth in our sadness last week

we were reminded of the common humanity and core values that unite

us. We came together to proclaim our commitment to that most cherished

principle of all democracy. The debate today at its heart is about

democracy. It is about the right of people in Scotland to choose a

future end in itself it is a demonstration of democracy in

action. Views expressed through Rome last and sometimes very robust

discussions. Ours is a privileged position and we all have a

responsibility to rise to it. It is the example we set here in this

chamber that many others will follow. Let us make sure that it is

the right one. Let us recognise and accept that we all sincere in the

opinion is that we hold. Let us remind ourselves that the person on

the other side of the debate is not an enemy but somebody with a

different but valid point of view. None of us come to the debate other

than the best of intentions and the best of motivations. We all want the

best for Scotland, as we resume the debate today C the words of the

Church of Scotland when it tells us there is nothing inevitable about

this debate or another debate being divisive. That depends on how we

choose to conduct it, not just today but in the months that lie ahead.

The church called for a debate which informs and inspires and not one

which derives and dismisses. That should be the emission of all of us.

My resolve in seeking to lead by example is to conduct myself in a

spirit of openness, respect and understanding and I hope others

across the chamber will join me in that. It is not my intention to

rehearse all of the arguments are made in opening the debate last week

which will relieve people on all sides I'm sure. There are however

two points that I want to make today. Firstly I want to remind us

why the debate matters, why the debates we are having is important.

Scotland like the rest of the UK stands at a crossroads. When article

50 of the Lisbon Treaty is triggered tomorrow, change for our country at

that point becomes inevitable. We don't yet know the precise nature,

much will depend of course on the outcome of the negotiation that lies

ahead. We do know that the change would be significant. It is change

that will impact our economy, not just a hero now but the long-term

the UK Treasury said Brexit would make the UK permanently poorer. An

impact on the very nature of society and the nature we live in. The

freedom to travel across Europe is now up for negotiation with outcomes

that at this moment are deeply uncertain. When the nature of the

change becomes clear that should not be imposed on us, we should have the

right to decide the nature of that change. The people of Scotland

should have the right to choose between Brexit, a hard Brexit or

becoming an independent country able to chart our own course. I hope that

Scotland does have the right to decide our own future. When is it

best to make that choice. We are all agreed that now is not the time.

When the terms of Brexit can be clear and then can be judged against

the challenges and opportunities, Theresa May said she in terms of

Brexit, the future terms and... Ratification by other countries. In

other words or the next June spring 2019. I hear what she says about the

Prime Minister's view, has her government done an assessment of

when this mighty completed? I have made this point before, I can only

go on what the Prime Minister is saying about her intentions. I was

clear when I announced my own intentions, if the two years was to

be extended then that would have an impact on the timetable Parliament

are discussing. We can only base our timetable on the set timetable set

up by the Prime Minister and she was clear. I for my part are equally

clear to ensure the details are set out in advance so the people of

Scotland can make an informed choice. To enable a choice of

Scottish and the UK Government need to make preparations now which

brings me to the question of how should I respond should Parliament

passed a motion? It's not my intention to do so, in recognition

of the importance of the significance of what will happen

tomorrow. Yesterday I wished the PM well for tomorrow and the

negotiations that lie ahead, the Scottish Government will play a full

and constructive role as she is willing to now. Let me be clear, I

won the UK to get a good deal from the negotiations because whatever

path Scotland chooses to take in the future. That'll be in our interest.

I want Scotland to have a choice from the time is right. I hope the

UK Government respects the will of the Parliaments, if it does so then

I will enter discussion in good faith and with a willingness to

compromise. However if it chooses not to do so I will turn to

Parliament to set up the steps of the Scottish Government will take to

progress the will of Parliament. When the Prime Minister formally

starts the process of leaving the European Union tomorrow, none should

be in doubt at what is at stake. The next two years will determine what

kind of country we are going to be. The European Commission and the

European Parliament and the Government informed will all have a

say. The people of Scotland must also have their say. Scotland's

future should be in Scotland's hand. How we harness our potential and how

we overcome challenges. It is a debate that should engage all of us.

Let us start today or restart today are seeming to go on, positively,

passionately and respectfully. I commend motion. Presiding officer I

am responding on half of my party today because the First Minister has

decided to reopen for the Scottish Government. There is only one thing

which is worth adding to my comments from last week. If this debate has

served one purpose it is to show how most people don't want the

Government and Parliament to be sidetracked by another referendum

campaign. This parliaments added nothing to the sum of knowledge on

Scottish independence, nothing new arguments, nothing to families who

want to see Parliament improving schools, nothing on how we ensure

patients are seen more quickly. No insight in how we tackle low growth

in Scotland. This parliaments is about to gain a huge new powers over

tax and welfare are making it one of the most powerful of its kind in the

world and yet this last week we have seen a government whose sole purpose

is to spend time complaining on the powers that it does not have. We

have seen our First Minister whose clear priority is to press ahead

with a referendum campaign to start tomorrow. She wants to use her time

to pursue the real purpose in politics B deal briefly with the

comments in relation to her meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday.

Let's go through what the minister did mention. I heard no welcome of

the counterterrorism plans. No welcome for the Prime Minister's

support for International development and is Gilbride. Instead

the only thing on the agenda yesterday and today is how to use

the meeting with the Prime Minister to spend some new kind of pressure

now for her rushed timetable for a referendum. Festival she should be

aware that her colleagues in Russia have you. Alex Neil said all may not

be done and dusted by March 2019 and a trade deal could extend. I also

pointed to the leading authority in all things European who said in

January, there is no way a trade agreements is going to be put in

place in two years, that is unrealistic. Now of course I

wouldn't be as pessimistic, I just look forward to... At the same

conclusion, it matters not the question, the answer is always

independence. Presiding Officer, the truth is that nothing changed at all

yesterday. For The Record I spoke to the PM yesterday on our common

interest in the Scottish Government has been working to make sure the

exercise she announced is a success. Can I ask, the PM said to me clearly

that it is her intention for the exit terms and also combines a

free-trade agreement to be agreed before March. Can I take from the

Commons today that she thinks I should distrust that?

What I find remarkable is that the Prime Minister has been absolutely

clear, time after time, question after question, in the media, in

House of Commons to say now isn't the time. That it will take time to

see a deal bedded in. What I can't believe is that the one person that

she took into her trust was the First Minister, who's been trying to

derail us from the beginning. It was in a one-to-one meeting, the any

person that could make Theresa May change her mind, and she is not

known for changing her mind, was Nicola Sturgeon, who couldn't wait

to rush out and explain all. I won't take any lessons from the First

Minister. Sit down. Nothing changed yesterday. I think I've answered the

First Minister's question. Just as the First Minister announced two

weeks ago in Bute House, she wants to start a referendum campaign to

fire the starting gun on an 18 month countdown to a referendum. To have

people knocking on our doors from this weekend, demanding your vote.

Independence campaigners rerunning the trope would all be ?500 better

off. Promising us the earth, still without a plan on currency, EU

membership or how we would pay our way. I'm still wondering who one

that iPad. The First Minister says she wants the UK to get a good

Brexit deal but she still wants to push for independence anyway. It is

our view and the UK Government's view remains this. At a time of

enormous uncertainty, when it's only three years since the last vote,

when we were told it would be once in a generation, that the decision

of the Scottish people would be respected, that there would be no

rerun without an overwhelming changing public opinion and that the

people of Scotland would have a right to see the Brexit process play

out, they need to see it working in practice, and that at this moment we

should be pooling together, not hanging apart. As Alex Neil told the

First Minister last week, we shouldn't even be contemplating such

a vote unless people come with us. Mr Neill was arguing from his own

perspective of somebody who wants independence. I respect his views.

But I'm arguing from the perspective of someone who believes the First

Minister's plan for a rushed referendum, with no agreement in

place, with only one side dictating the timing, the franchise, the

questions all the rules, would be a farce. Most people, yes, no and

undecided are right to be turned off by this prospect, because they can

see at too. I think the First Minister knows this. She knows the

proposal she is putting forward today can't work, that it's not fair

to the people of Scotland. That's not the point. This isn't the

serious plan of a reasonable government. It is the SNP picking up

the same old recipe the division. You take one unworkable proposal, it

used in the greens and you bring it to the boil. It might have worked

once. But it stinks and the people of Scotland aren't buying it. I said

my piece twice, we will be voting against the SNP's motion today and

in support of our own amendment. We also call on the greens to honour

their manifesto commitment. Unless in the day since we last met he has

managed to collect that elusive than 1 million signatures. This is what

has changed since last week, since the debate was postponed last

Wednesday, we have learned that fewer than half of nurseries in

Scotland will offer extended free early learning and nursery hours.

That police Scotland have a projected deficit of ?50 million

next year. Just 5% of Scottish schools have been inspected in the

last year. The SNP government has you turned on junior doctor hours

and won't bring down the amount of time they can work. But two former

members of the independent panel warning the report is a betrayal and

will be watered down. Only this morning we learned that cancer

waiting times have been missed again for the fourth year in a row. Last

week, in what was a disgraceful episode, we were shouted at from the

SNP benches and told we were frightened to debate independence.

We are not but we are sick of it. Most people in Scotland have had

enough too. This Parliament needs to do and must focus on the priorities

of the people of this country, and it isn't the time to be sidetracked

by yet more unnecessary division. It is time for a government that

focuses on the job we pay it to do. Kezia Dugdale. Can I start by saying

I welcome to the First Minister's remarks about the opportunity we

have to have this debate and discuss it with civility and decency. Can I

urge Ruth Davidson to reconsider her approach when we have a chance to

reset this debate. APPLAUSE Last week we came together to

remember those who lost their lives or were injured in the Westminster

terror attack. We united in our condemnation of a barbaric act and

reaffirmed our commitment to the values of tolerance and integration,

freedom and solidarity. It was right that last week's debate about a

second independence referendum was postponed. The business of the

Scottish Parliament has resumed, and here I am once again responding to

remarks from the First Minister about a second independence

referendum. If it feels familiar to those of us in here, imagine how

familiar it must feel to those outside of this chamber. To people

who rarely tune into these discussions, who want their

political leaders to focus on the business of government by delivering

good schools and hospitals and growing the economy to provide jobs

and prosperity. Once again they are debating the issue they thought had

been decided in a once-in-a-lifetime vote in 2014. Yesterday's meeting

between the Prime Minister and the First Minister summed up where we

are today. Two intransigent leaders, focused only on the constitution,

what the business of government gets pushed to one side. Nicola Sturgeon

demonstrated she has given up any pretence she will fight for the best

Brexit deal for Scotland and the UK. Instead of fighting for more powers

to come to Scotland from Brussels, its independence or nothing for the

First Minister. And, we have the spectacle of Theresa May... In the

spirit we are both committed to I would ask to reflect on how unfair

that commenters. I've spent a great deal of time trying to persuade the

UK Government to find compromise. I published a paper in December that

listed the additional powers that could have been devolved to the

Scottish Parliament, that would have effectively delivered the federalism

that Kezia Dugdale supports. If we are meeting with a point-blank

refusal to do that, what is Kezia Dugdale's argument that this

Parliament should simply accept we are being taken off cliff edge with

no additional powers whatsoever and even an intention to muscle in on

the powers we already have? I recognise the work the First

Minister did to fight for more powers that this place but I haven't

heard a word in the whole of 2017. Its independence first, last and

everything, when it comes to her agenda. We also have the spectacle

of Theresa May claiming to be the best protector of the union

yesterday. Just ponder that for a moment. The leader of the

Conservative Party that has caused so much division in our society,

that sets Scotland against England in the general election and whose

reckless Brexit scamp boot Gamble brought us to this point mode where

leaving the EU provides the SNP with the excuse to push for another

referendum. Some humility from the Tories and a genuine desire to

properly engage with this place wouldn't go amiss. Presiding

officer, in the weeks since we last met, at least three issues which

would normally dominate the front pages of the papers have been buried

in the back of the book. We've learned the SNP has abandoned a

promise to reduce the working hours of junior doctors. A promise made by

the former First Minister to the parents of a woman who lost her

life. We have seen a damning report into the quality and provision of

child and adolescent mental health services, and just today it's been

confirmed that Scott -- Scotland's cancer waiting list times haven't

been met. Together these scandals represent a complete abdication of

responsibility. We are discussing any of these things. After all, why

would the government responsible for the NHS want to debate its ten year

record on the health service, not when another independence debate to

be had. We all know the outcome of the vote tonight. The compliant

Greens will once again back their fellow nationalists in the SNP.

Let's not pretend this SNP Green push for another divisive referendum

reflects the will of the Scottish people, because it doesn't. 85% of

the population voted in the last referendum and we voted decisively

to remain in the UK. That is the will of the people and it should be

respected. My message to the First Minister remains unchanged. We are

divided enough, do not divide us again. Leaving the UK would mean ?15

billion worth of extra cuts to schools and hospitals in Scotland.

Every time I'm sat in the TV studio with a member of the governing

party, and I can see their front bench shaking their heads today,

they seek to try and ridicule these figures. They simply cannot deny

these are the government's own numbers. The government's own stats

say independence would be catastrophic for working families.

That's why I could never support a policy that would hurt our poorest

communities. So the question beckons, why would the First

Minister? We are just hours away from the start of the formal process

of leaving the EU. The First Minister and I agree that Brexit

risks damaging our relationship with Europe. It will threaten thousands

of jobs right here in Scotland and hold back our economy. Like her, I

accept that Brexit is going to happen. Scotland and the UK are

leading the European Union. The First Minister has finally dropped

the pretence we could remain in the EU and that clarity is welcome. The

First Minister has another decision to make. Is she going to spend the

next two years and 100% of her time campaigning for Scotland to leave

the UK at the expense of governing, or will she roll up her sleeves from

today and seek to secure more powers for this Parliament on the return

from Brussels to Britain? Because tomorrow, I will be in Cardiff doing

just that. Biking with the Labour First Minister of Wales Carwyn

Jones, who is prepared to put in the hard work necessary now to secure

the best Brexit deal for Wales and for the UK. This isn't a battle

between independence and the status quo. It's about the SNP's

never-ending campaign for separation and what the people want and voted

for, a powerful Scottish Parliament within the UK. These benches will

campaign with everything we have the Scotland to remain in the UK, a UK

where political and economic power is in the hands of the many, not the

few. A UK that delivers the people of Scotland. That was our manifesto

commitment and we will honour that tonight by voting against the SNP's

plans for another divisive referendum. APPLAUSE

I want to use my time to argue why the Greens will be supporting the

government motion. First of all I want to say something to those who

have contacted us in recent days. We understand the prospect of another

referendum on independence isn't welcome by some voters, and they

haven't been shy of telling us. We respect their sincerely held views.

We also understand why there's so much anxiety. For some people the

referendum in 2014 wasn't the joyous civic carnival it is sometimes

portrayed as. It challenged deep-seated ideas of identity and

belonging and provoked legitimate questions. In 2014, voters rejected

independence, and nothing I say today changes or is intended to

disrespect but important vote. Today we are facing a very different

situation. Whatever transpires over the coming years, as politicians we

are responsible for setting the tone of public discourse. I am committed

to engaging in debate and discussion with respect, with tolerance and

empathy. Where do the Greens stand on this issue? Green politics rests

on four pillars. Peace, equality on environmental sustainability and

radical democracy. We are a party of social and environmental justice. We

support a radical transformation of society, for the benefit of all and

for the planet as a whole. We understand there are threats to

economic, social and environmental well-being and we recognise they are

part of the same problem. We further recognise that solving one of these

crises cannot be achieved without solving the others. As part of our

commitment to radical democracy, and contrary to many assertions

currently being made, Scottish Greens have had a long-standing

policy of supporting an autonomous Scotland. The party was founded in

1990, and in a comprehensive policy document published that year we

stated that, the Scottish Green Party supports demands for an

independent, self governing Scotland, as throughout Europe,

Green Party 's support other local demands for regional autonomy. In a

manifest over the first Parliament elections in 1999, we stood on a

manifesto calling for a referendum on greater independence for

Scotland. As part of a programme of radical democracy, to reach far

beyond the Scottish Parliament, to embrace genuine local democracy and

fiscal autonomy. In the context of this debate here today which is

taking place against the backdrop of the EU referendum vote, it's

important to stress we also believe in a more democratic Europe. Our

party policies to reconstitute the EU as a democratically accountable

European Confederation of regions. The democracy is radical to have a

referendum. To lose by 10% and ignore the result that Harley

Democratic. As I mentioned in my opening remarks. , both of which are

mutually incompatible in terms of the decision today is a large volume

of e-mails have reminded us, ideas to deepen and strengthen democracy

we highlight it was a preferred way to side a referendum, it is not the

only means, the two indications of the electorate have been the

referendum and the remaining votes. Our party remains as committed to

autonomy and self-governance and independent antic and Federalist and

side nine months on from the referendum, we are in an

unprecedented situation. It is in flagrant breach of the manifesto to

preserve the integrity of the single market. With no electoral mandate...

We are presiding a place where I don't want to be and where a lot of

people here don't want to be. We could pursue federalism, we could

hold a second referendum all we could put as much power in the hands

of the Scottish people to decide what part we choose. We are dealing

with the aftermath of one of the biggest failures of UK statecraft.

The choice before it is not the choice that we should all would like

to face and the Greens will vote according to the politics are

alarmed earlier. We have a distinctive proud tradition of

democratic reform and we wish to see important decisions about the future

of Scotland being put in the hands of the Scottish parliament and we

have no difficulty in giving the First Minister the mandate to seek

powers under section 30. Thank you deciding Officer, I'm

grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate a second time.

When I got to my feet on Wednesday, the rumours of the attack had been

substantiated and I like many people couldn't reach their colleagues. As

the text evaporated I was dried up and lost for words, it's very hard

to speak with clarity. But I spoke at the same conviction as I did last

week, I want to keep the promise of the people who sends me there. Who

new emotion would inevitably... The use of their vote to remain in

Europe as leveraged to bring about a second referendum. We and I count

myself among that number utterly reject the 4-star lab at this

government and the Green Party want to do in casting this between two

unions. The decision to withdraw from Europe broke my heart that as

an internationalist my response can never be too up sticks from one

nation but instead I choose to stay and to resist Brexit and to fight

every election thereafter on a re-entry to the European Union.

There is no comfort for ardent European Union 's in the SNP. The

Democrats, Liberal Democrats have been fighting on a platform of

federalism for over a century, can they deliver us back into the EU? I

think the intervention, this is my party's policy I've been fighting

for lost causes my whole life but I will achieve this one. On the one

hand we have a thin rhetoric from a government that would reassure those

who might not entertain another party up in membership through

independence, whilst on the other we see them trying to appease Spanish

diplomats and a pro-Brexit flank of their own party by going away from

any commitment to guarantee or even seek membership in the E. Such is

the division on this issue. I say to them remain voters will find you

out. We shall not be the fulcrum over which she tipped this nation

into the divisions of the past. One in four people report a damaged

relationship as a result of this. I would not see Scotland return to

acrimony. Opinion polls show people don't want that either. I don't

believe the architects of this referendum who will vote for tonight

have met their own tests on the measure of public opinion in

bringing about. If it comes then I will fight it. Like last time it

won't be easy to defend something which isn't functional. If you were

to ascribe the same ambitions to these islands the old joke goes you

wouldn't start here but all of us are imperfect and that imperfection

is reflected in human affairs. We make bad decisions and sometimes we

elect a government that Hamas. It will be a battle to the fore this

country. We have heard many members in this

chamber and beyond this chamber state this case. It's not easy to

get people enthusiastic all the time about the idea of getting British.

There are asked ex-of our -- aspects of our history that are arcane. For

all of the darkness that lies in our wake light exist as well. In the

abolitionist movement, after the images of famine the flying

there is such capacity for compassion amongst the British

people, evident last week and the many selfless acts on the kindness

in a bridge on a courtyard and in an ambulance. This is the Britain I

recognise, resilience, tolerant, I have not given up on that. My

election to this place is the single proudest moment of my life, I came

here to make a difference, to legislate and scrutinise the work of

government. Because of the crisis in the health service I'm yet to vote

on a single on a government strategy. That paralysis is the cost

of fixation on the calculations. My constituent centre here to do that.

I want to sue the problems in the Society away from the divisions of

the past and I will vote against it because I I want to stand with my

colleagues in the shed believe that the best those of the United Kingdom

can still lie ahead of it. We now move into the open part of the

debate. Thank you I want to pay tribute to the one to protect us and

lost loved ones last week. In the aftermath there was a sombre sense

at Westminster and other parliaments like this one on address symbols of

democracy debate the places where ordinary people work on behalf of

this nation and last week reminded us our common humanity. As an

ordinary person I approach this debate with family members and

friends and colleagues in this chamber and beyond the sometimes

agree with me and sometimes disagree, that is the bedrock of our

democracy using debate and discussion and disagreement to take

forward this nation. The recently care and the reason we debate and

discuss is that we share one thing in common and that is vision. Vision

for Scotland and vision for a better Scotland. Vision was articulated in

some form by every Member last week and here it day in, day out from

many others. We all have a vision for Scotland and it is critical

these days because as the First Minister said, change is inevitable.

There is a fog of confusion, there is no certainty Scotland will be

heard or that their interests will be served. The status quo has sailed

and we are left with uncertain, unknown change. As a nation we can

beat tossed here and there by the wind and drift along in a

directionless current or we can draw a map or and chart a course for

Scotland. To reach the court he cannot tie ankle or drift and hope

for the best, you don't get your destination unless you steer the

boat with the wind in your sails on a map in your hand. This debate is

about whether we can, whether the people in Scotland with our

different views that our shared vision for a better Scotland will

strike out a course on charter map in hand or whether we will drift

along and hope for the best. Our future should not be never should be

in the hands of any single politician or single government. It

should be now and always in the hands of the people. It is with our

individual and collective grasp to behave in a manner that befits a

nation that is determining its constitutional future. These are

weighty matters and it requires humility, responsibility,

self-discipline and courage. Politicians can and do to our shame

sway opinions by appealing to fear and prejudice. It is sometimes

called Project fear and we have seen time and time again. By whatever

small victories are secured by Project fear, I can guarantee you

one thing, it is at the cost of long-term faith and trust. I accept

that my friends and colleagues may disagree on many things and I will

listen earnestly to all views and will defend their right to be heard

in conversations and to be heard in a referendum. I'm very grateful for

you taking the intervention, can you confirm whether it is disrespectful

to define this project fear as those of the audacity to disagree with you

and present different arguments about the... If the Member had heard

correctly, I specifically said that politicians to our shame and did not

point the finger in any direction. And so I repeat I defend everybody's

right to be heard, heard in conversation, heard and debate and

heard in a referendum. My vision for Scotland is captured in one of the

Scottish languages and this is a verse Gaelic poem. SPEAKS GAELIC.

And in English which isn't half as good. Beautiful Scotland you come of

age, you will leave your father 's house and stand in free communion

with the rest of the world and my belief in Scottish independence is

not and never will be born of self-importance. All with

self-centredness or with a whimsical dream of nationhood but of the firm

belief that Scotland could and should join the global community is

as worthy Member and a prosperous nation with a strong economy and a

highly educated workforce. With an open heart for immigrants and

refugees, as a caring nation that looks out for those who are more

vulnerable home and excelling in key innovative technologies, wealthy

with natural resources, as an outward looking nation that is

seeing food and exports. Who choose to foster international

relationships, that is our nation Scotland.

APPLAUSE Oliver Mundell. Thank you. There is

no majority support for this proposal in Scotland, and the

question over a Section 30 order has already been answered. Simply,

clearly and fairly. So in response, what do we have? A First Minister

who continues to use her own brand of intransigence. Well, First

Minister, after your decision to set the Scottish Government against the

will of the Scottish people, history may look back on today and see it as

the date the fate of our union was sealed. Because nothing we've heard

in these debates reaches out beyond the SNP's own narrow base. I'm not

sure if Nicola Sturgeon believes the people of Scotland are daft. It's

plain to all but the motivation for her beloved referendum rings hollow.

After harping on about the need for certainty and the need to tell

people what they are voting for, how can she justify another referendum

on the back of Brexit, while failing to say whether or not we would

rejoin the European Union? How can she stoke up fear about leaving the

single market without telling us her plans are our currency? It's simply

not fair and it's just not on. Nicola Sturgeon talks of the

Scottish Parliament as if we have a divine right to decide on behalf of

the people. She talks about democracy as if it belongs to her.

This Parliament gets its authority from the people. Not just at

election time but on these big issues. The people of our country

are sovereign, the power to decide does belong in their hands.

INTERJECTIONS. The problems with this First Minister is that the

people of Scotland have already spoken. Not only have they ruled out

independence for a generation but they've made it clear there is no

consensus that now was the right time to reopen the debate. Despite

irresponsible, ill judged and politically motivated accusations of

colonialism and imperialism that have been trotted out by SNP

representatives, they themselves seem to have forgotten that they too

have a duty to govern by consent. It's a nice try but when the SNP

leadership have so arrogantly suggested that the Conservatives

believe they can do anything they like in Scotland, they seem to have

missed the irony. The truth is that after a decade in power, it is

Nicola Sturgeon who believes she can dictate terms, not just to the UK

Government but to the people of Scotland. We saw it out of touch and

hardened by the trappings of office, calling a press conference from Bute

House to announce her referendum. A moment shared with the camera crews

rather than the many voices of the Yes movement or the people of

Scotland. It was yet another stunt and yet another game. I say this as

gently as I can do the First Minister. The danger of telling

everyone who doesn't agree with the referendum that they are Tories

comes with a very real risk to her party. Despite what the SNP claim,

more people are sick and tired of all of this and they've been pushed

so far into a corner that they are willing to do almost anything to get

that message over to the First Minister. I've seen that in my own

Dom Freese share constituency where thousands of Labour voters didn't

vote for me because they desperately wanted a change of SNP --

Dumfriesshire. They changed their vote, many for the first time in

years, because they feared that a day like today would come. And they

knew... They knew that when it did, the SNP wouldn't listen to them, and

couldn't be trusted to respect their point of view. And how right they

were. Completely oblivious to her own fate at the ballot box, my

opponent in that election will tonight put her party before the

people, representing everything people have come to dislike about

politics, and everything they expect of the SNP. Your constituents in

Dumfriesshire voted against Brexit and the agricultural economy there

stands to lose millions of pounds as a result of Brexit. Perhaps when you

are talking about the will of your constituents you might bring them

into consideration on how you vote. APPLAUSE

That is exactly yet. If we take that logic and applied it to SNP

representatives in this chamber, there are very few of them who

should be supporting this proposal. They should be listening to the

people. Because what we have is a government party who no longer speak

for the 2 million No voters. A government who have no guarantees

for those who bond continued EU membership, and a government who

want to airbrush 1 million leave voters. They want to airbrush those

1 million Scottish leave voters out of history in order to spare the

brushes of their leader. More people in our nation voted to leave

pampered across Nicola Sturgeon's name the First Minister. We

shouldn't be surprised the SNP want to ignore democracy because they

only like it when it suits them. On a day when they claim democratic

outrage and talus ignoring them will put the UK at risk, remember this.

They don't speak has friends of the people or in the national interest.

For the SNP this debate always will be about self-interest. Thank you.

Ben MacPherson. I would like to remind the chamber that I am a

Parliamentary liaison officer to be fully mandated First Minister of

Scotland. APPLAUSE However, today's debate isn't about

Nicola Sturgeon or Theresa May, or any other politician. Instead, it's

about all of the people of Scotland. And the reality that in the months

and years ahead, we collectively, as a society, face a serious and

important choice between independence in Europe or a Tory

Brexit Britain. It's a choice being considered around kitchen tables and

boardrooms across our country. It's a choice communities are discussing

in coffee shops, bars and the workplace. And in a shared hope for

a better Scotland, throughout the nation, we must face this choice

together. Democratically, graciously, honestly, and in a

spirit of mutual respect. As we deliberate this choice, I would

encourage all of us to think carefully about our words and about

how we conduct ourselves. I appeal to all sides to as wide to avoid

polarising terms, like nationalists and unionists. These divisive

expressions diminish our public discourse and are becoming more and

more meaningless by the day, because Brexit will be a severe act of

separatism, motivated in part by a sense of British nationalism.

Arguments for and against Scottish independence concern both feelings

of national identity and notions of wider political relationships with

other countries. So instead, let us agree we are all civic nationalists

and internationalists to 1 degrees or another. And instead focus on the

substance of the situation before us. Which is a complex and

imperative judgment about how we want to be governed and where we

want power to reside. That is what our constitutional choice is

substantially about. For me, the choice we face is whether to move

forward and broaden our horizons as a confident, modern, compassionate,

independent country in Europe. All instead, whether we want to narrow

our opportunities and diminish our quality of life in the years ahead

by staying part of an increasingly backward looking, more insular, more

isolated Tory Brexit Britain. It is a fundamental choice about our

values, and the vision of where we want to be in ten, 20, 30, 40 years'

time and beyond. It's a choice about our place in the world and the

direction of this remarkable place we call home. Let's remember, this

choice we face has been caused by a Brexit outcome that Scotland didn't

vote for. It's a choice bound up in the fact that Scotland shows

overwhelmingly to remain a committed European partner. And

internationalist, Alp looking, 21st-century society. That's the

sort of country the majority of Scottish people voted for, not a

hard Brexit -- outward looking. Let's remember, Brexit for

independence is a choice Scotland has been compelled into making by

eight Conservative government we didn't elect and they'd leave result

we didn't vote for. A leave result that some now seem to want Scotland

to it logically and fatalistically accept. Against our democratic

wishes and contrary to the economic and social interests of our country

and of our time. Presiding Officer, we face a clear choice. About

whether other people, as a society, we either accept the damaging

consequences of a hard Brexit, or instead charts a different, more

inclusive, more progressive course with independence. That is a

profoundly different choice to the one we considered in 2014. Just as

the circumstances have changed significantly since the 23rd of June

last year. The question before us is a question of indyrefnew not a

question of indyref2. We face new choices and new challenges. It is a

critical choice that matters to every woman and man across the

country. Whatever their background and whatever they've come from. In

this question of unexpected and extraordinary period of change, flux

and deep uncertainty, as a result of Brexit, the voice of the people

should and must be heard in a new referendum. A new referendum that

our fellow citizens both desire and deserve. As politicians, we have an

obligation and a responsibility to empower the people we have the

privilege to represent, and to allow the people of Scotland to determine

Scotland's choice at a time of Scotland's choosing. Support the

government motion. APPLAUSE James Kelly. Thank you. Like all our

speakers in the debate at like to offer my condolences to those

affected by the events in London last week. People watching this

debate from outside the Holyrood bubble must wonder why, again, the

Scottish Parliament is considering the issue of a divisive second

independence referendum. Particularly when we were told in

2014 that it was a once in a generation opportunity. No thank

you. No matter how much Alex Salmond thinks he can airbrush video footage

of him saying that out of the internet, the reality is he did say

it. Not only that, he also, along with the First Minister, signed up

to the Edinburgh agreement. An agreement binding on both sides,

both sides agreed to accept the results. When this was put to Alex

Salmond last week at the BBC, he said, it doesn't really matter. Once

I resigned as First Minister, the agreement didn't matter any more.

That illustrates the arrogance of the SNP that they think they can

dismiss a democratic vote of more than 10% of the people, there was a

10% lead to vote no over vote yes. They can also dismiss agreements

they signed up to accept the result. It's independence at any cost. We've

heard much about how it's because of Brexit and because of the EU issue.

The reality is, the logical extension of a yes vote and an

independent Scotland in September 2014 would have been to take

Scotland out of the EU. We've even heard in recent days that the SNP

are confused as to their position whether they want to seek membership

of the EU, even in the view argued by Alex Neil and others that an

independent Scotland would have to have another referendum.

INTERJECTIONS. Not at this time. The reality also is that people don't

want another independence referendum. Poll after poll has

rejected that. Even last week, the most recent poll of businesses by an

accountancy firm said 89 people working didn't want an independence

referendum. People in our communities don't want to go back to

those days, because as Andy Wightman acknowledged, it wasn't a civic,

joyous, democratic celebration. For those who were abused online merely

for expressing an opinion, it it was not an enjoyable time.

For those pensioners scared to say they would vote no because of the

aggressive and intimidate three nature of the yes campaigners. I

won't give way. For those who were chased down streets with threats and

intimidation, it wasn't a celebration of democracy. That's why

people do not want to return to divisive second independence

referendum. We've heard much from the Government but the reality is

the default position is to ignore the will of Parliament. Whether it

is fracking order for by light, health service or closures or

centralisation of economic agencies. The Government ignores the will of

Parliament. People wonder what happens when the Government loses a

vote. The Minister for Parliamentary business takes a bit of paper

upstairs to the ministerial office and he puts it in a file that says

please fix ignore no action required. The reality is that in the

week that the Government call for another independence referendum,

child poverty rose. And this government didn't even blink an eye.

In that same week we found out the Government had over blowing the

budget by 20 million. What an outrage that when there are people

sleeping yards from the parliament, the SNP underspend how doing budget

by ?20 million. We hear much by the use of powers, yet when it comes to

social security powers, it could not take on the powers immediately

because it will take three years to build a computer system. What an

absolute outrage. The reality is that when people elected a

government in 2016, they didn't elect a campaign committee so it is

time to reject their second independence referendum, get on with

the issues in hand, support the NHS staff. The fair and public services

and create jobs in the local community. Let's get on with the job

in hand and not waste time on a divisive second independence

referendum. Thank you very much. How sad to hear of the contribution from

Mr Kelly. I really would have thought better from him and very sad

to hear that. My thoughts go to everybody who suffered in from the

events of last week. I echo everybody from the champ when I say

my thoughts are with them. After that meeting I was speaking to

various people in Westminster, not just from our party but from others.

The subject got onto Brexit and I was fortunate... It makes

interesting good reading also, I've heard numbers and Mr Kelly mentioned

that this is not important but if you hear what is actually in the

repeal act and I think this debate is very important. Not just for

Scotland but the rest of the UK. I would like to mention the fact that

in this paper, I know the UK Labour Party and the Liberals have raised

this issue before with great concerns about the Henry VIII

powers. Page six of the paper is headed revolution and legislating

for Brexit will have implications. If the great repeal transposes all

directly then it could affect measures which. Exception. This

would require consent from the legislators as long as expected. The

civil convention even at the reform includes a rider that the Government

will not normally legislate devolved matters without consent. However it

is not clear if withdrawal from the EU would be considered normal. Thus

it would be... The UK power to legislate on devolved matters

without consent as stated in the devilish and statutes. If consent is

sorted might be withheld. The process of securing consent might

introduce it. Equally it would bring its own political issues and would

raise its dishes quite rightly as I said not in the devolved

institutions. Let's look at the devolved issues. Professor Douglas

Scott juror attention to this in a paper and I quote page 49. The aim

of the great repeal Bill is to a good part of the law for example

fishing. A great repeal bill translates EU law on matters that

have been devolved and UK law so that could amount to legislation on

devolved areas. Last week John Lamont mentioned the fact that

taking back powers from Brussels to Scotland and John Lamont said

Scotland. It's the opposite way which is why it is so important that

we have a vote on this particular issue and in my mind and in the mind

of many others, the debate today under the voter night, excuse me a

minute, the night the debate is not only about Scotland and the people

of Scotland having a choice that about protecting the very

sovereignty of the Parliament. I think people should realise that.

It's a very important issue. The fact of the matter is Brexit has

changed everything. The manifesto clearly states Scottish parliaments

have the right to hold another referendum which is a material

change. There is a substantial material change which is why the

circumstances are only right that the people of Scotland are given the

opportunity to choose their future. Along with Scotland being too poor,

that is all they have talked about. I must say, if you be quiet place,

you've had your say, I must say, the language being used by the

opposition parties to me is unbecoming to this parliaments. And

it's a terrible example that they have set to young people in the

international world, presiding officer, I come from a family of

Irish, Ingrid and Scottish background, there was never any

division. All of my family were Labour Party and the voters also. We

never had a vision in our house, we have plenty of debate and that is

healthy. Debate is healthy and we now is a family get-together, we

still have Labour, we have SNP, one labelled by the way. SNP and greens

and thankfully no Tories. Liam care. Thank you Deputy presiding Officer.

The people of Scotland do not want this debate, not now and for good

reasons. I put myself up for election because I have real

concerns about what is happening in Scotland. The attainment gap, the

funding and recruitment crisis, the difficulties in our infrastructure.

I could go on. These are issues which the Parliament has something

to do something about. They have the power to do something about it now.

Debating and seeking solutions, we will be be doing the job at the

people of this nation elected us today. Instead we have spent three

days debating a motion which has been answered categorically. The

whole generation around 80% of the voting population and it doesn't

mandate action. I have a great deal to cover swollen too.

The SNP would be revising plans to scrap and would be revoking plans to

show the Scottish funding Council and there are others that they do

not. The people elected this Parliament to take these actions and

to sort out the challenges in this country. They did not expect to be

back in a divisive and unpleasant referendum and didn't expect it's

because Alex Salmond said in my opinion this is once of a generation

opportunity for Scotland. Yes he did, the Oxford English dictionary

defines as 30 years as a generation. The First Minister ruled out a

second referendum and stated that could not be another than to the

majority of Scots were persuaded. SNP said the support for

independence said support would have to stay over 60% for long term but

opinion has shifted. We mustn't airbrush what the people new in 2014

that a referendum was likely to happen and the outcome of Brexit was

always possible. People voted to stay in the UK. They knew what they

were voting for in 2014 and 2016 and voted against separation and for a

minority government in Scotland. Another referendum was not what they

voted for. Why are we having this debate in the context of a myriad of

social differences. After many years ago this was devolved. Distraction,

diversion, more flags, more rhetoric and maybe no one will notice that

the SNP have not passed the actor over a year. The Prime Minister in

the UK Government are going to embark on negotiations to do this

and that includes Scotland. Pulling together and pulling apart. To

suggest running a campaign, it was about this government trying to

force this government to fight on two fronts. This gives the proposal

a different problem. If the people of Scotland were to face essentially

they must know what they are voting for but there is no answer on

currency. There is no border with the rest of the UK or the single

market, no unsigned offence other than we might build our own from

scratch and the state would have a ?15 billion deficit.

I'm coming onto the greens. We always knew they wanted another

shot. We knew they would be back again for another go. The Green

Party shows no consistency. When the people voted the greens when to them

with a proposition that a million people. Mr Harvey said there is

little point, neither of these things have happened and yet the

greens are elected on promises that the people of Scotland promised on

that that is my position and contorted themselves to suggest they

would get justification. The people in Scotland who did not want this

vote. It should not happen whilst there is no public consent or well.

Predictability in our policies and consistency in decision-making, they

won the Scottish Government, it is not too late. I say to the greens,

you still have time to stick to the manifesto promise. I stay to the SNP

backbenchers, it would be worth listing sometimes.

Keen to give businesses certainty and to focus on the day job. It is

time to take a stand. Time to stop leading it to Alex Neil to carry the

burden of every pro Brexit SNP voter and those who believe it's not time

for more division. Your constituents don't want a referendum. Stand up

for them and spoke for the Conservative amendment. Thank you. I

do have a limited amount of time in hand that I can use any

interventions. Can I had Stuart McMillan. First of all I want to

express my condolences to the friends and family of those affected

by events in Westminster last year. -- last week. The people of Scotland

are sovereign and they deserve a right to choose their future. At 5pm

today they will be making that particular vote. This is Parliament,

is more mature and looking forward to the next chapter in its life. We

see the opportunity independence offers. For those on the pro union

side, they have a different view and they are perfectly entitled to have

that view. Spoke last week about a respectful debate. I couldn't agree

more with those comments. Bruce Crawford's comments were echoed

today by the First Minister. I would go one step further. I think both

sides should put the facts, the figures and their vision onto the

table for the electorate. If the European referendum campaign has got

anything to show us, then I think the fact that the claim of ?350

million per week for the NHS was destroyed within hours of the polls

actually closing. So we should not get into that particular situation.

I genuinely believe that we as a Parliament and a chamber better than

that, and that we can all rise to that challenge when a referendum

takes place. Two weeks ago, Graham Pearson the head of the campaign was

in pressing the point of having a respectful debate. I agreed with him

on that, but he then blew it if you days later by launching the

ridiculous personal attack on the First Minister, just outside of the

SNP conference. It clearly wasn't his finest hour but I genuinely hope

he learned from that embarrassment. Richard Lochhead last week said the

most pertinent thing in the debate. That was until the admission

regarding Lib Dems fighting lost causes. Richard Lochhead's comments,

when he stated democracy doesn't have an expiry date. I cannot agree

more with my colleagues. Just because you aren't successful

doesn't mean you change a bully. Tim Farron, the federal leader of

billable Democrats proved this to be the case when he tweeted, when you

lose a referendum, we don't give up. I also agree with Alexander Stuart.

During the European debate two weeks ago, he stated no government should

do all within its power to stymie debate. He also said the Scottish

Government would take the threat of an independence referendum of the

table. The Conservative language and amendment to date doesn't talk about

removing the opportunity of a referendum altogether but in

delaying it. Once again Mr Stewart let the cat out the bag. This was in

a debate in January this year. He stated regarding the SNP, in this

debate so far we've heard about not having it now, not having it during

the Brexit discussion. But Mr Stewart earlier on this yet stated

not to have it in this session. I think that speaks volumes about the

Conservative Party position. The amendment doesn't talk about

removing it altogether but in delaying it. That's an important

fact the chamber needs to recognise. As the First Minister has stated she

is willing to have that discussion with the Prime Minister. Once again

showing the willingness of the SNP government and the First Minister to

compromise and find common ground with the Prime Minister. There are a

few other contributions I want to touch upon. I want to thank Alex

Riley. He spoke of the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland. The flaw

in his argument I think is in the nine months after the European

referendum, we've got no idea as to what the cost of Brexit is going to

be. We've got David Davis and his evidence to the Commons committee

saying no analysis has been undertaken. It wasn't just

embarrassing to him or the UK Government, but I would argue a

dereliction of duty by the UK Government. For a UK Government

ministers to state you don't need a piece of paper with numbers on a

piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment is

appalling. I'm sure there will be more that unites than divides Mr

Reilly and myself. With no analysis by the UK Government and no

discernible plan, they won't... It is the same old mantra we hear time

and time again from the Conservatives in this chamber to

deflect from their position of weakness on this issue. We've got a

Prime Minister who doesn't help the Scottish Government Article 50 is

going to be triggered this week. The Scottish Government find out about

it from the media. They stand up for themselves and are castigated her

having a grievance. I think that was an appalling argument to deploy but

highlights the lack of substance in the conservative argument. At times

I've tried to fully comprehend and understand the position unionists

take for not wanting independence. Nothing can remove me from this

point. For me it's a point of self-respect by taking our own

decisions and standing up for ourselves. That is one of the key

points to move Scotland forward. But, with that viewpoint regarding

the Conservatives and the referendum, Scotland will always be

hamstring and destined to never fulfil its potential. For me, the

people of Scotland are sovereign and have a right to determine their

future. The 15,568 people in Inverclyde having been fed from the

food bank since September 2012, I want to give them a decision... You

must close. And not consigned to picking up food parcels for the rest

of their lives. I'm sure as members will understand, I'm utterly

delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. The First

Minister struck an important note at the beginning where she talked about

respect and recognised the significance of our democracy. I

would say this. A First Minister with two full speeches in a two date

debate, it has been no debate in government time on education since

last October. I know we have redefined what a generation is, we

have now clearly redefined what constitutes a top priority. It has

been interesting to watch government backbenchers over the last couple of

weeks. They have appeared to have got their Mojo back. I guess it must

be easier to cheer them First Minister playing the old tunes on

independence rather than suffer the discomfort of watching the Scottish

Government failing on education, health, the economy. How much better

to look to an imagined world way beyond us, rather than confront the

tough consequences of the choices of their own government on the lives of

ordinary people. Cutting budgets and resisting the use of the powers it

has to make a difference to people's lives. Can I say respectfully to Ben

MacPherson, who says we are all civic nationalists now. Speak for

yourself. Don't speak for me. Don't redefine all those who don't agree

with you as having some kind of force consciousness. I am not a

nationalist and I will not have my politics defined by the

Constitution. I will have it defined by inequality. Let us be charitable,

let us assume that most of us, indeed all of us, our serious

thoughtful people who want to do our best for the communities we

represent. I understand Brexit troubles many here, and way beyond

the chamber, and that the sense of uncertainty and feeling of shock at

the results bring with them a desire for action. I do say to the Scottish

Government, you shouldn't simply seek to recruit that concern to

their own cause. Many a remain is as fervent in their desire to stay in

the United Kingdom as in the EU. I get there are concerns about Brexit.

To paint Europe as some kind of golden Citadel democracy is to deny

entirely the concerns of 1 million voters in this country about its

inflexibility and bureaucracy, and its lack of accountability. It is

true that while we have debated endlessly the potential consequence

of Brexit, there is no doubt in my mind that many on the SNP benchers

saw it not as a problem but as an opportunity to override the once in

a generation vote just two and a half years ago. We know that for

many, Brexit has been a convenient proxy for the Scottish

constitutional debates and the opportunity to overturn a vote they

have neither accepted nor respected. Will the member access that when the

Brexit referendum took place that many of us on this side of the

chamber were every bit as upset, and more upset, and many people across

the country? That result was the second worst result I've ever had in

my life and I've been defeated in elections quite a few times. People

are concerned about Brexit right across the UK. It's not something

unique to Scottish people. For me there is a concern in this debate,

we have moved on from why there should be a referendum to the

process for securing it, so we can get enraged about refusing a

referendum without troubling ourselves with having to justify why

it is needed in the first place. We should guard against being

conditioned to a sense of its inevitability. Why does that matter?

The fact is the case hasn't been made. First, the cause and

explanation shift. We hear is so we can stay in the EU. Or it's because

we want to be in Europe but not in the Common fisheries policy. We can

negotiate on timing. These are manifestations of an end goal,

hunting around for a principle. This SNP should be honest, they just want

a referendum and if it weren't on this it would be something else. In

the rush, it is remarkable the proposition is no more solid than it

ever was. A time of insecurity, it is simply astonishing to see a

proposition represented, so ill thought through, on the currency, on

the euro, on the deficit. This isn't the action of a government serious

in providing certainty in these troubled times. We are told the SNP

has a mandate, almost an obligation as a consequence of its manifesto

commitment. One might take the view this is a slightly tenuous argument.

Even if we accept it, the reality is the government has other competing,

and I did consent, equally compelling mandates on education,

poverty, health and creating a fairer economy. But these must be

put on ice while the SNP pursues its ultimate priority. It is evident

some mandates are more important than others. We already know there

has been no education debate in government since last October, even

then that was about the impact of Brexit. When Parliament voted to

condemn the failure of SNP in action on education, the will of the

Parliament remained remarkably unheard. No debate, no determination

that the will of the Parliament will prevail. If we didn't already know

it, it is laid bare here. Some will solve the Parliament are more equal

than others. I am unable to continue because of the time that's left. Can

I just say, in my view, what we have now got is an excuse, and

opportunity, to argue for a referendum. A referendum, even if it

were held, even if people had the referendum, would not resolve the

debate. Why bother with this once-in-a-lifetime malarkey. I would

recognise if there is another referendum and if we fight to stay

in the UK, there will still be those who would argue another referendum.

I say this to the SNP, stop developing the narrative, stop...

You must close. Get on with the day job and if you do that, we'll

support you. I've been so disappointed at times by the

language used by some across this chamber during this debate. Language

has been weaponised using words like battle, fight and divisive. I've

heard accusations of arrogance, slurs and rabid nationalism.

The language of threat is once again being used, threats being made to

Scottish trade, threats about pensions and the shameful use of the

word foreigner. Used to fear division when an exist. None of this

helps fostering a mature factual discussion on the future of the

country. As leaders in our own communities we need to be mindful of

this and of avoiding tribalism. Debate is yes. The passionate about

your beliefs yes but be respectful to others and in doing so allow the

people their voice and their choice. This is fundamentally about our

right of self-determination and the starting point has to be that

Scotland as a nation has that right. Scotland is not extinguished as a

nation, we have an absolute right to choose the path our nation takes,

particularly when we're taken down a path we have no wish to follow. This

is not an argument about who love their country the rice. This is an

argument about choice, about flirting the Scottish people decide

the future of their nation. That is democracy and that is the people

exercising their democratic right regardless of how they vote. How can

anyone in the chamber deny the Scottish people per se and still

call themselves democratic. Some parties in this chamber... No thank

you... This although oppose Brexit, in the wake of the leave votes they

supported that aim to protect our relationship with Europe by staying

within the single market. They now say we must just suck it up and do

as we're told. Wyatt and at what point does doing what is in the best

interest of Scotland come into the equation? And who decides what is in

our best interest, the Tories who like Labour and the Liberal

Democrats have a sole MP at Westminster? Or perhaps Philip

Rycroft, and an selected senior servants who will be the person in

the UK Brexit department deciding which powers comeback. Where is the

democracy in that? Indeed where is the mandate. Those who shout the

loudest about mandate and the legitimacy to call for a section 30

order are those whose mandate is to not bear scrutiny. The Scottish

Government mandate is irrefutable. The SNP was elected on a clear

commitment that it would review the constitutional arrangements and if

necessary, call for the people of Scotland to have a choice if there

was a material change of circumstances. That change is upon

us and it is clear that in the interests of Scotland and the

current process that it is being ignored. A hard Brexit will damage

the economy. It would damage the global perception as an inclusive

and forward-thinking nation. If this Parliament votes by a majority today

to ask for this to legislate for an independence referendum then the UK

Government would be ill-advised to block what would be a clear mandate

to let the people of Scotland choose their future. Let stand back from

the emotive language and look at the cold hard facts. For instance in the

last referendum we were told if we voted no contention to be safe. Tell

that to the women who now have to wait years long before their

pensions. Tell that to those who make after work to the age of 70

before being able to take their pension or tell it to the pensioners

facing cuts after 2020. We were told if we voted note that the shipyards

would be safe but the orders have been cut and they are behind

schedule. We were told if we voted no then the tax offices would be

safe. Tell it in my constituency in East Kilbride. We were told voting

no would deliver the nearest thing to federalism only for it to be

watered down with Labour opposing powers that they have no hope of

delivering. And of course we were told if we voted no we would be able

to keep our membership and we face the prospect of Scotland being taken

out against her will. Presiding officer as I said Scotland is a

nation not a region, not a province, not a territory. As a nation it has

a right to seek interest and have relationships with other nations,

especially in the current circumstances. It is also right that

the decision is taken outlined by the Government and that the

referendum will be made in Scotland. We will have that conversation and I

look forward to that conversation being engaging and uplifting like

the previous one, my hope is that a new conversation can come without

recourse to threat or fear. We know status quo will not be in the

upcoming referendum and we will choose between two futures. One we

will see which would be damaging an isolationist which will be ours

alone to fashion. Sovereignty lies of the people and I trust the people

to make an informed choice which will see Scotland saying stop the

world we want to get on. Any cook will tell you that the correct

ingredients and the correct timing are essential to get a souffl to

rise, get either wrong and the whole thing will collapse. In what

increasingly has all the characteristics of the

miscalculation of the devolution area, Nicola Sturgeon's gambit in

calling for a second referendum has been met with the loudest raspberry

from every corner of Scotland since. The result is the greatest collapsed

souffl of our time. The second referendum has until now bend the

default sanction of every SNP grievance. It's a threat are not in

action. Like every deterrent it is only successful if not triggered but

a fortnight ago and it has changed a lot since the First Minister planned

soon. If there was a surprise of timing, just three days later the

inherent hollowness of the demand was laid bare when the Prime

Minister calmly responded now is not the time. Opinion polls over that

reflected no increase and support for either independent or four any

second referendum. The leader of the SNP in Aberdeen people in shops and

bus queues and homes and restaurants to which Ben MacPherson referred,

remained unmoved. Like the Prime Minister, opinion polls confirmed

people in Scotland have likewise concluded now was not the time.

Indeed measured against Nicola Sturgeon of a clear majority demand

sustained over many months, it is difficult to imagine when the people

of Scotland will be persuaded that we have again arrived at that time.

In our speech in this chamber, Nicola Sturgeon generously

entertained MSP 's two her address. Whilst it may have moved many to

tears, no glass eyes worked elsewhere. Scotland was left cold

and unimpressed. No new arguments were supported, just the same

Etruria old repertoire of grievance from 2014. By now we need barely one

third of Scots thought a further referendum was a priority or

responding to the failing domestic record of the SNP government. Nicola

Sturgeon asserts Westminster will be bound by her manifesto, just that

she. Trident in the same campaign. The pledge to hold a second

referendum is increasingly seen from what it was. A pledge to deliver

something which the ministers not have power or authority. She seeks

comfort in the majority losing 2016 manifesto as a justification. The

manifesto which renders the SNP MPs elected on the 2015 manifesto, in a

moment, without any mandate to combat. After all the MPs were

elected where Nicola Sturgeon said independence is not an issue. He has

tried to intervene and has a speech coming up so give him is moment... I

thank him for that generous introduction. To the manifesto and

commitment, there was a commitment from the Conservative manifesto, the

same which promised an EU referendum, to commit to the single

market, for over 74% of people voted to stay in a single market, can you

outlined to the chamber what actions he has taken to realise the

democratic wish's what the people of East would did was they turned out

in record numbers in September 2014 and voted for Scotland to remain in

the United Kingdom. And in June 2015 with one of the ten highest margins

anywhere in the UK, my constituents voted for the United Kingdom to

remain in the European Union and they lost. My constituents and I

respect the results, Mr Arthur and the Scottish party respect the

judgment. The first ministers's compromise mandate rests on an

election which uniquely remain in office despite losing majority,

something no Prime Minister has sought to doing over 100 years.

Nicola Sturgeon says West Minister must abide by any voter night it has

been repeatedly demonstrated for receipt after that defeat. Earlier

this afternoon, by the end of the Easter recess. ... Once again it is

a case of the First Minister saying do what I say, not what I do. In

2014 the referendum which took place finally saw the support of 92 people

for its being held and the support of every SNP from all five parties

of the Scottish parliament representing every shade of opinion.

Today barely a third supported it and only two of the five parties do

so. Neither the political all-party consent exists. There has been no

significant number of those who voted no. In the 15 days since.

Opinion has shifted that the First Minister has not imagined her plans.

It is the First Minister's Redheugh Bridge which drives this effort to

kick-start a campaigner Scotland. We had resolute voice and we spoke and

said no and we meant it. When the arrangements are transparent and

until there is evidence of public support amongst Scots for a

referendum then there will be no second referendum. The people in

Scotland can trust us, we can and we will deliver. I called Tom after. --

Tom after. Thank you presiding Officer, may I express my

condolences to the victims and my solidarity with the survivors of the

attacks last week. Presiding Officer, it is a privilege to

contribute to this debate on the choice for Scotland. The debate

fuelled by competing passions which has at point exceeded the scope.

That is not whether Scotland should be independence but rather the

question we face is whether this Parliament believes the people of

Scotland to the sovereign and endowed with the right to determine

their own future. I believe the people of Scotland to the sovereign,

it is consistent with people who live in Scotland. It is a belief

that the people and they alone have the right to determine this. It is a

belief shared by many. It is a belief who legitimate Sue was

accepted by governments. However the actions of Theresa May and the

Scottish Conservatives have compromised that. The Tory amendment

is the only amendment that seeks to remove any acknowledgement of the

sovereign right of the Scottish people from the Government for the

promotion. Will the Supreme Court reconfirm the legally supported a

state unless. The Tory response to this result and their refusal to

consider a differential settlement demonstrates the Tory belief on

matters of fundamental for the importance to the governance of

Scotland. The will of the Scottish people is subordinate to the will of

the UK Government. This shows a fundamental change, not only in the

circumstances of 2014 out of decades of a shared understanding of the

relationship. Theresa May told people of Scotland

at the UK is a partnership of equals. However, a partnership where

one partner forces another into actions against their will is no

longer a relationship of equals and not a partnership. The UK

Government's intransigence towards Scottish aspirations should be

deeply disturbing for any Democrat. It suggests they would seek to

diminish Scotland from the status of a nation. In the referenda of 2014

and 2016, the people of Scotland chose not to endorse fundamental

change. Yet as a consequence of the actions of the UK Government, change

of the most profound kind is coming to Scotland. All that we can now do

is determine the nature of that change. Should Scotland remain an

open and outward looking nation and chart its own course? Or should we

permit ourselves to be locked into an increasingly insular, intolerant

and backwards looking Britain? Only the sovereign people of Scotland can

make a decision of that magnitude. But choice is not for politicians or

parliaments to make, it's for the people of Scotland alone. Before

concluding I wish to make to specific points. Namely timing and

the fear of the vision. The timetable set out for the referendum

is predicated on the UK Government and the EU's chief Brexit

negotiators assessment of when the negotiations will be concluded ahead

of ratification. A referendum between autumn 2018 and spring of

2019 will empower people to make an informed choice on Scotland's

future. Crucially this will be before any regulatory divergences

between the EU single market and the UK can take place, which would

compromise Scotland's existing fulfilment. Any attempt by the UK

Government to delay a referendum beyond the proposed timescale will

be seen as cynical and grossly undemocratic. Not only by people in

Scotland but by our European partners at a time when the UK will

be relying on the goodwill of small independent European nations.

Finally, on the issue of division, we must not allow the debate to

descend into recriminations and personal attacks. Those of us to

seek to persuade a majority to choose independence we must

understand and show respect our fellow Scot to take a different

view. There are many who look upon the prospect of a referendum with

anxiety, fear and even anger. These are our fellow patriotically to and

with genuinely held views, beliefs and principles. They aren't

misinformed individuals who have yet to be persuaded. Just as one side

has a right to make a case, so the other has the right to reject and be

treated with courtesy and respect. Regardless of the views of

Scotland's future, our differences are far outweighed by what we have

in common. Those who oppose independence have equal

responsibilities to resist cynically employing inflammatory language for

political gain. Such techniques are a false economy for which all sides

inevitably pay. A robust and passionate debate is a hallmark for

civilised society and a dynamic democracy. To describe such a

process as fratricidal conflict does all politics a disservice. That us

not to base ourselves, our democracy and our country with such a

pernicious approach to politics. Rather, let us have a great debate

equal to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Scotland. On that,

surely we are all united. APPLAUSE Thank you. Everyone who has taken

part in this debate last week and today should be in the chamber of

the closing speeches. I believe in self for Scotland within the UK,

I've always believed in the sovereign true of the Scottish

people. I thank Ben MacPherson for not calling me a Unionist. In every

debate I've ever been in that's what I've been called. Self-determination

allows me to say that I am a socialist first, an

internationalist, a feminist and a trade unionist. I refuse to be

defined by the Constitution. I will respect everyone's views and the

outcome of the vote tonight. But I will continue to argue against an

independence referendum as Scotland's answer to Brexit. I

believe in the vision that I have the UK and I will passionately

continue to argue for that. Because I believe that the people

predominantly and including many yes voters, are not with the SNP on the

self-made push for a second referendum. Nor are the people with

the SNP on the timing of it. In my experience, even in the last few

days in the local government elections, I've spoken to people who

are committed to independence. They tell me they do not believe that now

is the time and they do not believe that, until they see the full

implications of Brexit, that it is fair to put that question to them.

The country is nervous and the country is cautious. They are

cautious because the rise in the cost of living, the prospects of

separating from two unions at the same time, without a clear promise

that it would be an independent Scotland in the European Union is on

offer. The First Minister said people would know their choices in

two years' time. I do not believe they will. Alex Neil last week set

out to see that the terms of Brexit won't be fully known, and the terms

and implications of international agreements will take some time to

assess and understand. The long-term outlook for the UK

will take some time to assess the full implications of Brexit. So I

argue a choice is only fair if people have a clear idea about what

the prospects are, and on what basis an independent Scotland is

predicated. Claire Haughey talks about the Waspi women. Andrew Wilson

leading the great commission was at least honest enough to say that

there might be up to a 10-year period recovery. Without that

clarity it's not a fair choice to put to the people. I'm glad at least

one member who I know will be voting differently from me tonight

recognises the 2014 referendum had elements of deep acrimony and it was

difficult for many families who were split different ways. It's not a

reason in itself to argue against the independence referendum but I

think recognition of that fact has to be something we consider. What

astonishes me most about the logic of the SNP position in the last few

days is I do accept that as a mandate, I accept that there is a

material situation which has brought about the argument at least. But the

astonishing inconsistency leaves me quite staggered. If the material

breach is the fact that Scotland has been dragged out of Europe against

its will, then the logic of that must mean that the question to the

people on whether they want an independent Scotland, has to be an

independent Scotland within Europe. Clearly in the last few days, that

isn't on offer. So I don't really... I think you undermine your own case

by arguing there is a mandate when you aren't going to put that to the

people. I'm grateful to the member forgiving way. Shortly after the

result of the EU referendum, the members leader in this Parliament

said that people had voted to remain in the UK and in the EU and that was

what the Scottish Labour Party wanted to secure happening. Can the

member give us any other route to EU membership other than putting this

question back into the hands of the voters? Is there another path to

full membership? As the member knows, the argument I'm making is

that surely you would want the question to be put to the people

that independence in Europe was the only logical extension of the

mandate you claim to have. The biggest mandate that you have, that

the SNP has in this Parliament, is to reduce child poverty which last

week was up to 4%. I plead with the front bench, I plead with the First

Minister. Please, whatever happens tonight, do not give us two years of

this. Recognise there is a job to do, and in some of that job we will

be with you. But please do not give us two years of this. The people

demand something else. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Four minutes please. I realise time is short. I would like to

concentrate on four areas. My experience of the 2014 referendum

doesn't follow the joyful experience some seem to portray. Whilst there

was political engagement, there was an undercurrent of pent-up

frustration in those who sought to divide. They saw two dozen and 14 as

a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, an opportunity to gain independence.

But clearly that, along with many of the facts promoted in Scotland's

future, wasn't quite true either. In May 2016 I was privileged to be

elected to this Parliament and I arrived ready to start work, full of

enthusiasm. Ready to tackle the issues. Problems with the NHS,

problems with schools, issues with infrastructure projects,

dysfunctional national computer projects, and the personal concerns

and worries of constituents in the Highlands and Islands. That's what

I'm doing, I'm giving the day job and I'm passionate about those.

That's the reason why we should all be looking at them, because it is

the reason we were elected to this place. I'm amazed that there are

some within this Parliament to think independence will solve all of these

issues, thus tromping everything else. It doesn't. It won't, and it

never will. What will make a difference is tackling the issues.

I'll accept the invitation of the First Minister to judge her and her

government on their performance on education. Ten years down the line

and almost one year into this Parliament, and we have to ask what

difference have you made? This government seems distracted by

previous decisions and concentrates too much on trying to distract

others to hide the failures of their own administration. Here is my

message. There are five things that won't make Scotland better.

Disarray, destruction, discord, disharmony and ultimately division.

What will make the difference is getting on with the day job with

diligence, drive and devotion. That is what is needed to ensure we

deliver for Scotland. I'd like to talk about a self evident truth

which has been reinforced to me in every job I've done. Success is

seldom achieved by one person. Success is achieved by teens, teens

that support each other. Teams that no when the going gets tough they

can stand together. Teams that know when somebody has got their back.

Teams who went ask the help know their neighbours will come. These

are the cornerstones that make successes. Whether you are on the

battlefields or in the office. That's what the union brings. As one

of my Sergeant majors constantly reminded me, by sharing the pain you

share the game. Scotland benefits from being part of the UK whether

it's in defence contracts, bailing out the backs, helping the oil

industry or ensuring the pain of economic terms are set across the

whole union. We are better together. Now, there are some that think that

standing together with other parties is wrong. In the 2014 referendum, I

stood beside Liberal Democrats and Labour activists. I even stood

beside Mr Finlay who campaigned in Inverness. He and I must be

politically at polar opposites. Let me suggest today, that if you took

the majority of our political beliefs, put them in a jar, shook

them up, they would still curdle and separate. But by promoting things

that we do best together, and standing by the union, we can

actually help Scotland, and I'm proud to say I will stand behind

anyone... Please conclude. I support the motion. I will always stand

shoulder to shoulder with those who seek to protect the union. I'm happy

to continue to serve Scotland as I have done in the past. Thank you. I

moved to closing speeches. Eight minutes, please. I said at the

beginning of this debate that the country is divided. This is an

undisputed fact, it is divided. While I see the First Minister

shaking her head already, obviously it's not that undisputed.

The duty of the first ministers should be to heal division, not

laugh at it or exasperated. And fortunately the first ministers

making a bad situation worse. It is clear that by any and all measures,

most people do not want to be faced with another independent referendum.

We have heard that from contributions right across the

chamber. We had a referendum 2.5 years ago that was fair, legal and

with a clear result. Both the UK and the Scottish Government accepted the

results or so we were led to believe. The Liberal Democrats do

not expect nationalists to give up support for a separate Scotland.

Just as we don't give up for our support in the UK in Europe. What we

should expect however is the Scottish Government honours the

signature that Nicola Sturgeon put on the Edinburgh agreement. Can he

then explained why the Liberal Democrats are posing a second

referendum's the referendum we had 2.5 years ago was supposed to close

this issue down. It hasn't done so has it. The vote who had just

recently has opened up the whole process of Brexit up and the people

of to make a decision on that rather than the Conservative cabinet. The

First Minister knows that. We were elected on a manifesto that said the

voters who would vote against any move for the independence referendum

that is exactly what will do. We are having this debate because Nicola

Sturgeon says that she won't support of the Scottish people for her

unilateral demand that the UK Prime Minister gives her the power on her

own timescale. I've no doubt she will win the vote tonight, it is

obvious thanks to the Greens and I did mention them. She has the

numbers but she has not won the argument. I think one of the most

useful contributions. He asked the First Minister a series of questions

and learn gave her the opportunity to intervene. They called for the

First Minister to respond to the questions, not only the First

Minister that every Member of the front bench. They kept their heads

down and buried and would respond. That was the turning point. Unlike

the last time the First Minister does not have the country with her

and I have to say Alex Neil was the other, his contribution was

excellent. He had not had the courage -- he had the courage alone

to argue that an independence referendum should be separate from

any re-entry into the European Union. He was honest. I thought he

spoke extremely well but he did shoot the Fox at the First Minister

site running. Why does he not have the country with her? Because she

has shown she is leading the campaign to secede from the UK

rather than run a benefit for the people of Scotland. What I found

astounding is that it must acknowledge the will of the Scottish

people. I say that but First Minister must've had a conversion on

the road to Damascus. Nicola Sturgeon said the will of the

Scottish parliament must be adhered to. Is this the same Nicola Sturgeon

though who has repeatedly ignore the will of the Scottish Parliament five

times in the last ten months. Fiona Hyslop on the BBC live debate denied

this was so. For the sake of accuracy, five votes to date have

been completely ignored by the Scottish Government. On the 1st of

June, the 20th of September, the Parliament extracted the Government

to do so. Parliament instructed the Government to repeal the behaviour,

any action? No. On the 18th of January, what action have we heard

to date's nothing. On the 1st of March save the Scottish funding

Council was ignored. Parliament said we wanted action but they have

studiously ignored their instructions. So much for the will

of the Scottish Parliament. I thank the Member for giving way. Will you

say it is up to the opposition parties if they are against this

bill to bring forward their own Bill? The will of Parliament I