The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on motion 4710, in the name of the First Minister, on Scotland's choice. I would invite those members who wish to speak in this afternoon's debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on the cabinet secretary—I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary's terminal is working—but I call on the cabinet secretary, if her terminal will work, to speak in the debate. Presiding Officer, in opening the second day of this important debate on Scotland's choice and Scotland's future, I want to reflect on a number of points. It is right that this Parliament takes time to debate this most important fundamental issue of sovereignty of our people. Yesterday, we heard a large number of members express their sincerely and deeply held views. Like all debates about deeply held views, there was emotion and passion from all sides. The debate has to reflect the diversity of views, but as speeches yesterday from Bruce Crawford and Ruth Maguire in particular warned, this chamber has a responsibility in conduct and tone to collectively lead that debate with respect and responsible leadership. More important than ever in this most challenging of circumstances for Scotland, for the UK and for Europe, because the UK withdrawing from the EU presents Scotland with one of the most critical challenges that it has faced in the modern era as we face being taken out of the EU against our will. If Scotland can be ignored on an issue as important as this, then it is clear that our voice and our interests can be ignored at any time on any issue. We produced a substantial plan for both Scotland and the UK to remain in the single market and we actively engaged with the UK Government when it said that it wanted to reach an agreed UK approach to article 50 negotiations. So where are we now? The UK Government voted against guaranteeing the residency rights of EU nationals. There has been no serious engagement as equal partners from the UK Government over our proposal for Scotland's place in Europe. Indeed, without notice, and only two days before the joint ministerial committee was to have its first formal consideration of our compromise proposals, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will be outside the single market and likely the customs union. Now that the United Kingdom Government speaks recklessly of departing the EU with no deal at all, this is more than a hard Brexit. This is a Brexit that increasingly evidence warns could cause lasting damage to Scotland's economy and jobs, as well as vital investment and trade. The Fraser of Allander Institute cautions that under a WTO scenario, GDP in Scotland would be £8 billion lower than otherwise the case of employment, £80,000 lower, real wages, £2,000 lower and exports over 11 per cent lower. The People of Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote against independence. They were then told to vote remain to achieve the same outcome. Scotland has now done both those things and yet we are still being taken out of the EU. On top of that, the manner and the approach of the United Kingdom Government with only one Conservative MP in Scotland to withdrawing from the EU has created uncertainty and anxiety. That should matter as much to those who voted leave as to those who voted remain. The terms of the departure emerging from Westminster go against our nation's fundamental values of fairness, welcome and openness to the world, including towards our European friends and neighbours, as well as the economic self-interest that freedom of movement affords Scottish business and Scottish jobs reliant on EU nationals. The Government was mandated by the Scottish Parliament immediately after the EU referendum to do all that we can do to protect Scotland's interests and what we have done and what we will continue to do. John Scott is today what the Scottish Government's position is on Europe. Is it full or partial membership today or are we waiting to hear on Alex Neil's advice before coming to our decision today? The Scottish National Party's position and the Scottish Government's position is, as it has been for some time, EU membership and that is what we are pursuing. We were elected less than a year ago on a manifesto that explicitly set out and I quote, the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014 such as the Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. This Government understands that people have been asked to make a number of momentous decisions in a short period of time, but those circumstances are not of our choosing. Change will happen because of Brexit and we need to decide how we respond and how the people of Scotland can exercise their sovereign power to determine their future in those changing circumstances. Should the Parliament decide to hold a Scottish referendum, our proposed timeframe is logical and sensible at some point between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of 2019. We are not suggesting holding a Scottish referendum now but when the terms of the Brexit deal are ready. To fit in with the Prime Minister's own timeframe, the article 15 negotiations will be concluded by October 2018, and the European Commission has made that clear. The terms of the deal will be known before any independence referendum. I am closing my remarks and we will set out the opportunities and the challenges of independence well in advance of a referendum. As a consequence of the Brexit vote, much is at stake now for Scotland, which not only impacts on our relationship with the EU but who we are as a nation. It is impossible to deny that this is a fundamental, never mind significant and material change in circumstances since 2014. The next two years are hugely important for Scotland. They will determine the kind of country we are to become. In those changed circumstances and in that different context, surely it must be for the people of Scotland to decide their future. It is their choice to let the people decide their future to support the motion. Maurice Golden to be followed by Alec Neill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the run-up to the first independence referendum, there was a widespread acceptance that the SNP Government had the right to hold a referendum. It was right that the Scottish people were able to decide this important constitutional issue. If their independence referendum had gone the other way, I would have accepted that result, sadly, but I would have accepted it. I would have done everything in my power to make an independent Scotland a success. Lamentably, that democratic spirit finds no home in the SNP. When the SNP talks about a mandate, here is the mandate that it should respect. The democratic will of the 2 million Scots who rejected independence and supported the union. Since then, John Mason… John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Is he arguing that there should never be another vote? I mean, we normally, even as elections, we have another vote after four years or five years or whatever it is. Is he arguing that we should never have another vote? Maurice Golden. Keep doing it until you get the answer you want. It was the SNP who first declared that this was once in a generation and in no one's book is less than three years a generation. Now is not the time, but since the referendum, I and hundreds of thousands of other Scots voted remain in the EU referendum as part of the United Kingdom. However, we did not vote remain to see the SNP twist our votes for their own political gain. Today, poll after poll shows that Scottish people do not want another independence referendum in the next two years. The SNP has the ability, even in this late hour, to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and allow Scotland to move on and deal with the issues that Scots really care about. The SNP obsession with independence has already cost Scotland a decade of failure. Education has gone backwards with the latest PISA results being our worst ever. Environmental targets are consistently missed with Scotland having the worst recycling rate in Britain. Our health service is struggling with the GP crisis, missed targets and widespread delays. The SNP-centralised police force is in a mess, hurt further by the SNP's soft touch on crime and so much more, I simply don't have time to list. Given this, the last thing the SNP should be doing is trying to inflict another divisive referendum on Scotland. Looking forward, the SNP has repeatedly failed to explain what currency an independent Scotland would use, what spending cuts or tax rises it would impose and what our status with the EU would be. As for Brexit, we heard yesterday and a little earlier from the SNP about the prospect of the EU in the UK reverting to WTO trading rules. In this scenario, an independent Scotland, as an EU member, would face trading tariffs with the rest of the UK, a market that is worth to Scotland four times that of the EU market. The rationale that we need to be independent should join the EU to protect Scotland's economy from trade tariffs between Europe and the UK and then, as a member of the EU single market, have those trade tariffs imposed back upon us with the rest of the UK is simply ludicrous? The economics of the argument do not add up. I'm just finishing this point, you might well answer your intervention. Furthermore, the significance of the EU market is diminishing in importance to Scotland. Since 2002, Scottish exports to the EU market have only grown by 8 per cent, compared to trade with the UK single market, increasing by 74 per cent and to the rest of the world by 85 per cent. Despite all of that, the SNP wants to put the trading relationship with the EU ahead of the internal UK market. This refusal to recognise any benefit derived from being part of the UK is a result of an increasingly nasty nationalism. That took a turn for the worse over the weekend, with further seeds of division sown. A senior SNP minister stated that the debate should be propositioned around the theme Scotland against the Tories. This is dangerous because it equates the SNP with Scotland. It seeks to define nationhood and nationality in the SNP's image. It says to half a million Scots who voted Conservative at the last election that you are not Scottish and you don't have a place in SNP Scotland. Let me tell the SNP this. I am Scottish and you don't speak for me. Such abject and abrasive language from the SNP doesn't serve Scotland's interests. I urge the SNP to moderate its tone and do their best to avoid the vile slurs, hatred and bully-boy tactics of the last independence campaign. The SNP must put Scotland first and must respect the democratic decision that Scotland took in 2014. Now is not the time for a second independence referendum. Alex Neil is being followed by Ian Gray. I just quickly start on a personal note to thank you, Paul Grice, the staff and all my friends across the chamber for the messages of best wishes and support during my recent illness. I shall be glad to know from the ambulance that I was able to tweet that there would be no violation in Adrian Shaw's. I have campaigned all my adult life for Scottish independence, so I want to see a second referendum at the right time, at the right circumstances, so that this time it succeeds. As with the first referendum, the arrangements, including the timing of the referendum for the second time, must be decided by this Parliament, not in Downing Street, not in Whitehall and not in Westminster. However, in taking those decisions, I believe that there are three basic principles that this Parliament must adopt. The first one, on which I think that there is universal agreement across the chamber, is that the referendum should only be held once we know the final outcome of the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU. The Brexit deal will inform the Scottish Government's prospectus for the trading relationships between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK and the EU. That is all the more important, because trading relationships are likely to be as important in deciding the outcome of NDRF2 as much as the currency was in deciding the result of NDRF1. We should not and either should be forget that there are, in effect, two Brexit deals to be done. One will cover the exit arrangements for the UK from the EU. The other will be in the successor trading relationships between the UK and the EU. Although there is a statutory deadline for the former, there is not for the latter. It is therefore possible that all will not be done and dusted by March 2019. Negotiations on the trade deal, I hope not, but may extend beyond that date. I think that the Government has recognised that and built in flexibility into its position. In supporting the Government's motion tonight, I therefore do so on the basis that we need to know the outcome of both the existing deal, the exiting deal and the trading deal before we hold a second independence referendum. I am grateful to the member for giving way, and I am sure that we all welcome him back to the chamber for this debate. He is quite right about the deal on the UK exiting, and all other EU member states will have a chance to ratify that. At present, people in Scotland will not, but is he saying that he has confidence in the UK Government to represent the interests of Scotland subsequent to that in negotiating a trading arrangement for the on-going period? Does he have confidence in the UK Government respecting Scotland, given its track record so far? I am saying that the real politic is that, as part of the deal, it may end up with one deal with two parts. There is an exiting aspect to it, and there is a future trading relationship aspect to it, and we need to take cognisance of that if we are living in the real world. We will then inform the independence perspective, because the trading relationship, as well as the exiting deal, will inform our future and the options for an independent Scotland in the future. It is therefore, in my view, in all our interests, for an acceptable Brexit deal to be reached ideally between the UK and the EU, and the best deal would be, if it were possible, a tariff-free, friction-free trading arrangement between the UK and the EU after Brexit. The second principle is to think as a self-evident one, and that is that, in this process, we need to take the people with us. Getting broad acceptance of the need for and timing of a second referendum by the time that it is triggered in my view will assist our chances of winning it. However, the final principle that I believe that this Parliament should consider is to separate out the issue of independence from that of whether or not an independent Scotland should apply for EU membership. A yes vote in an independent referendum cannot be interpreted as a dual mandate for both independence and for an independent Scotland to join the EU. The two issues have to be decoupled, and the explicit approval of the Scottish people has to be sought before Scotland applies to rejoin the EU as an independent state. The result of an EU referendum cannot be taken for granted. It is a very different question to ask if an independent Scotland should join the EU when the rest of the UK isn't in it, because it would be outside the customs union and we would be in it, and that has major implications. That is a very different question from asking last year's question as to whether we want the UK to remain in the EU. Different questions very often elicit different answers. Whether we do it as part of the referendum or do it once we are independent, we have to ask the Scottish people basically two questions, because it is their choice, their decision. One is, do you want Scotland to be independent? Yes or no. The other one at some stage has to be, do you want an independent Scotland to join the European Union? Yes or no. Whether you remain or you voted for leave, I believe that that is a fair position for everybody because it gives the people the decision on the EU membership issue as well as on the issue of independence. However, I cannot 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 would find it no more appetising for Scotland to be ruled by Mr Junker than I would for it to be ruled by Mrs May. Osterity from London and Osterity 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. I believe that if we follow those three fundamentally democratic principles, we will be living up to the vision and aspirations of this Parliament and we will earn the respect, irrespective of what side of the argument you are on. We will all earn the respect of the Scottish people if we conduct ourselves in a fair, transparent and democratic manner. As we set off on day 2 of this debate, I want to start at its core the fundamental difference between those benches and the Government. Our politics will always seek to unite not separate people, to heal not so division, to pool sovereignty individually and collectively for the greater good. The SNP will always look to separate this country and divide this nation. It will campaign each and every day for independence at all and any cost, whatever the circumstances. I heard the cabinet secretary talk of Brexit, and of course she is right. Brexit is causing division, uncertainty, anxiety and economic damage, and that is the Tory's fault. But the absurd idea that the solution is more division, further uncertainty and even 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 then washed away by the tide of expediency. Remember abolish student debt, cut class sizes, maintain teacher numbers, build the Glasgow airport rail link and, oh yes, abolish the council tax. All cast iron commitments and all is disposable as well as disposable as a Scottish Green Party election promise. 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 systematically. She had no answer yesterday when confronted with her own contempt for Parliament on fracking, health services or education. 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 defended it in any TV studio that she could find before she ever saw fit to bring it here to this Parliament. Nor has she had the grace to acknowledge that she has failed this Parliament. Last year, Ms Hyslop was right. 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. I accept that the Prime Minister has been utterly inept in her response, but it is not the truth that whatever careful, quiet negotiation the ever-consensual Mike Russell has attempted has been drowned out by the First Minister's daily megaphone diplomacy of indie ref to threats. Nicola Sturgeon's referendum demand is an admission that she has been found wanting in the task that this Parliament gave her last year, or worse, it is a confession that the will of Parliament to find that compromise was never more than a useful fig leaf in her indie ref quest. Andy Wightman Mr Gray has acknowledged that Theresa May has inept. What is the Labour party's response to that ineptitude? Ian Gray The problem that we have, the conundrum we must answer, is not the Labour party's, it is the Scottish people's, because it is 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. John Swinney I am grateful to Mr Gray for giving me a minute. Mr Wightman asked a question about what the Labour party's answer was to that conundrum. Can we hear it, please? Ian Gray Our position is clearly that 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 that the two Governments that we have are not listening to each other, Mr Swinney makes it clear that they are not listening to anybody else either. The First Minister told the Scottish people that her defining mission, her top priority, her sacred responsibility was education, but her defining mission is, was and always shall be independence. In 2007 independence was her mission. We had a national conversation on independence, a draft bill on independence, a white paper on independence and another white paper on an independence referendum. In 2011 independence was her mission. We had negotiations on an independence referendum, an 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. This Parliament is not a year old and we have had a national survey on independence, a draft independence referendum bill, an independence growth commission and now a section 30 demand. 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. In that time, our schools have hemorrhaged teachers, child poverty has soared, literacy and numeracy has plummeted, our NHS has reached breaking point, our economy has stalled and yet, after ten years, 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 says that the people's voice must be heard. She has conversed with them, consulted them and asked them a once in the 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 heal the wounds, not reopen them. Listen to them, First Minister, for the love of Scotland. Bob Dorris, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Much has been made in the earlier debate across both days over who holds a mandate internal of Scotland's constitutional question, given that our nation has been dried out of the European Union against our will. Who holds a constitutional mandate of Scotland faces a hard Brexit that we did not choose with all the ensuring risks and damages that that will certainly bring? For clarity, let's be clear. The 2016 election manifesto stated that we believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. The SNP won that election with 46.5 per cent of the popular vote. There has, of course, been a significant and material change in circumstances with Scotland being dragged out of the EU against our will, with 62 per cent of those voting clearly expressing a wish to retain our European Union membership. That's the context of this debate. Contrast that 46.5 per cent of the popular vote and the explicit reference to a future independence referendum with the votes that were pulled by the second and third parties in the Scottish Parliament. They pulled little more than 22 per cent of the vote each, combined. That is still less than the Scottish Government's share of the popular vote for this place. Yet, over both days, we hear Opposition MSP after Opposition MSP lecturing and condemning the Scottish Government for seeking to implement an undeniable, explicit democratic mandate. Not a mandate for independence, but rather a mandate to ensure that people of Scotland have a choice. I'll be delighted to, Mr Kelly. James Kelly. Can you tell us if any poll since last year has shown a majority of Scottish people in favour of a second independence referendum? Bob Doris. The even clearer answer is the ballot box, Mr Kelly. I have to say to Mr Kelly what an affront to democracy has been demonstrated by our Opposition parties here today. Let us compare the clear manifesto commitment and the self-evident mandate of the Scottish Government with 46.5 per cent of the Scottish vote with previous UK Governments. I do not recall a 2001 manifesto commitment for Tony Blair and the Labour Party to take Britain into a legal war in Iraq. It gets 43 per cent of the Scottish vote. Or, in 1987, perhaps, a Tory mandate to govern Scotland with 24 per cent of the vote, yet it savaged our communities with the poll tax. Or, how bit more recently, in 2010, with a poll to 16.7 per cent, the Tory's got in Scotland and they brought the despised bedroom tax and horrific austerity to our country. Presiding officer, where was the mandate there? Answer that question, Opposition parties. They do not have it. Let us take no lessons from Opposition parties and mandates. 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 European Union—I do not have time to draw on my apologies. That is all the choice that 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, irrespective of whether a person supports independence or the union, that Labour and Tory know best. In fact, they are so convinced of their views on independence that they will not even 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 that one of the most significant aspects of the debate over the mandate to hold an independence referendum in the first place is the growing realisation that, no matter what Scotland's Parliament decides, any Scottish Government of any given party colour, we need to go cap and hand to a right-wing UK Tory Government to ask for permission in the first place. That might be the legal position, but it is a democratic outrage. I want to comment briefly on the re-emerging project between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, in particular with reference to my local area. Let me tell you what the project that the Labour Party meant in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn. It meant that three different worried individuals turning up at the Yes hub in the Maryhill roads area of Glasgow in my constituency, complaining that the Labour Party was 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. I was delighted that my constituency voted 57 per cent for Scottish independence and I want to place in 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 that I made in the Scottish Parliament debate on 24 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, who referred to my niece, was nine and my sister's oldest daughter, Beth, was 14. Here's what I said. Emily just woke up. Her first two words were money and independence. No, darling, is it not? Was her reply. I didn't realise that was a matter for laughing, but I think the people of Scotland will judge you on that. Just found out that my oldest daughter joined the SNP, paid £2 for the privilege, well done Glasgow and Western Bartonshire. Y'all worked extremely hard. I've never seen the veil look like that before. That was my hometown. My sister went on, even when mum voted, and she's very frail. Her slippers, I was very proud of her, Robert. Try and sleep both of you. We're all very proud in this household. My mum has since passed away, and I was proud of what my mum did that day. It made me cry. It made me cry tears of pride, not tears of despair. My niece's, my sister, my frail mum, has now sadly passed away. They weren't driven by conflict and division. They simply wanted a better future for their family, for their community and their country. So, how dare Ian Gray come to this place and talk about sowing the seeds of division, and how dare Maurice Golden talk about nasty nationalism? The vast majority of people on the vast majority of people on both sides of the constitutional debate, not divide, just want the best for their country. Some will never shift their views. They were so deeply held. I want to finish off by saying that I want an independent Scotland. I want to tell people that they should not have a vote. Let the people decide. Don't block the people, like the Labour Party and the Conservatives. Please sit down, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I noticed that the last two speakers have gone well over. Can I ask people to stick to six minutes? May I also request those in the public gallery pleased to refrain from clapping or otherwise in relation to any of the speeches? I rise to offer my support to the Liberal Democrat amendment and to keep a promise that I made to the residents of West Edinburgh who sent me here. This debate is about holding of another referendum, but it serves as a proxy and has done many times for the wider discussion about our continuing place in the United Kingdom. These islands run through me, from the greater London new town of my birth to the hilltops of Wales, where we scattered my grandfather. No, I won't. No such courtesy was afforded to me yesterday, and I will not do it this time, so I won't take an intervention. I have no time. In my children, born here in Edinburgh, to a Scottish mother and to the distant memories of my family origins in Anaskill and 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 mandating 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 that I will not take an intervention. Now, we live in a time of political chaos, and the wheel has turned in ways that we never even thought possible, and it has still got revolutions to come. At times like this, I can only hold on to what I know for certainty and what I feel in my heart. To my bones, I am an internationalist. I believe that the political union of nations does nothing to dilute the integrity or the independence or the strength of the member states that form part of it any more than an orchestra diminishes the violin, because such unions foster a platform from which solidarity, shared endeavour and prosperity can flourish. Now, we have heard many times in this debate the ranker 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 recognise that I may have to campaign for the rest of my life to see closer integration between the United Kingdom and Europe. I shall do so. It is a policy of my party, but I will not trade one political union that I hold dear for the whispered, insubstantial promise of another, insubstantial as that may be. We recognise that, in this debate, we have seen so much in the passion and the absolute focus of the words of Bruce Crawford about our need to keep this focused on what is right. I think back to my time as a candidate in the elections when I made this promise to my constituents. It is important that we recognise this United Kingdom's strengths. In the past, the European Union has given us so much, and we have been ripped out of it for sure. Now, we are sitting at a time of great change in our society, and I get very emotional about this. I could not act. The dysfunctional nature of our United Kingdom has, at times, been a source of great pain to our country. It has caused us a history of where the empire has created a brutal, at times difficult period for us to go forward in. What does the member see as the future of the Liberal Democrats in their relationship with Europe, and how does the member see Scotland prospering as part of a friendship and gathering together? 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, no, it's fine. I know, I know. It's absolutely... You're in your last minute, Mr Corbyn. I know how. Fantastic. These islands run through me. Their history inspires me, but it also haunts me. I recognise that there are times in a parliamentarian's career when he makes speeches that he wishes that he'd not tried to loan off part and had actually brought with him into the chamber. But I reflect on this union of nations. My ancestor, Arthur Cole-Hamilton, first of my name, who was MP for Tyrone at the time of World Before, saw great things happen in terms of awakening of an entire nation to the advent of the abolition of slavery, and it is that spirit that I believe that 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, Ms McAlpine, I have 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. I have Joan McAlpine to be followed by Annie Wells. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm sure that the thoughts of everyone here with anyone affected by that incident at Westminster. It is bittersweet that, on the week celebrating the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, we stand here debating Scotland's future as a European nation. It's right that we should praise the common values that we share with our European neighbours, solidarity, co-operation and multilateralism. 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 that are created by Trump in the west and Putin in the east. To paraphrase Donald Toof's president of the European Council, it has never been so clear that only by working together with our European allies can we be fully independent. However, no matter how important this is, today is not just about Europe. We are citizens, not subjects, and today is about democracy. In a successful union, one partner does not ride roughshod over the other's wishes. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not, nor has it ever 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 that 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, but has also put forward a constructive 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 that 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, Europe and External Relations Committee of this Parliament. Perhaps more importantly, even then, was that irrespective of the detail of the proposal, the committee agreed that the UK must consider the ideas contained within Scotland's place in Europe and respond. To be clear, an answer should not be delivered via the media, nor a speech to the public, but through a direct response to the Scottish Government. So far, that has not been delivered. In fact, the UK Government's most important statement to date has been the announcement that their plan is for the UK to leave the single market. That 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 29 March, the Scottish Government received no indication of what is in that letter. The short comings of the GMC are obvious to all. The system has quite clearly, through no fault of the Scottish Government or the other devolved administrations, failed. It has even failed to meet its own terms of reference, which are to seek to agree a UK approach to and objectives for the article 50 negotiations. The unwillingness of the UK Government to engage is even more frustrating, since there is clearly a will in Europe to address that 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 us 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 to enjoy the benefits of the European single market, in addition to not instead of free trade across the UK. That could be done, but I am not holding my breath. We are here today because the people of Scotland should be given a choice. The 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 hand, and nobody should seek to prevent that. I have Annie Wells to be followed by George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would just like to reiterate the sentiments said by Joan McAlpine, our thoughts. I am sure that everyone else is with those down in Westminster today. Here we are less than three years since the once-in-a-generation referendum vote, and once again I will defend our nation with my heart and soul, as I did for in the last vote in 2014. It was during the referendum that my political fire was lit. I know that there were many people like me who thought that it was okay for someone else to be fighting this battle, but we needed more in a battle it was. I did not expect that only 917 days since we last voted that I would be standing here in this Parliament representing the 2 million 1,926 people who voted no. I am a Democrat, and I believe that we should respect the votes 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 17,410,742 people who voted to leave. No, I will be taking an intervention, thank you. I know that we have heard from the SNP benches during this debate that Scotland has been dragged, pulled, forced to leave the EU against our will. Will we, the Scottish people who voted no back in 2014, were very much aware that there was going to be a referendum in the EU, as did Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues? It was in the white paper on the consequences of voting no. No, I won't, thank you. It also astounds me that we heard not once but twice from the First Minister of Scotland once in our conference speech in 2015, and then during our Scottish Parliament election campaign that there should be no second referendum until 2021 unless there is evidence that people want it. Even John Swinney said that it would have to be strong and consistent evidence that voters support independence, and Stuart Hosey said that a second referendum would have to wait until polling showed an overwhelming majority in support of holding another referendum for three years. We know that that is not the case, with poll after poll showing no shift in the momentum for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. This is not Scotland's choice, as 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 interventions, thank you. I will do what the minister whose responsibility is 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 and I remember saying to someone on my team at the time, I was at that door last year and the guy was SMP, but as you do, you just go and you do it anyway. When the gentleman opened the door, he said, I remember you from last year's Scottish Parliament elections when you were here, and I told you I was SMP. So I asked what about now, and he says, well I'll be voting for you guys this time, as only Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives can sort this mess out. Not my words, the words of a constituent of mine in the east end of Glasgow. And that's the thing, people are starting to get tired with the SMP. How many times have we heard it uttered in recent months that the SMP-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 people's everyday lives, justice, health and education? Do you know what Barat is all you like in this chamber, but public polls are for us on this issue? A survey this week showed that Scotland put Theresa May's approval rating a full six percentage points higher than Scotland's First Minister, and Ruth Davidson a full 11 percentage points ahead. So how can the Scottish Government speak so confidently about having the mandate of the Scottish people? It doesn't. Presiding Officer, I'd also make a comment with regard to the Scottish Green Party's manifesto regarding a second independence referendum, which states, and I quote, in assessing public appetite for a second referendum, we will respect new kinds of citizen-led initiatives, for example a call for referendum signed up to buy a million people on the electoral register. I myself and my colleagues have found no evidence of such a list. Patrick Harvie's retort that 62 per cent of Scottish people voted to stay in the EU does not equate by default to 62 per cent of Scotland's people who want to leave the UK. I am, no I won't. I am in the 62 per cent for a start, as are a number of Scots who, when push comes to shove, would choose the UK every time. Does Patrick Harvie's argument have any tenability when the Scottish Government can't even outlight a plan for rejoining the EU? Never mind actually joining it. I would therefore like to remind Patrick Harvie of his TV comments, the comments on STV on 10 October 2015, that the public be responsible for calling a second referendum, not political parties, carving a deal behind closed doors. Will the Greens keep their promise, or is this door firmly shut on them and the SNP? To finish today, I would like to ask the SNP if they have plans in the near future to debate, two days of parliamentary time to tackle the crisis in public services? Will there be two days of parliamentary time given to tackling failing education standards, which Nicola Sturgeon says is her top priority? Will there be two days of parliamentary time dedicated to tackling waiting times in our hospitals? Will there be two days of parliamentary time trying to find solutions to the problems engulfing Scotland? Deputy Presiding Officer, the time for a second independence referendum is not now. I call George Adam, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Please sit down, Mr Adam. Point of order, Mr Fraser. The debate that we are having this afternoon, but I think that many members are increasingly distracted by the news that has come from Westminster of the violent attack that appears to have occurred there. Has, in light of those circumstances, the Presiding Officer and perhaps the business managers considered whether it might be more appropriate for this debate to be suspended until the picture became clearer and to allow members to concentrate fully on the business in hand? That has been considered, Mr Fraser, and it has been decided to carry on with business as usual. 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 it is a debate about the democratic rights of our people. We have listened to the same arguments time and time again from the Opposition benches, so I feel that 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 views, this debate 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 that they wish to see. In 2014, many people voted no because they felt hesitant at the idea of change, and that is an understandable position, but now we are in a vastly different situation. Change is now inevitable, and it should be up to the people of Scotland to decide what that change will be once the terms of Brexit are known. The ramifications of the decisions that we make today, tomorrow and in the years to come, will have a lasting effect in the lives and opportunities of our children, grandchildren and future generations in Scotland. We therefore must allow our people to make those decisions. Those decisions should not be made by Westminster Parliament. At the moment, we have a Prime Minister and a party at the helm who have never thought of Scotland as their equal. Take what happened in Monday as an example of this. Our Government only found that article 50 will be triggered next Wednesday after watching the news. If it cannot pick up a phone to inform us of the dates and timeline of action, how can we trust it to look for Scotland's interests in a post-Brexit world? The very real concern for me in many Scots is the prospect of a right-wing Tory Government until at least 2030 and being dragged out of the EU and the single market against our will. Why would we seek to deny our public the ability to choose a different option? We cannot and must not bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best. I believe that Scotland must be offered a choice between a hard Brexit and a more progressive future for our nation. I trust the people of Scotland to make that choice. I believe that the detailed arrangements for a referendum, including the timing, franchising question, should be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament alone to decide. The Prime Minister's blatant disregard of Scotland during EU negotiations and her flippant now is not the time dismissal of a second referendum only demonstrates our voice and our interests can be ignored at any time. The Prime Minister's response to the First Minister's announcement of now is not the time not only shows that she does not listen to Scotland but she is happy to simply admonish us like we are unruly children. What we are proposing is 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 still an opportunity to change that course, the Prime Minister has been clear that in the Prime Minister's concerns and his timing, then, within reason, she is happy to have that decision at discussion and be flexible. Timing again, the Scottish Government has been willing to discuss alternative options and even offered a big compromise that would reluctantly mean Scotland leaving the EU if we could stay in the single market. However, the UK Government has refused to even listen to that compromise. In 2014, the people of Scotland were promised that a vote no would secure their EU membership. In 2016, 62 per cent of Scots voted remain. That is why we will not allow a hard Brexit to be forced upon Scotland against our will. The only way to avoid that is to give our people a choice. In the cold light of day, the harsh truth is the cost and effect of a hard Brexit will be immense. The Fraser of Allander Institute found that Scotland would lose 80,000 jobs as a result of Brexit. Let's 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 do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but the thought of 1,000 hard-working paisley buddies losing their job as a result of Tory inflexibility is not the future that I want for Scotland. Now is the time to offer our nation the chance to escape a hard Brexit and the unending Tory austerity. Now is the time to give the people of Scotland an alternative. No problem. Daniel Johnson Talks about job losses and austerity. But what would the cost be of closing the £15 billion deficit? And what would the cost be of hardening links, trading on WTO roles with our trading partners with four times that of the rest of Europe? George Adam The member is obviously not listening to the actual point of my speech, which is effectively saying that we are asking the people of Scotland to make that choice because 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 personalities. It is not about our politics. It is about Scotland's future and Scotland's choices. So 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 sort of country they want to be in and what kind of future they want. I call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Alexander Burnett. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and as has been said by many members over the last couple of days, it has only been two and a half years since the last independence referendum. At that time, we were promised that it was a once-in-a-generation event and clearly for the First Minister, a generation is barely five minutes. So that's a promise broken. Can I observe that 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. Compromise isn't listening to each other's point of view and compromise isn't even about trying to find common ground and believe me, I tried. In the First Minister's world, compromise 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's my way or no way at all. A lot has also been said absolutely. Fiona Hyslop. Would the member appreciate that the proposals in Scotland's place in Europe were for single market membership, which many people on the left side thought was correct? And this Parliament voted for in a consensual debate which actually took the Labour Party within. Jackie Baillie. I understand exactly how the First Minister operates and day after day we've 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 iron mandate. But don't listen to what I have to say about it. In the words of Jim Sillers, today's SNP Government did not win a majority, nor has it a mandate because it did not ask for one. No amount of posturing changes the political weakness of the 2016 election result. And he is so right. And whilst the SNP's manifesto commitment was in part tied to the EU, the reality is that Scotland will be outside the EU whether or not it votes for independence. The SNP's ambition is to be an after, a long way short of EU membership. If they were being honest, as Alex Neil has been, 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. And I remember the EU referendum well. In my local area, the SNP were notable by their absence. Nowhere to be seen on the streets, nowhere to be seen campaigning. As one SNP member told me, they didn't want Brussels rule just as they didn't want London rule, so they didn't care less. And members will know that I hang on Nicola Sturgeon's every word, but she was very clear. There would be a triple lock against independence. It needed to be in the manifesto, and then people had to vote for the manifesto before getting a vote on independence. Well, 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 that they don't want another referendum anytime soon, the First Minister is in danger of doing a David Cameron, leading the country into another referendum that it doesn't want simply to satisfy the party activists. So I will vote against a second referendum tonight, 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 Leven maternity unit, the Inverclyde maternity unit, the Children's Ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Scottish Funding Council, the abysmal record in education, the Offensive Behaviourate Football Act and the list goes on. Democracy only happens when it's convenient for the SNP. So I want to now focus on the economy, because I think that 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 the comparison with the economic consequences of independence. Then 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 economically inactive are growing. Across virtually every economic measure we underperform the rest of the UK. We clearly must do better in domestic policy in any event. But before the referendum, the price of oil per barrel was $113. Now it's 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 talks about how important the EU is as an export market for Scotland. And yes, it is. But they neglect to tell you that Scotland exports four times that amount to the rest of the UK. Our biggest single market, our most important trading partner, that we would be cut off from in the event of independence, I'm running out of time. Just think what would also that would do for key sectors of our economy. And if you needed any further convincing, you only need to look this morning at the Fraser of Allander economic commentary. The backdrop is that economic growth has been slow. GDP is only 2 per cent higher in the last decade and incomes of many households remain worse off. On 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 concern the fundamental basis on which the Scottish economy has grown and developed over the last 40 years. Are we seriously wanting to tear apart 40 years of progress? Presiding 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 Alexander Burnett. We are followed by Kate Forbes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today we could be debating our crippling NHS service, our failing education system or our lagging Scottish economy or any of the other achievements of a decade of SNP rule. Even this morning I was contacted by parents concerned with the closure of their nursery in West Hill. But here we are again, debating a constitutional question that we have already answered. But times have changed, cried 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 said 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 change is 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 against Brexit than their Glenn Roth's 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 tried to appeal to remain voters. I will in a second. They are more Euroskeptic than anyone in our Scottish Conservative Party. Both north and south of the border opposition parties call us the Brexiteers when the truth is Labour were the largest party to vote to leave in England and the SNP in Scotland. The Conservative Party has done nothing more than facilitate Labour and SNP supporters their democratic right and we will respect their wish to leave Europe. John Mason, sorry John. I thank the member for giving way. Would you at least accept that the timing of the Brexit referendum was wrong because it was immediately after the this Parliament elections and others and that prevented all of us in all the parties really getting involved? Alexander Burnett. 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 over 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? But how about, yes. Andy Wightman. Thank you very much, Mr Burnett. Alex Burnett stood at the 2015 general election for Aberdeenshire, Western Concordin. On a manifesto that included safeguarding British interests in the single market, we say yes to the single market, we benefit from the single market, we want to preserve the integrity of the single market, we even want to expand the single market. How's it going? Alexander Burnett. 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 has to deliver it. But what about another uncomfortable truth? The value of our oil? In 2013 we were told that it would fund the SNP's obsession with Alex Salmond predicting $150 a barrel. Now he sits on Bloomberg saying Scotland only needs oil prices to be at 60. Yet today oil 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 are respected global energy analysis would Mackenzie last Friday. So would the SNP give up the broad shoulders of our United Kingdom that supports our industry with a city deal, £2.3 billion of fiscal reforms and the highest tax cuts ever seen? But 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 look 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. Clare 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, do those broad shoulders not just seem a little bit sloppy? Alexander Burnett Lesson a minute left, please. I note the comment. I think that the people of Scotland have spoken and they have wanted, if they wanted, 10 years of seeing austerity and austerity max is what they will get with another referendum. So why let the facts get in the way of a good grievance, or as 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 they have no mandate. The only reason they will get this through Parliament tonight is down to the Greens. A party which collectively got less constituency votes than I did in Aberdeenshire West. Another party with no mandate for referendum, but it will blindly follow the SNP where it directed. So will Mark Ruskell be happy to see the end of renewable energy subsidies funded by consumers across the whole of the UK? Will Ross Greer be happy to see austerity max? Will John Finney be happy to see the end of CFDs for the islands and their wind? Will Alison Johnson be happy to see the end of the Barnett formula? Will Andy Weitman be happy to give up on localities? You must come to close, please. Join the euro and send control of our economy to Brussels. Will Patrick Harvey remember his pledge to the million strong petition? You must come to close, please. Will they ever gain their voters trust again, or are they still a million miles from credibility? Thank you. Can I say when members go far over their speaking times, it disadvantages other members? Can I have Kate Forbes to be followed by Joanne Lamont, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. My comments this afternoon are drawn from conversations with family members, friends, neighbours and even a few taxi drivers. Why? Well, in the words of Vaclav Havel, 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 will come after us. Its deepest roots are moral because it is a responsibility. Presiding 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— Ms Forbes. Sorry, I started to interrupt and I gather that you have just started, but members will be aware and members of the public too will probably be aware from social media and other news reports that are following under our 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, certainly no wish to cause undue alarm here and security has been increased here, but I am also aware of—and business manager and I have discussed this— 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 that we are deciding to suspend the sitting. We will find time to resume this debate and have a— 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 meet the 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 will be resumed and business will be resumed. Thank you very much.


Thank you Mr. Speaker for a moment. I thought the speaker's vision was something of convenience because the speaker did not look in that direction at all. But Mr. Speaker, I felt it would have been remiss of me not to echo support for the motion here today to borrow this sum to improve the service that the firemen and women, although sometimes when we see firemen we use it in a generic sense, but the firemen and women give to the people of this country. I want to compliment them Mr. Speaker for their work during COVID. They were tasked with the responsibility of putting themselves at risk to save the lives of others. I want to compliment them for that and I want to put on record job well done. You see Mr. Speaker, although I say I will address with brevity, I want to bring something to your attention. We have the Honorable Prime Minister who hails from the east. We have your humble servant who hails from the east and as the Bible says wise men came from the east and so is the acting fire chief. Which east? So Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a common thread among persons leading the charge in terms of bringing reprieve to our people. But I want to say this, you will understand what the last administration embarked upon. They embarked upon destruction and demolition. They never did anything that redound to the benefit of those services, putting them, giving them greater capacity and amplifying their ability to serve the people of this country. Every time I drive up Bridge Street, Mr. Speaker, and I look left, I cannot help but lament the demolition of custody streets. Custody streets totally destroyed and today we have to find another four million or so dollars to rebuild something we already had. And then they turn around and talk about crime. Under this government, Mr. Speaker, the police have received the most assistance with equipment and vehicles in the history of this country. And today, today, the Prime Minister and this government did not decide to stop there. Why is the fire service begged for assistance and in legal java when they say a cry of distress is a summons for help? They cried for assistance and the help eventually comes in that kind of support, in that loan, Mr. Speaker, that we are taking to give them the capacity to execute and to deliver the kind of services that we want to the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, I stood up to make a special point. That of the psycho services. As I speak, Mr. Speaker, as representative for Custody Central, there was a young man who was a fireman, was called on Shosi Road to assist on a murder scene. But they didn't know that anybody had died then because we do know that once a person is dead, you call the undertakers. But the young man who was charged with the responsibility of assisting the injured, who was in fact deceased, was the brother of the deceased. Mr. Speaker is no longer in the fire service.  His situation begs for assistance and I eaded the call. Not too long ago, a video of him walking throughout town as he was born when viral. There's no fault of his.  And so, Mr. Speaker, he may not be alone. This is one case of which I am familiar, but how many more others there may be. And so I do believe the psycho support, psycho social support is extremely necessary. But one thing Mr. Speaker would ask, and now that we have the heirs of those that matter within the rank and file of the fire service. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, to have persons who do not live and don't have relatives in a given area, work in an area or rather respond to calamities of such an issue. Because, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I can get back to my mental status prior having seen my sibling killed from gunshots. And so, Mr. Speaker, it is against this background that I welcome the news to assist the fire service in giving them the equipment they deserve. They have shown resilience. They have shown attitude to country and they have shown that the interest of the ordinary citizen is of utmost importance to them. When it comes to the psycho social support, I do implore them, Mr. Speaker, to do whatever is necessary so that an event of such a nature to which I alluded earlier should not be a recurrence on this 240 square mile road. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I take my leave. Thank you.