Alright, let's take a look at this here. Wolf. I think German impression is that it's a bit slow. Beat things up a bit. Arc seems pretty good. There's some hiccups in this area. Actually, later. It's all cool.  A lot of things I'll mention. No. This is all cool to see. Yeah, I like it. I always like to start with the front view. And what you're doing well is when the wings go up, right? Look at this here. The wings up are faster than the wings down, which you have. Excuse me. And that's a common mistake that people put in. You might always get, well, you know, they could be some license of whatever you can do with painting on the creature. But in general, you know, because you are folding, and I think you can fold, you can experiment folding them even more.  But, you know, maybe, maybe half, maybe something like that in between these two, but you could potentially fold them more. But because you fold them, there's less wind resistance. So it would go up faster versus when you go down. Look at that. All of that here. That will, there's so much wind resistance, it's going to drag. I like that your tips are up, which is all good. It's also good that you are having them until the end. So they drag until the reversal, which is good. It just feels overall just a bit, almost timid. It feels like this is more like an adjustment glides flap. Whereas a creature of that size, to me, I will go... That's a horrible tipper. But, you know, wings can go all the way down to here and then fold up like this.  And then that way you can make that, you know, pretty slow, faster, pretty slow, faster. Just to kind of push that area. So going only down to here, I will go, again, like around this area and really, really push the idea. But your mechanics are the same. Like tips are leaning, and by the time it reverses, then this part of the tip is dragging. So that is all correct. Again, you can probably go a bit more and then at the very end have that big reversal. But again, instead of going this as your full-out point here, this could easily be up here. This is just me. I would do this for a full-on flap. And to me, this is always a big creature. So it needs a lot of force. That type of flight. So that seems, again, more like it's gliding, gliding, gliding and doing a bit of an adjustment, glide, glide, glide, an adjustment flap versus a full-on flap. That would be my, probably my biggest note. Your tail is in one axis. You can easily have a little bit of an arc in there. I like that you have offsets here already. Forget, again, arcs on your legs. So as it goes up here, I usually bring in legs because of the drag. And then as it starts dropping, I can bring them out a little bit for a little bit of an arc. Same thing with the head. The head can have a little bit of a forward drag. It depends if you're just doing a straight drag or overlap or lead.  So it could be where the drag is just kind of doing a drag or you kind of go the opposite way. And on the flaps, it's trying to lead. But either way, to me, it feels like you can do a bit of a twist and then tilt. It's not just in one axis doing drag overlap, but it's kind of this and then comes up and has a bit of a tilt and twist. So that's especially if you're in a leading motion. You need in a drag overlap favor some side and have a bit of a, again, twisting rotation face out. So that would be for that. And then as you go into your polish, you would start offsetting these and not just a global offset. I wouldn't just take one side and offset by two or three frames. But by now, depending on the force, maybe this one is suddenly dragging. There could be some sort of frame by frame type of offsets, which is just like, again, not just one side, but you can kind of vary where the offset is, you know.  But even this imagine just everything has, that's your straight line and we're so slight tilt. So the whole body and the wings, even at the top position, it would end up being slightly off. Not enough to kind of alter the flight dynamics, but just off so that then the head stays somewhat put and can almost be in a counter rotation. Just so it's just more organic, more, there's more asymmetry in there. That would be my biggest thing here. And then on the arcs here, it's okay to do an arc like this. Some people, you know, they can have figure eights. I think the amount that you have from front to back is pretty good. I think that's pretty good. If you go further back, it gets a bit too much into a holding pattern, almost a bat type flap here. I would just be careful with that seems pretty good. But as you go down here, this is like a frame sticky, almost a sticky frame through here. Then it kind of pops back and then it kind of slows down around here. Then it speeds up again and then it's okay. So just be mindful of that. And in the front view, I think that's pretty cool. Some people have it usually too much of a default where they're back.  It's good for the flaps. The other thing was, it's cool from that angle now. Anyway, as you go through, let's see for the tail. So as you increase the flaps, if you do, I'm just saying it could be cool to increase the flap, right? So on this, I would have an arc that's a bit more like this, where the chest part really comes up during the flap. So as the wings are down, the chest goes up and then it can go down as it starts dropping. The reason why I would disagree with one of the tutorials that I mentioned, and it's not because it's wrong. It's just kind of the liberty that I'm taking just because of scale, because this is so huge and this creature is so heavy. If the wings are down, when the chest goes up, I usually put in a drag in the hips, where every now and then, depending on the size of the creature, hips and wings are kind of in sync. I'm okay with big dramatic overlap between all of these sections, especially with a lot of wing flaps. I think the legs could be, this to me is going really, really fast with that much drag. I think you're okay with relaxing these guys just a bit more with some asymmetry. Again, horrible sketches, but just not so straight, just a bit more relaxed. I think in that way you can do a bit more up and down on the drag overlap and to make sure there are arcs. So right now it feels like you're going back and forth in this manner. Yeah, pretty much versus it can come down maybe on the flap. It goes out this way and it comes back in and a flap out and come back in. There's a bit of an arc and a circle motion in that way where it contracts.  And as it flaps, I might do something with drag overlap where it extends the legs. There's a bit more involvement there, so it doesn't just go back and forth. Oh yeah, and then the wings here, at this point I would take this shape and personally I would bring it up. So you can see the full drag of the wings. And that is fine. That is kind of it for now. I think that's pretty much it. You can always experiment with open closing of the mouth depending on the velocity of the flaps. It all depends how strong you want it to be. Because right now this is pretty active, the up and down. And it feels more it's an active tail versus drag overlap based on how much the dragon goes up and down. That makes sense. So where's the guy here? Right, so that much snapping of the tail. I would probably do if you have a cycle and it goes on for a couple of times, but longer than this. And like once or twice you have an extra flick in the tail just because it wants to. Versus this feels a bit more just like regular drag overlap. But the amount feels too much given that it only travels not that far up and down. So you could probably keep the tail if you go more up and down with the full body, bigger wings. But don't forget a little bit of curvature or whatever you want to do a little bit of a complexity in the overall curvature. So it's not so super straight. I think that is kind of it for now. It's a really, really great start. Kind of just my comments from now on this. All right. Thank you.


The next item of business is a debate on motion 7.429, in the name of Angus Robertson, on people's right to choose respecting Scotland's democratic mandate. I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Angus Robertson, cabinet secretary, to speak to and move the motion up to 11 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Every member here in this chamber is here today because of the trust placed in us by the people of Scotland through their votes. Votes that had consequences, votes that, thanks to our system of proportional representation, mattered and allowed people to express their choices. That, Presiding Officer, is what democracy is about, making people's choices matter. Of course, there is more to modern European democracy than just counting up votes, but when you start to undermine that fundamental, when you seek to deny people what they have voted for, you risk undermining democracy itself. This place has obligations on those of us who win elections. We have to do our best to deliver on the mandates that we are given, but it also obliges us all when we do not win elections—and very few of us are elected at the first time of asking—to respect the decision of the people, acknowledge the result and accept the right of the winner to deliver the commitments that they were elected on. Not doing that, denying democracy instead, is a dangerous thing, but it is a thing that people in Scotland are becoming increasingly accustomed to. Presiding Officer, I am going to focus in today's debate on the outcome of three votes. On the question of how we, those privileged enough to be elected to this, Scotland's national Parliament, can best deliver what people in Scotland voted for. The first of those is Scotland's overwhelming vote in June 2016 to stay in the European Union. 62 per cent of people in Scotland, a majority in every single council area, voted to remain part of the European Union. No part of Scotland voted to leave. Yet, two years ago, Scotland was removed from the European Union against our will. This week, instead of celebrating 50 years of EU membership of co-operation, multilateralism and solidarity between nations of economic development of peace, we are stuck instead counting the cost of the Tories' reckless Brexit. According to the Office of Budget Responsibility, they estimate that Brexit will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent compared with EU membership. That equates to a cut in public revenues in Scotland of around £3 billion every year, keeping further massive pressure on our NHS and other public services. Those statistics are stark and they mask the human reality of the impact of Brexit, the small businesses going under because of the price of importing, the restaurants and hotels, closing rooms and services because they cannot get the staff, the firms passing on to customers their increased costs, helping to fuel record levels of inflation. The academics and scientists no longer involved in world-leading research unable to get funding to collaborate with peers in the EU, diminishing our ability to innovate, to be at the forefront of discoveries and threatening our world-class standing. The tax revenues that could be used to fund public services now lost and the health and social care sectors dealing with a staffing crisis while trying to rebuild from a pandemic. Brexit is harming everyone in Scotland and there are few reasons to be optimistic. Yes, times are tough globally and every country is suffering from the effects of a pandemic and a global energy crisis, but decades of mismanagement, compounded by the folly of Brexit, have left the UK economy utterly unprepared to weather this storm. European countries comparable to Scotland are wealthier, have lower income inequality in a moment. European countries comparable to Scotland are wealthier, have lower income inequality, less poverty, higher social mobility, higher and often significantly higher productivity, greater research and development spending and higher business investment than the UK does. The member from the Conservative benches can perhaps explain why. I welcome to other small independent European nations. Perhaps the minister might tell this Parliament how much it costs to see a GP in Ireland and what the prevailing rate of co-operation tax is in Ireland. The member from the Conservative benches could not explain why it is that countries comparable to Scotland are so much better off. They are indeed in a position where they have flimsy arguments for the retention of the United Kingdom. It gives me no pleasure, none at all, to point out that people in Scotland's decisions to remain in the EU has been vindicated. Since the Brexit referendum, of course, people in Scotland have voted in every single election for people and parties committed to reversing it. In 2017 and 2019 elections to the Westminster Parliament and in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, a majority of MPs and MSPs were elected on mandate to hold an independence referendum so that Scotland could apply to rejoin the EU as an independent member state, which takes me to the second of the three votes that I would like to discuss. An independence referendum was on the ballot paper in May 2021 when this Parliament was elected. Do not take my word for it. Believe the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, because he said in the run-up to that election that I quote him, people have to be really clear that a vote for the SNP is a vote for another independence referendum. Believe the leader of the Scottish Labour Party when he said in 2016 and I quote, mandates come from the electorate in an election. It should be the people of Scotland who decide when the next referendum is. Believe the SNP and green manifestos, both of which committed to holding a referendum in the clearest possible terms. Which 72 out of 129 of us here, a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament, were elected to deliver? The parties that said, vote for me and there will be no referendum, they lost. The parties that said, vote for me and we will give you the choice of independence won. That simple act of placing one's vote next to a candidate or party that pledged in their manifesto an independence referendum is itself exercised by people in Scotland of their right to choose their constitutional future. A right that used to be accepted across the political spectrum. A right that the Labour Government in Wales accepts, it says and I quote, Presiding Officer. The UK is conceived as a voluntary association of nations. It must be open to any part, any of its parts, democratically to choose to withdraw from the union. If this were not so, a nation could conceivably be bound into the UK against its will, a situation both undemocratic and inconsistent with the idea of a union based on shared values and interests. A right, Presiding Officer, that should matter as much to those who oppose independence as to those who support it. Because what is Scotland within the UK if we do not have the right to decide to leave? Stuck, however we vote, is that the voluntary union they claim, which brings me to the third vote that I would like to discuss? In 2014, people in Scotland were offered the choice of independence and they voted against it, and we accepted that result. But here is the question that requires an answer. After the referendum, did Scotland get what the majority voted for? People in Scotland were promised that within the UK we would benefit from the economic strength of the United Kingdom. Instead, we have suffered from years of economic mismanagement, culminating in the disastrous experiment of a failed Tory budget that cost this country billions and put the final nail in the coffin containing the UK's reputation for economic competence. The OECD predicts that the UK will be the slowest growing G20 nation over the next two years, apart from the sanctioned Russia. Perhaps the member from the Conservative benches will explain why the UK is doing so badly an international comparison. On the point of funding choices, I wonder if the cabinet secretary thinks it's better to fund the men's shed movement to the tune of £75,000 a year or fund £1.5 million annually for the work of 25 civil servants to work on an independence prospectus? Given the opportunity to rise to the challenge and explain why the UK is a worse performing country in international comparison in the G20, the member was unable to do so. It's an embarrassment and they should take responsibility for it. The latest OECD and IMF forecasts show that the UK is set to have one of the highest inflation rates among G7 nations in 2023. People in Scotland were promised that a no vote would secure Scotland's place in the European Union. Just before the referendum, the then leader of the Scottish Conservative said in the STV referendum debate, and I quote, "...it is disingenuous to say that no means out and yes means in when actually the opposite is true. No remains we stay in, we are members of the European Union." Oh, really? The then Secretary of State for Scotland said in November 2013, and I quote, "...the only guaranteed way of leaving the European Union is to leave the United Kingdom." And the Better Together campaign itself asked the question, what is the process for removing our EU citizenship? Its answer, voting yes. People in Scotland were promised a new era of respect for devolution and that the UK would operate as a partnership of equals. Instead, we have seen the Westminster Government use its common majority to repeatedly overrule the Scottish Parliament in breach of the Sewell convention. We've seen a series of power grabs through Westminster legislation changing and limiting this Parliament's powers again and again without our consent. And now, we have the UK Secretary of State for Scotland threatening, with the stroke of his pen, to overrule a bill overwhelmingly passed in this Parliament. Cabinet Secretary, I must ask you to bring your remarks. Indeed, indeed. When the will of a huge majority of elected MSPs in Scotland's Parliament can be reversed by a single figure from the Westminster Government that shows clearly where sovereignty under the devolution settlement lies. Far from enhancing devolution, giving Scotland more powers and more control, this Westminster Tory Government is undermining and systematically dismantling devolution. The motion before us today says that people in Scotland's decisions matter, that their votes count and their future should be in their hands, because this is about who decides Scotland's future. Is it the 59 MPs from Scotland or the 591 from the rest of the UK? Is it the Scottish Parliament or the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is it a Prime Minister from a party that hasn't won an election in Scotland since 1955? Presiding Officer, there is only one answer that people decide. Democracy demands it. I move the motion in my name. Thank you. I will allow a wee bit of latitude for other front benchers should they take interventions, although it is entirely a matter to them whether they do and that is why I allowed a bit of latitude with the cabinet secretary. I now call on Donald Cameron to speak to and to move amendments 7429.1 up to seven minutes please, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move the amendment in my name? At the beginning of a new year, there might have been an opportunity for a new approach from this Government, but no, entirely predictably they have chosen the constitution as the subject of their first debate of 2023. We have an on-going global cost of living crisis. We have a bitter and violent war in Europe and we have total turmoil in our public services here in Scotland. The NHS on its knees, primary schools closed today, many secondary schools closed tomorrow. At the top of this Government's list of priorities in this chamber, another independence referendum, what on earth are they thinking? This debate is nothing short of shameful, Presiding Officer. If the passion and energy expended today was concentrated instead on health education, we would be in a much, much better place. Not least because there is a matter of law, it is now unequivocally clear that this Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. The Supreme Court's judgment in November was unambiguous. With that in mind, it begs the question as to why we are here once again debating this issue. It may be that the SNP needs to give its hardcore supporters some red meat to keep them happy. It may be that this Government has completely ran out of new ideas on how to deliver for the people of Scotland. It may be that the only thing the SNP wants to talk about is the constitution, because it has failed so monumentally elsewhere. Let's take the NHS as one obvious example. Parliament heard earlier today from the cabinet secretary, but only after pressure from those benches and others to address the state of the NHS. A statement by the minister falls woefully short of a proper and rigorous debate of the issues here in this chamber. Let me dwell on those failures for a moment, because this is what we should be debating. On Sunday, comments from the deputy chair of the BMA said that patient safety was now at risk every day in A&E departments in Scotland and NHS facing an unprecedented crisis. Dr Ian Kennedy, the BMA chair, this morning on BBC Scotland, the NHS in Scotland is broken. Members telling me they're exhausted, burnt out, considering their futures, many parts of the NHS collapsing, so we have no doubt that the NHS in Scotland, in its current form, is unsustainable. Deleted to talk about health. Would Donald Cameron conceded that Brexit has been a real problem for the NHS in Scotland, if not the UK. That's one of the reasons we need a democratic right to decide to go back into the EU as an independent state. Donald Cameron? The problems in our NHS in Scotland began long before the vote for Brexit in 2016. She knows that. The NHS in Scotland is broken. Stark words from one of our most senior doctors. Despite repeated warnings that a winter crisis was looming, doctors and nurses weren't impressed by the measures announced yesterday. This is what we should be debating. Let me give one concrete example. Last week, we know that bed occupancy rates in hospitals were over 95 per cent. That's 10 per cent over the 85 per cent rate, which is seen as the maximum figure before patients are put at risk. That kind of occupancy rate is not sustainable in providing the safe and effective care that patients need on a daily basis. That's what the BMA said. They're right. If the SNP focused more on supporting the NHS and fixing the long-standing problems that exist there rather than obsessing over independence, perhaps some of those issues could have been addressed. I make no apology for focusing on those matters, because it isn't just the NHS where SNP ministers have lost focus. In education, we know that there are 900 fewer teachers than when the SNP came to power and that the attainment gap between the least and most deprived is wider than it was five years ago. We know that police numbers in Scotland are at their lowest level since 2008 and that violent crime has risen to its highest level since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister. We know that in transport this SNP Government has presided over the botched nationalisation of Ferguson Marine, the delay of two ferries, could run into £200 million over budget with island community suffering as a result. Failure after failure after failure and all because this Government has only one real priority. A Salvation poll published on Monday stated that only 8 per cent of people feel that the Scottish Government should prioritise an independence referendum, just 8 per cent. Turning to what the cabinet secretary's motion says, if the SNP were honest about listening to and respecting the wishes of the people of Scotland, then they would appreciate that Scotland expressed its view barely eight years ago in the referendum that the UK Government agreed to in 2014. A referendum that countless members on the SNP benches called a once-in-a-lifetime referendum, even the cabinet secretary called it the opportunity of a lifetime. Given that opportunity, the people of Scotland voted decisively to keep Scotland in our United Kingdom and rejected independence. We and others have always respected that outcome. The SNP and the Greens have never accepted it. That is why the way in which the debate is being framed today is utterly ludicrous and hypocritical. To conclude, the SNP Green Government's obsession with agitating for a referendum that nobody wants is harming our public services. The Government has taken its eye off the ball for too long and people across Scotland are noticing. They are seeing the crisis unfold in our NHS, they are seeing standards falling in education and the attainment gap widening, they are seeing increasingly poor performances in public transport and they are seeing, Deputy Presiding Officer, a Government that has its head in the sand when it should be addressing the real and pressing needs of the people of Scotland and it is an abject disgrace. I now call on Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment 7429.3 up to six minutes please, Ms Boyack. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. So this is the deployment, this debate, but it is not a surprise in terms of the priorities of this SNP Green Government. If you look at what's happened over the last few weeks, over the festive period, we had severe weather which caused significant disruption for many parts of Scotland, put massive pressures on resilience services and in the run-up, if you will respect my right to actually respond to your opening remarks cabinet secretary, just give me a couple of seconds. The point I'm making which is absolutely clear in our amendment is this is the wrong choice for our first debate this year, we should be focusing on the NHS. In the run-up to a new year doctors in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde pleaded with the health board to declare a major incident. While NHS Grampian issued an appeal for all staff to come in and when the cabinet secretary earlier this afternoon referred to NHS Lothian today, he did not acknowledge the long standing deep issues in relation to underfunding, the lack of capacity which NHS Lothian has now and going forward to their increasing population and crucially the lack of social care and those were not issues that started through Covid and in fact there were not even issues that started because we left the EU, they were in place long before that and we know from repeated comments by representatives of the BMA that they are seriously worried about patient safety being put at risk every single day and I will not be the only MSP that gets repeated references from constituents who cannot get through to the NHS and they end up going to A and E. Now the SNP and green MSPs voted against our Labour proposals to debate those issues today and they opted for their number one priority to debate the constitution rather than tackling the health crisis and the cost of living crisis that is getting worse. Yes, I will briefly. I thank the member for giving way that the member asks why we are talking about independence already. Dr Allan, could you please ensure your cards and your microphone are on? Does it sound like it? The microphone is not coming on so maybe you can try in other seats. Apologies to Ms Boyack and I will reflect that in the time. I appreciate that. The reason I am mentioning this is because it is up to us to decide what we want to debate and my view is that the choice of this discussion is more about internal SNP strategic discussions than it is about the interests of the country because we were told in newspapers in advance of this debate that we would be offered a detailed blueprint for independence and yet what did the cabinet secretary do today? He gave us repeated interpretations of history from his perspective. He did not talk about the future and once again he offered us a false choice, the status quo or another device of independence referendum. We are not against constitutional change as Scottish Labour. Over our history we have advocated and delivered constitutional change. We delivered this Parliament and not only that but it has been strengthened since its establishment. We have done that on a cross-party basis. We have been prepared to speak to people. Sorry, I have already tried to take one intervention. The constitutional change that we want to see because I want to focus on what we would like to see that is different because we do not support the status quo as is. We want to empower people and communities and where co-operation is key with nations and regions working together that should be part of the UK's redistributive union. That does not need a device of referendum. I will take a brief intervention. I thank Sarah Boyack for taking an intervention. If she says that she is respecting of democracy but the policy that was put forward by her leader in August 2022 said that the role of the Scottish Parliament is to be the expression of the democratic will of the people of Scotland and yet Labour's amendment today seeks to remove the section in the government motion that says that the UK should be a voluntary union of nations, something that her colleagues in Welsh Labour understand. Why is it that that has been removed if Labour supports democracy? I think that you will note that we have retained the first half of this motion today because we agree with the proposals that we acknowledge that there was a decision by the Lord Advocate. We also acknowledge that we want to reaffirm our belief that people in Scotland have the sovereign right to determine the form of government that is best suited to their needs. We took a decision on that in 2014. That is uncomfortable. Since then, as I said in the opening comments that I made, we have seen a change to the devolution settlement. My disappointment with Donald Cameron today is not acknowledging that the status quo is perfect. We need to change the status quo. We need to change in Scotland. The best way to do that is not to have an independence referendum. I would say that you are making a comment about what the voters think. If you look at opinion poll after opinion poll, even SNP voters do not want an independence referendum this autumn. That is absolutely critical. There are interpretations of exactly what the voters think. We are here to represent our constituents. I am determined to do that because we are working as Scottish Labour to look at how we change the UK, to make it a more radical UK, a more redistributive UK and to build on devolution. With respect, I did not heckle other people when they were speaking when I disagreed with them. Indeed, members, could we please listen to the speaker who has got the floor, Sarah Boyack? Gordon Brown's constitution, which Keir Starmer established, formed the basis of the choice that voters will have at the next election. It is not a choice between the status quo or the SNP and Greens independence offer. At the next general election, we will have a choice in Scotland to boot out the Tories, to get rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, have a directly elected second chamber, to put in place the co-operation that, in the last statement, the cabinet secretary was talking about the need to do on energy and to tackle the cost of living crisis, and we would reform that into governmental working with joint government councils, with secretariat that are not appointed by both Governments, that are changes. Those do not sound exciting to the SNP, but it is crucial. I want to finish in this point because the SNP has been a centralising Government, taking power away from our local authorities and communities, and we are now seeing services cut in our local communities. It is time to reverse that trend, so it is not just about having more powers to the Scottish Parliament, it is to stop the hoarding of power by the Scottish Parliament, to devolve power to our councils, whether it is on education, on how they invest in critical services such as healthcare, in terms of supporting our health system by having care and support and investment. I have given you an extra minute. Can you please wind up and move over to your amendment? There is a better future than the divisive binary choice that has been already highlighted by the SNP today. We want radical change, we want to give people powers to tackle the cost of living crisis, and we want to change now. That is the choice that we would offer at the next election. Can you please move your amendment? I move the amendment in my name. Apologies, Presiding Officer. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton up to four minutes, please, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and what a sorry and divisive start this is to the new year. Sometimes I wonder what it is we are even doing here on the day that our schools are closed and our teachers on strike, when the first period of such industrial action in nearly half a century, when 40 patients—I can hear the SNP laughing at this—but 40 patients are dying. They are dying unnecessarily each week as a part of the crisis in emergency care. When people face the worst cost of living in living memory, then here we are again. The eyes of the nation are fixed on this chamber, but far from the priorities they sent us here to deal with, they see another skirmish in a make-believe battle that the SNP and green parliamentarians are fighting entirely on their own. It is make-believe, because there is not going to be a referendum in October, and the general election will not take its place either. Indeed, it is an act of breathtaking arrogance for the First Minister to simply state that she can dictate the terms of that election. Presiding Officer, we go to the country to receive the instructions from the people who sent us to chambers like this one. It is not for a single politician to tell them that their concerns about the cost of living emergency, about the climate emergency or the new cold war in which we find ourselves mean absolutely nothing, and Nicola Sturgeon will find that out the hard way. For the Green Party to join the SNP in such an enterprise is astonishing. They must be the only Green Party in the entire world to so willingly exchange environmentalism for nationalism. It is a far cry from the party first represented in this place by the respected Robin Harper, who said before the turn of the year, of Patrick Harvey and Lorna Slater's support for the idea of a de facto referendum. He said, I quote, I can't believe this has happened. Air quality knows no boundaries. Presiding Officer, in this debate, we will hear a lot about mandates, and more than that, we'll hear about the 2021 Scottish general election. Deputy Presiding Officer, I remember that election. I remember when the First Minister, I remember when the First Minister told people who liked her leadership but didn't want another referendum that they could still vote for her with confidence. I remember when she pivoted back to being the continuity candidate to see us through the pandemic when the polls shifted against independence. I remember the 25,500 West Edinburgh residents who sent me to this place to oppose another referendum. There's, Presiding Officer. There's is the only mandate that I recognise. All of this debate, all this debate does, is allow SNP and green ministers to distract attention from their singular failure to get to grips with the issues that really matter to people in their day-to-day lives. Knock anybody's door on any given day and ask them what they care about, and they'll tell you. It's whether their sister can access life-saving cancer care, whether their elderly parents are getting the social care that they need, they care about whether their children are receiving an education or whether they can afford to turn on their PT. Mr Cole-Hamilton, can you resume your seat? I appreciate that emotions run high in this debate. They will continue to run high, but I would expect the chamber to listen to whoever is speaking. I would certainly expect that of the cabinet secretary who's been giving a running commentary on this speech throughout. Mr Cole-Hamilton. This Government is completely out of touch with reality. They should be using every waking hour in this chamber to clear down NHS waiting times and reduce the crippling costs of living emergencies. The Government could have chosen anything this afternoon, anything at all, but they chose this. At a time when this country is looking to us for unified determination on the many problems they face, the Government are desperate to reheat this dying argument. It is a dying argument. You can see that in the language that they use and the way they conduct themselves in this chamber. The cabinet secretary refers to us as those who don't agree with the second referendum as democracy deniers. These are pages straight out of the Donald Trump playbook. They are ones used by populist identity nationalists the world over. It is my hope and my expectation that their movement will suffer the same fate as his. Deputy Presiding Officer, the cabinet secretary spoke extensively about winners. While I was elected to oppose a referendum with more votes than any other candidate in the history of the Scottish Parliament, the people of West Edinburgh had the right to choose and they chose me. They put their trust in me to do my job. I will not let them down. It is time that the Scottish Government did theirs. Thank you, Mr Cole. Hamilton, we now move to the open debate. I call First Christine Graham to be followed by Sharon Dowie. Ms Graham, around four minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Over the decades, success of UK Governments have used every trick in the book to block the Scottish people's right to determine democratically their future. The current examples, the vote in 2014, was once in a generation. There is no demand and the Scottish Government should focus on the NHS and on pressing domestic issues. I will touch on those as I progress. I begin in 1979 with a referendum for an assembly. Better Together was in its infancy, but it managed the extraordinary pairing of Labour's George Cunningham, introducing the rule that 40 per cent of electorates had to vote for it to count. The dead and those abstaining were counted as no. In fact, 51 per cent voted for an assembly but failed the Cunningham rule. Then there was the intervention of Tory peer, Sir Alec Douglas Hume, two weeks before the referendum, promising more for Scotland if it voted no. I know because I was there. We were also too small, too poor and contradictory because of oil. We were too greedy. All this and still a yes vote prevailed against the background of a winter of discontent. Fast-forward 20 years and Tory Labour, otherwise known as Better Together, has formalised its partnership and project fear, is revisited. One of the main planks of the no campaign was a yes, what would throw us out of the EU. Of course, Labour's Gordon Brown's vow, vote no, and Labour would enhance devolution. Ring any bells? Despite all that, Scotland voted 45 per cent for independence. Twenty-four years since Parliament came into being in 1999, the SNP MSPs were in minority. We now have 64 and eight green MSPs all standing openly for independence, a majority, the unionists of 57. At Westminster, there are six Tory MPs, four Liberal Democrats, one Labour, 45 SNP. Yet Westminster blocks even a referendum because, according to it, there is no democratic mandate. Well, if ballot box results do not count, what does Brexit, what a democratic affront, that while 62 per cent in Scotland voted remain, that is from Shetland to the Borders? We are out. There was no 40 per cent rule then. The argument that the Scottish Government should focus on current pressing domestic issues, which it is doing, is the very reason why the need for independence is pressing. Economic mismanagement from successive UK Governments squandering the oil and gas revenues, Norway saved trillions in the bank of UK PLC, just a huge international overdraft, browns bank collapse, trusonomics, results, the UK has the highest inflation of the G7, leading to the right pay demands that we see today. Just in the dark days of 1979, now is the very time when Scotland needs independence. Now I turn to the Supreme Court ruling, which only ruled on the limitations of the Scotland Act. I ask you to read McCormick against the Lord Advocate, obiter, where the Lord President Cooper said, the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. I have difficulty seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament. As if all that happened in 1707 was that the Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England, that is not what was done. In Scotland the people are sovereign. Charles is king of Scots, not Scotland. Ask the people therefore if they want Scotland to be independent. Give them that referendum and the reason you're blocking is because they'd say yes, we want to be independent. Today the SNP have once again chosen to put independence above all the urgent matters that this Parliament should focus on. I'm receiving emails from constituents who are worried about their children's education, safety in the streets and they are extremely worried about the current state of the NHS. There are much more pressing issues to be debated, like Scotland's health service, which is at breaking point. Thousands of people can't get in to see a GP. They can't get screened for major illnesses. They can't get an ambulance. They're waiting hours at A&E departments. They can't get cancer treatment on time. The crisis is overwhelming our NHS. It is risking people's lives every day. I was contacted by a constituent whose 80-year-old uncle fell a new year's eve. She suspected that he had broken his shoulder. She called 999 at 9pm. She called again at 9.55pm, 11.21pm, 2.30am, 4.34am, 6.30am and 8.14am. Seven times she had to phone 999, while her 80-year-old uncle lay there in agony, stuck on a cold conservatory floor. It certainly wasn't a happy new year. Twelve and a half hours after the first call, an ambulance finally arrived. My constituent said that ambulance crews were brilliant, but we are disgusted at what our uncle has been put through. On reaching the hospital, her uncle was found to have broken his neck and shoulder in two places. Presiding Officer, this is happening all over Scotland. Frontline workers are doing their best. They are going to huge efforts to keep people safe. They are focused on doing their jobs for our benefit, because if you're a nurse, you don't get to ignore a patient and do what you want. If you're a firefighter, you don't get to ignore a burning building and do something else.  But if you're an SNP politician, apparently there's no need to focus on the day job. Today, they are ignoring their duty to the public. They are ignoring the people's priorities. They are talking about another referendum instead of focusing on what really matters.  They've become detached from reality. They have crisis after crisis to tackle and umpteen problems that need sorting. I'll take an intervention if somebody wants to explain to my constituent why we're focusing on independence and why we're not focusing on the NHS. You can answer that question. Alasdair Allan, I thank the member for giving way. She's asking why we're talking about independence. I merely put to her that her former leader Ruth Davidson said, if the Greens in the SNP and any of the other parties who have declared an interest in independence get over the line and can make a coalition or make a majority, get the votes in the Parliament, then they'll vote through a referendum, and that's what democracy is all about. Does she agree? Thank you, so the member could not tell my constituent why we're standing here talking about independence instead of talking about the NHS. I take my lead from the cabinet secretary because that's what he's done in his interventions, from the umpteen problems that need sorted, from the ferry scandal to the job. I'm having great difficulty listening to Sharon Dowie because of the member to my left, and I wonder if you could remind people of the volume that some people are using inappropriately. I thank Ms Hyslop for that point of order. I have reminded the chamber that I appreciate that our motions are running high. I would not single out one particular member, although I'm aware that he was shouting so indeed were members on the Government backbenches. I would please encourage everybody to treat those who are speaking with some respect. I would also encourage Sharon Dowie to move the microphone slightly closer to her. I think that will help as well. Sharon Dowie, I can give you a little bit more time but you should start winding up now. Thank you, so there are umpteen problems that need sorting, from the ferry scandal to the drug death crisis to the life-threatening issues in our NHS, but today yet again the focus parliamentary time on another divisive referendum. Normal hardworking people will be appalled by the priorities of this SNP Government. While our constituents go to work every day and put in a shift, SNP ministers keep wasting time talking about their obsession. It's a new year, so for the resolutions, I urge Nicola Sturgeon and her allies to focus on what really matters. Make the crisis in our NHS the top priority, not another divisive referendum. Get back to the day job, like everybody else in Scotland is doing. In 2014, I got to vote for the first time, somewhat unexpectedly. In a panic, I read every book, blog and briefing that I could find to figure out where my ex should go. The more I read, the more baffled I was that Scotland had let us go this long, being stuck in an archaic system that is designed not to let us make the changes and the progress that we want to. Since then, I, along with thousands of others, have voted SNP eight times in two Holyrood, one EU, two Westminster, two council and one by-election, expressing each time my support for independence. Whether or not you agree with my position, it is a matter of democracy and a matter of fact that the SNP has a mandate to bring this question back. If Scotland cannot test the people's will to take decisions into our own hands, that is not a voluntary union. Refusing to allow a vote on something that you disagree with is not the behaviour of an equal partner nor, indeed, the behaviour of an institution that has any faith in its own arguments. After a shambolic Brexit, five Tory Prime Ministers and a multitude of welfare cuts, none of which Scotland voted for, the situation has changed and people have a right to change their minds as well. That we are here with yet another clear electoral mandate to hold a referendum but unable to because Whitehall says no is an outrage no matter what your constitutional stance is and how you would vote in that referendum. If there is any morality left in Whitehall, then MPs must know that their anti-democratic, nonsensical and unsustainable stance is immoral and honestly making our case for us. Our voices can't be heard in this union. We often refer to the union being broken but, honestly, this is its design. The union wasn't made to give Scotland its say. Whitehall's stance on a referendum is just the most visible example of how Scotland is treated as standard. This is what happens with employment rights, with energy policy, trade, immigration, equality, universal credit, Brexit and I could go on. Scotland can vote en masse for SNP MPs who then vote en masse in the commons only to be shot down by the Government of the day. One thing I think it is worth pointing out in response to criticism so far is I don't want independence for the sake of it. It's not an end in itself. I don't want to move from one bad system to another. I don't want an independent Scotland to treat disabled people the way that successive Governments down south have. I want democracy here to be improved for greater community empowerment, more devolution to councils, clearer representation so that people know and understand who is making decisions that affect them. I believe that independence would pave the way for progressive politics to happen. Independence to me is a means to an end. In the Highlands and Islands, Whitehall has utterly failed to even begin to replace the EU funding for rural affairs and economic development that we previously enjoyed, leaving us worse off to the tune of nearly £20 million. We are struggling to replace the health and social care, hospitality and agricultural workers who no longer feel welcome thanks to a Brexit that we didn't ask for and didn't vote for. Social Security Scotland provides a massive demonstration of how we can do better and be more progressive than Westminster in redistributing wealth and supporting people rather than judging, stigmatising and gatekeeping. With universal credit still being reserved, the contrast is stark to anyone who is so much as glancing at the two systems. Presiding Officer, we don't just have a mandate to deliver an independence referendum. Frankly, at this point, we have a moral duty to, for the sake of democracy and for the sake of the Scottish people. Thank you. I now call Michael Marra to be followed by Michelle Thompson up to four minutes, Mr Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We debate the nationalist motion today, with schools closed across Scotland in the first national teachers strike in 40 years. The last offer sanctioned by this Government was seven weeks ago. Our NHS, by the First Minister's account, is in an unprecedented crisis, and this debate is not the priority of people across the north-east or across the whole of Scotland. Of course, favouring independence is a perfectly honourable thing to do, and I understand why many Scots in the face of chaotic incompetence of both their Governments think that any change might be worth it. Let's be clear. There is change coming to Scotland if we choose to vote for it. We can have a more just country without losing our currency, our defence, our markets, and a significant share of our budget. We should and can have common cause beyond borders and see our neighbour's child as our own, so that all of our ends be bettered together. What is abundantly clear to me, as an observer, is that those honourable folk who favour independence have been sorely failed by their leadership. Despite the Cabinet Secretary's rhetoric, there is a route to the destination that they seek. Build a case through honest deliberation and careful compromise to allow the prosecution of the argument. Build a coalition of those seeking change. Build a consensus. A settled will of the Scottish people make it overwhelming. That is how the case for devolution was made and how it was won. No one can seriously suggest that, since 2014, that work has been done by those in the positions to do it. How about proving the case through the successful use of the powers of devolution? That is not my idea. Once upon a time it was the SNP's strategy of he whose name shall not be spoken, but what a sorrowful disaster that has been. Our precious NHS and chaos, our schools closed, our universities steadily losing their lead, the worst drugs debt record in the developed world, five times as bad as the rest of the UK under the same drug laws. Long-term sclerotic growth now recession, crumbling infrastructure, ferries that do not sail, islands locked off from the economy, our national language under imminent threat, and I will, in one second, an overwhelming feeling everywhere you go that nothing, nothing is working as it should. Ross Greer. I am grateful to Mr Marra for the intervention. I accept that if the Labour Party win the next UK general election they will have a mandate for their constitutional reforms. Why does he think that if our side of this constitutional debate repeatedly wins elections we are somehow lacking a mandate to implement our own constitutional reforms? Michael Marra. I have already set out the means by which that case can be won and it can be prosecuted. It has been done before and it can be done again if you have the will and the ability to do it. Build your case, persuade people and win the politics. That is how devolution was won and the way by which you can pursue it. Instead, Parliament is invited to participate in the grand pretence that this ruling from the Supreme Court was somehow shocking and unexpected, that the First Minister, having marched her faithful troops up the hill for the umpteenth time, is doing anything more than playing to the faithful, keeping the kettle biling, another wheeze, another tune on the fiddle while Scotland burns. They claim to be opposed to austerity and produce a growth commission promising to cut further and deeper year on year. They write social justice reports, backing progressive taxation and then running election after election on the promise of tax freezes for the middle and upper classes. Always protecting power for the party rather than exercising that power for the people, no thank you. There is a majority, no thank you, sir. There is a majority for change in this country. The further devolution of power out of Westminster into all parts of the UK, 300 economic clusters can be turbo charged for growth by empowering directly, the abolition of the House of Lords, replacing it with an assembly for the nations and the regions, a government that will clean up politics bringing an end, Presiding Officer, an end to the years of Tory slaves and corruption. That's the choice that is now in front of us. The job of this government should be to make Scotland work again. Thank you, Mr Marr. I now call Michelle Thompson to be followed by Ross Greer up to four minutes, Ms Thompson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate and add my voice to the just and democratic cause of Scottish independence. This is a belief I've held all my life. Independence is normal. Presiding Officer, I can taste how close it is, which is precisely why the unionists in this place get so incoherently angry. The UK is a failing state. Historically, no other state has been so dependent upon imperialism. It's created a culture and a contemporary state characterised by what Tom Nairn called a tribal state of formidable complacency. We can see and hear this tribal complacency on a daily basis. However, bad things are, we are told, they could only be worse by doing something different—the UK's very own version of insanity. The entire post-colonial history of the UK is one of consistent decline and democratic failure, with Brexit being the most recent example and eloquently highlighted by the cabinet secretary in his remarks. As Oliver Bullard put it in his recent book, the UK has become a mere butler to the world with facilitation of corruption, replacing the exploitation of empire. The indignation that's shown when example upon example of success or smaller independent states are mentioned is symptomatic, not only of UK complacency but also betrays a failure of belief in the Scottish people regarding what is possible. This, for me, is a great divide. I choose to believe in what is possible. I choose to believe in the Scottish people and I choose to believe, like many other small and medium sized countries, accepting the responsibility and also the agency that will come with independence will be both liberating and enabling. We are now left in the ludicrous position that those devoted to the declining UK state, no matter the cost of Scotland, cannot state what the democratic route to independence is for the Scottish people. At the same time, as we rightly support the independence of other nations, we are expected to believe that a gathering of mainly English MPs in Westminster should have a permanent veto on Scottish democracy. It's absurd and it's fundamentally anti-democratic. The enduring characteristic of the Scottish independence movement is its commitment to using democratic means, but there are multiple democratic pathways to independence as the history of the United Nations testifies. There is no statute in international law nor in any UN charter that gives any state the untrammeled right to deny a nation a democratic route to independence. A referendum may seem the simplest, but it's not been the most typical route to achieving independence and the will of a people can be exercised in many ways. Take the historically significant UN resolution 435, which paved the way for Namibian independence, which included defining a democratic process leading to an election and not a referendum. Part of that process involved the use of a UN transition assistance group. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might wish to consider the Scottish Government taking the initiative to appoint its own transition assistance group, drawing on appropriate expertise beyond Scotland. Presiding Officer, independence is coming, and the democratic voice of the people of Scotland will not be denied. Five parties were elected to this Parliament at the last election. By any normal measure, those of us who believe that Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands won that election. The Scottish Greens and SNP increased our combined majority of seats, and we won more votes—16,000 more—than the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. When people vote for political parties, they reasonably expect them to fulfil the commitments in their manifesto. When anti-independence politicians take offence at our claim that they are opposing not just independence but Scottish democracy itself, the question for them to answer is, what else do you call it when those who have lost an election prevent the winners from fulfilling their democratic mandate? Do not take our word for it. Ahead of last year's election, Douglas Ross said, people have to be really clear that a vote for the SNP is a vote for another independence referendum. His Conservative colleague for the Lothians, Jeremy Balfour, helpfully stated, just remember that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for independence. Former Tory leader Ruth Davidson was even clearer. She said that if the Greens and the SNP and the SNP or any of the other parties have declared an interest in independence, get over the line and can make a coalition, make a majority, get the votes in parliament, then they will vote through a referendum. That is what democracy is all about. Back in 2016, Labour leader Anas Sarwar observed that mandates come from the electorate in an election. If they do not believe any of that any more, it is for them to explain how they reconcile whatever their new belief is with their claim to still respect Scottish democracy. All of us on the pro-independence side of this debate accept the judgment of the Supreme Court. That Parliament cannot legislate for a referendum without a section 30 order from Westminster, but the UK's constitutional settlement is based heavily on precedent, and the precedent here is clear. In 2011, for the first time, a clear majority of pro-independence MSPs was elected. The UK Government accepted that as a mandate for a referendum, and a section 30 order was granted. So why, a decade later, when the Greens and SNP manifestos were even cleaner and independence a much more widely understood issue, have not just the UK's Tory government, but its Labour opposition rejected that precedent. Precident can be rejected, but if the Tories and Labour want to claim that they still respect Scottish democracy and the views of the Scottish public, the onus is on them to explain their alternative method for the people of Scotland to exercise their right to choose their own future. Jackie Dunbar I thank the member for taking the intervention. Would you agree that it is totally undemocratic and quite frankly a disgrace that in 2023 we have folk 25 years old and under that have never been able to have a say on how, if their country should be independent or not, and then themselves are their own generation? I thank Mr Dunbar for that intervention and it is a really important point. There are half a million people on the electoral register in Scotland who have not had the opportunity to cast their vote on Scotland's constitutional future. That to me is the definition of the generation that our colleagues in the opposition like to speak about so much. Winning an election used to be the uncontroversial gold standard mandate for delivering your manifesto. The Tories and Labour have trashed that democratic norm for no better reason than they lost the election and they do not like who and what the public chose instead. They need to be prepared to accept the accusations of being anti-democratic because that is exactly what they are doing. I believe that Scotland can be a fairer, greener country with the powers of a normal independent nation. We can rejoin the European Union and begin on doing the damage of a disastrous Tory Brexit now also endorsed by the Labour Party. We can take basic steps to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of people who live here, like raising the minimum wage beyond the poverty pay level set at Westminster. We can undo not just the anti-trade union acts of the post-2010 Tory Government, but every bit of anti-union legislation passed since Thatcher began her assault in the early 80s. Scotland can be a beacon of workers' rights and environmental rights. We could reduce emissions and fund the just transition with a carbon tax on big polluters and end the licenses of any new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. I believe in Scottish independence, but, first and foremost, I believe in democracy. If the anti-independence parties are offended by the independence movement's claim to now be Scotland's democracy movement, maybe they should stop thwarting what the public voted for and accept that it is time to put this question to the electorate once again. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As I don't get out much anymore, can I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this first and extremely good-natured debate of the new year? Can I begin by saying that I don't think that it's enough to say bad SNP? I think charitably at the heart of the Government motion is a question. What is the legitimate and democratic route to a second referendum? What I absolutely believe is that eight years of trading insults across this chamber, which is largely what we have done since 2014, has not advanced the argument one iota or one jot. I agree in part with Mike O'Mara that I think that there are democratic routes towards another expression of Scotland's opinion. They just don't happen to be ones in which we agree. Firstly, since the Supreme Court has determined that responsibility for the constitution rests at Westminster, it's for MPs elected from Scotland as Mr Gray and Mr Robertson were to argue at the House of Commons in favour of the argument that they have for a second independence referendum and to seek, as Mr O'Mara did, to persuade to construct a consensus around the argument that that second referendum should take place. They say that, inevitably, that is not a prospect that can succeed. I don't fundamentally agree. Time is short, but I may come back. Secondly, to respect the view of the First Minister and others at the time, which was that this was a once-in-a-generation vote. There has never been, never in the eight years since, a discussion as to what a generation is, a negotiation as to what, in this chamber, we could agree, a generation might be. It is typically, in print, argued to be between 20 and 30 years, 25 years typically. It's said that there are three or four generations in any 100 years. Arguably, that might say that this Parliament could legitimately, on the words of the First Minister, look to another referendum in 2039. However, it is a subject about which the Government has never sought to engage other parties in this Parliament in any discussion whatsoever. What Mr Robertson did in this debate was to keep returning to the concept of mandate. He said again that the Conservatives have not had a mandate in Scotland since 1955. I think that he said, votes matter, votes count, without a shred of irony, because sitting in his Government are the Scottish Green Party, participating with the lowest share of the vote of any governing party in the history of the United Kingdom. 91.9% of the people of Scotland rejected the Scottish Greens and all they stand for at the 2021 election. It was even worse in my west of Scotland region where my east would seat, because there Mr Greer, who desports himself now quite obviously as the self-ordained minister in waiting, was rejected by 92.9% of the people of Scotland. What mandate does that man have to stand up and boast that he is imposing green policy on the people of Scotland? I am grateful to Jackson Carlaw for giving me. Can I just point out the irony of his attack on the Butehouse agreement between the SNP and the Greens? Coming from a Conservative who was prepared to usher in austerity into the United Kingdom with the accompaniment of the Liberal Democrats and only the accompaniment of the Liberal Democrats, who are roundly rejected across the United Kingdom. Can I just point out the absurdity of the argument that characterises what Jackson Carlaw has put into us? I think that the Deputy First Minister, if he checks the voting record, will find that the Liberal Democrats have something like 25% of the vote when that coalition was formed. However, there is a route through, as from the Supreme Court, for a negotiation in the House of Commons or to return in the meantime to accept the responsibility of this Parliament. Between 2011 and 2016, I, when I spoke on health, agreed and offered to take the national health service off the football pitch, to try and work together to find a consensus around how we might proceed. Alec Neill, in fact, as health secretary, even convened meetings between all other parties. All of that was set aside when the 2015 election came about. However, if the health service is struggling in England under the Conservatives, in Wales under the Labour Party, in Scotland under the SNP, by what conceit does any one party think they can say that we and we alone can now offer a solution to the crisis that is now evolving on health? Would it not be far better to listen to people like Wes Streeting, who I read an article on and interested at the weekend, who talked about a working partnership with the private sector and new model for GP primary care, to those who have talked about reopening the Nightingale wards, as places where early discharge patients could go to free up space within our NHS? To listen to GPs like our own Sandesh Gulhane, would it not be far better for us to work in concert to seek to try and find a solution rather than simply individually firing forward ideas which everybody else then shoots down? The NHS carries on, workers do so in despair, but there is no political solution whatsoever. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I say this? Does this Parliament have a future based on the model envisaged for it by its creators and pioneers? That was for this Parliament to evolve the greatest possible consensus on issues that we possibly could. Bludgeoning ourselves on the divisive issue of independence is setting aside all the work that we could do on these priorities for Scotland. You need to resume your seat. Jim Fairlie, to be followed by Martin, went through it up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scots being a historic nation with a proud past, and as a nation they have an undoubted right to national self-determination. They should determine on independence. Should they determine on independence, no English Party or politician would stand in their way. However much we might regret their departure, the words of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps Rysi Sunak might reflect on this principle from one of his heroes. After all, he believes in mandates, and I know that he does, because Router reported on 15 December 2019 that, during his Andrew Marr interview as Deputy Finance Minister, he said, the overriding mandate that we have from this election result is to get Brexit done. We will leave the EU in a matter of weeks. That ironing surely cannot be lost to those benches. However, let us turn to our colleagues on this side of the chamber here. The most powerful Scottish party for decades, who used to weigh their votes rather than count them because they were so dominant. However, they are scrapping for every single vote that they can muster as a result of their utter betrayal of their traditional vote, which has left them languishing in a lowly third place of Scottish politics. However, they still have learned nothing, as Sarah Boyack has just mentioned. Care Stammer helped to launch their latest reincarnation of a federal solution to the problems of the UK. In the 50 December last year, he was asked by Glen Campbell if he had the courage in Scotland to test those ideas against independence. His answer? We have been absolutely transparent and clear about this. Those are the recommendations. We will put those missions before the electorate, and if we are elected into power, we will have a mandate to carry it out. That is why Labour is finished in Scotland, because its leaders over generations believe that the only mandates that are delivered by an English majority carry any value or weight. The Scottish vote is nothing more than a means to bolster their position without the need to deliver what the people demand. What the people have demanded them to deliver is the right to choose our constitutional future. Alex Cole-Hamilton, on 3 July last year, was asked by Martin Geisler if the SNP won a general election, would that constitute a mandate? He replied, no, not at all. In the same interview, he was reminded of his own party's manifesto commitment in the 2019 general election that they would simply reverse the Brexit decision. His response to that point was that they did not win the election, but we did. By the rationale of Mr Cole-Hamilton's argument, we in those benches should simply declare independence, but we will not. It is not this party's policy not to allow the people to have their say, unlike the other three unionist parties in this debate. It is for that reason that the lady who deserves the final word of my contribution is Winnie Ewing. As the opening speaker for the SNP in the Queen's Speech debate in November 1970, she said, the national movement will not go away. If the people of Scotland are satisfied with them in a parliament, that is what they shall have. Although we shall go on protesting that they want more, and if the Scottish people do not want more, we shall not win elections after that. It is a simple matter of democracy. It is a simple matter of democracy. If other parties actually believe in democracy, then their own denial of it should worry them far more than the outcome of a referendum. Mark Whittle feels to be followed by Karen Adam for up to four minutes. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. As always, a fascinating debate at the start of the year, but it is a false choice that's being presented before us. We have the SNP's costly obsession with independence, and we have the Tory status quo. There is a third way. The Labour is offering the choice of a stronger Scotland and a transformed UK at the next general election. And why should that be important? Because when we look at what leads the news tonight, it won't be this debate. It will be the stories of the children who couldn't go to school today because of a strike. It will be the stories of the NHS in crisis. Our beloved NHS that everyone across this chamber or every party across this chamber at various times has said is so important. And the NHS is. We've already heard stories of people waiting hours and hours for ambulances waiting in accidents and emergencies. We have the crisis of heating and of living and of feeding. We have the pressures that families are under as their children who should go to school can't today about having to take a day off work to look after them, of people working from home in the post Covid way because they can. The stresses that are being put on our communities out here. Those very communities that so many people have said today have voted for them or voted for the other. Those communities who tonight aren't concerned about an argument about independence. They're concerned about how they're going to put food on the table for their families and what's going to happen at the weekend and what's going to happen going forward should one of their children fall ill and have to try and get to a hospital. That is the reality for people not just in Scotland but in England, but in Wales and in Ireland and indeed across Europe to many different levels. We are facing crisis upon crisis and we are spending time arguing today, discussing, debating today about the differentials over an independence vote. I think it is fascinating more than happy to. I'll not even ask a question. I thank the member for giving way. Would you accept there's 129 of us? We can deal with a lot of issues at the one time including the short-term crisis and the long-term future. Martin Whitfield. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Really? The crisis that we had in this chamber sitting until the early morning hours before Christmas, the fact today that we faced business motions requesting debates on the NHS. With the greatest respect, I struggle to see this Parliament deal with more than one thing at a time. I think that comes from the attitude of the Government towards this Parliament and indeed some members across this Parliament of their attitude to how government business needs to be conducted. Do you want to intervene on that? I would love. As a committee convener, you must see even looking at the timetable of daily in this Parliament, committees dealing with matters all the time in parallel with one another. That's a ridiculous thing for Martin Whitfield to say. Please, through the chair and I would encourage members not to make interventions from a sedentary position and for those speaking not to take interventions from a sedentary position, Mr Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. We can discuss that comment. Yes, committees can't sit well, the chamber is sitting. That's in essence doing just one thing at a time and there needs to be change, there needs to be a better development so that this Government can be held to account. It also needs members of this Parliament, I humbly suggest, to show a little level of respect if we want to conduct debates the way that people seem to indicate they want to debate to be conducted rather than shouting matches. I am desperately conscious of time and it's a shame because I wanted to talk about the opportunity that Europe offers with the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe and also the national delegation to the congress on which SNP, Labour and conservative elected officials from across the UK but also from here in Scotland sit and can influence the debate across Europe. Given the nature, I would like to finish just by asking the cabinet secretary, he opened with a very powerful statement about people should respect the winners and what they do. The fact remains that unfortunately for us may be in part due to the investment that certain parties here made in the Brexit campaign. Brexit was won by people who wanted to leave Europe, should we respect those winners? Fielda now called Karen Adam for up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to stand here today in the chamber to debate a manifesto commitment that my constituents voted me in to deliver. The SNP won the Scottish election with this commitment front and centre to hold a referendum. Firstly, I want to address my colleague Jackson Carlaw, who spoke of the Tory, Labour and SNP Governments struggling with the NHS crisis. I point out that there is a stark difference between those Governments. The Tories can borrow more, the Tories can change immigration policy but they choose not to. That is the terrifying fact. In 2021, I included independence referendum in my campaign socials and materials, as did my opposition, but theirs was with a plea to reject an independence referendum. I will talk about obsessive because their materials included more talk of an independence referendum than mine. I won a majority such as my colleagues did, advocating for Scotland's inaliable right to independence. It is on that basis that we formed a Government. There may be cries from the Opposition benches to halt or stall a referendum using a myriad of excuses, but we know from experience that many of those excuses to stay put in this toxic and declining union are the very reasons to leave it. At the very least, reasons that highlight the need for the Scottish people to be presented with the option should Scotland be an independent country. People do not just deserve what they vote for, they have a right to it, and certainly within the parliamentary term that they voted in. The choices that I am here to make come from the people were decided on by the people and should be carried out by us on behalf of the people. The unionist parties had their chance to convince the nation and they failed. They have a right to present their case to oppose independence, but they have no mandate to remove the choice. It is undemocratic and a shameful dismissal of the mark on the ballot paper that got us all here. What exactly would that be telling the people of Scotland that ultimately it does not matter what they vote for because politicians and Westminster can overrule it? The Supreme Court judgment laid it bare for the world to see that this union is not consensual nor democratic and it is something that could concern us all immensely. How dare politicians that Scotland did not vote for tell us what we can and cannot do. The patronising remarks that I hear I just can't bear. It's condescending to tell the electric that what they voted for might not be what they need. It's pompous, it's arrogant, it's rude and it's belittling. Do they really think that it's their place to tell the people what they want? We are here to give the people of Scotland what they want and what they elected us to do. We can listen to the cries of decisions of elections past, but that is a Scotland and indeed a UK that is no longer recognisable. We have been through the ringer and much of it is self-inflicted by ideological party politics. We gave the union a chance and now we are reaping what was sown and it is rotten. Brexit and a fishing sector sold out, labour shortages and red tape that could wrap the globe thrice. To the British nationalists in this chamber today, I plead, have some integrity and be bold, stop standing in the way of democracy and be brave in your convictions. If you are sure that they are worthy of support, then put it to the people and ask them, it's them who pay our wages. It's them that gifted us this honour. Democracy isn't just for those who agree with you, that is something else entirely. In closing, I look forward to the people choosing a fairer, richer, cleaner, more equal and outward looking country, one that isn't constrained and stripped of all its parts in some UK scrap heap. I fully support this motion and look forward with high hopes. Thank you, Ms Adam. We now move to closing speeches. I call for Paul O'Cain for up to six minutes, Mr O'Cain. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We return to Parliament today with our NHS in a humanitarian crisis. The deputy chair of the BAE Scotland has described hospitals across Scotland as not safe for patients. 4,977 patients are waiting more than eight hours in our A&E departments, the worst on record ever. 2,506 patients waiting more than 12 hours in an A&E department, the worst on record ever. It is a new year, as we have heard from many colleagues across the chamber, but we begin with an old and tired argument. Instead of beginning 2023 with a relentless focus on the crisis facing health and social care in this country, the first debate in this Parliament is to discuss the constitution. All of that to distract from the reality of an NHS that has been pushed to the brink in Scotland 15 years in the making with this Government, with a health secretary who has failed to show leadership and intervene to avert the current crisis, a health secretary who has lost all credibility. Frontline health and care workers, patients and the public have no confidence in HUMSA's useless ability to deal with the crisis in gulfing our NHS. However, that is not the debate that we are having today. What does that say to our constituents waiting for hospital treatment, struggling to see their GP or lying on a hospital trolley in A&E? I have found today's debate are edifying, as outside of this place our NHS is on its knees. I do not know how our hardworking health and social care staff will be thinking as they look at the debate today in this place. Throughout the debate from SNP and Green members, they have been keen to assert what Scotland needs and Scotland wants. They have spoken of mandates and their mandate. Yet I could paper the walls of Bute House and St Andrew's House with all the broken promises of this Government, part of the mandate on which they were elected, on ferries, on free bikes, on school meals, on a nationalised energy company, on student debt, on the council tax and the list goes on and on, because only one thing matters for this Government when it comes to delivery. Is not that the case? Let us think about the reality of what the people of Scotland want. We had polling this week that revealed that more than two thirds of Scots think that the Scottish Government could be and should be doing more with existing powers to address the cost of living crisis. The reality is that the key priority issues for Scots are the cost of living crisis, our jobs and our NHS. Indeed, 61 per cent of Scots believe that the Scottish Government are failing on the NHS. Today has been another example of an inadequate response to that crisis by this Government. When I still list what the Scottish Government should prioritise, Scottish people have been clear. Those top three issues—the NHS, the rising cost of living and exorbitant energy bills—and just 8 per cent of Scots said that independence should be a priority for this Government. It is no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the Scottish National Party wants independence, or indeed now the Greens for that matter, who seem to have forsaken all else in terms of their policy agenda. However, it is telling that this Government continues to pursue an agenda with an evangelical zeal, despite the desire of the vast majority of Scots, including a majority of people who would consider supporting independence, stating that it is the wrong priority at the wrong time. It is clear, Presiding Officer, that people in Scotland want to see change. That is clear. Across Scotland, communities are being let down by both of their Governments. They are being let down by an arrogant and reckless Tory Government in Westminster and an incompetent SNP-Green coalition who are more interested in pursuing this debate today than talking about the failings in our NHS and doing something about it. Two parties are locked in a co-dependent relationship of grudge and grievance. Scotland deserves so much better than that, so much better than the divisive debate that we see consistently played out on the constitutional settlement. My colleague Michael Marra articulated this most powerfully today in what I believe was an excellent speech. People want a better form of politics than what we have seen here in the chamber. People want a politics that serves the national interest, that brings people together and that seeks to solve our collective challenges together. It is only the Labour Party that has the energy, the ambition and the ideas to radically reshape our democratic settlement and empower communities in Scotland and across the UK, and the howls of derision from the SNP benches show that they are afraid of a Labour Government being elected at the UK level. In practice, a UK Government will abolish the anti-created house of lords, replacing it with an elected assembly of the nations. Do you want to hear this? We have listened to most of the speakers in the latter half of this debate with respect. You can disagree with what the speaker is saying without trying to drown them out. Mr Acayne, I would encourage you to bring your remarks to a close. They do not want to hear it, but I have as much right and a democratic mandate to stand here and make these points as anyone else in this chamber. Let us be clear in coming to a close, as I am now, in my final seconds. Changing our UK and changing Scotland within it, that is the change that this party chooses. It is the change that we will deliver at a UK general election. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me begin by saying how disappointed I am that we are not discussing more pressing matters. Families hit hard by the cost of living crisis, businesses struggling with energy bills or the emergency engulfing our health service. We should be discussing our NHS today, as my colleagues Donald Cameron, Sharon Dowie and Jackson Carlaw have highlighted. Ian Kennedy said that many doctors remain to be convinced that the Scottish Government's practical response matches up to the huge scale of the problems that the NHS is facing. It is no wonder that, given that the Scottish Government has lost focus and instead they are once again forcing us to discuss their grievance agenda, something that we have seen from every nationalist speaker to a lesser or greater extent today. Sarah Boyack spoke about a new way forward in the work of Gordon Brown. Alex Cole-Hamilton, in a passionate speech, outlined how the Scottish Government is out of touch with reality and how the Greens have traded environmentalism for nationalism. Let me be clear. I believe in democracy that Scotland has the right to decide on its future, but the question of independence has been settled and the will of the people must be respected. I think that, going forward, there is much that Jackson Carlaw can offer this Parliament and indeed Scotland with regard to the way forward. The obvious question is why do the SNP keep ignoring the referendum that we had in 2014, Alasdair Allan? I thank the member for giving way and he reflected in the fact that Jackson Carlaw had indicated the way forward. As I recall, Jackson Carlaw said that the way forward was through making these arguments at Westminster. Does he acknowledge that, for the last few elections, the overwhelming majority of people that Scotland has sent to Westminster have been of my point of view and not his? Will he not come to acknowledge that at some point? Maurice Golden? I think that the point that the nationalists are struggling with is that, if a councillor at a local government election has it in his or her manifesto that they will increase income tax, they cannot do it because the institution to which they serve doesn't have the power to do so. The referendum in 2014 was free and fair. I would like to make some progress. That saw Scotland vote decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom and that, according to the SNP at the time, removed the question of independence for at least a generation. Why won't the SNP respect the result of that referendum? Why won't the SNP respect the result of that referendum? Let me give you the answer. It's because they lost. They've never been able to accept that, so they want to keep running referendums until they get the answer they like. It makes their talk of democracy, mandates and respecting the will of the people so horribly hollow. Such as the SNP's intent to overturn the 2014 decision, they even took to the courts trying to force through another referendum, wasting more than a quarter of million pounds of taxpayers' money before the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against them. Let's be clear here. The Scottish people don't want another referendum any time soon, and Ipsos Moraypole last month found that just 35 per cent of people supported a referendum in 2023. Thwarted by the courts and with the public opinion against them, the SNP now wants to turn the next general election into a de facto referendum. The absurdity of the idea should be obvious to everyone. As the constitutional politics expert Professor James Mitchell explained, there is no such thing as a de facto referendum. It's not for a political party to dictate the terms of an election. The case for independence has never been strong. The SNP has no credible answer for why Scotland should leave the most successful political union in history. A union that benefits Scotland enormously, from the £12 billion union dividend that allows Scotland to spend more on vital public services to hundreds of millions being directly invested in local communities, from the shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde to the vast quantities of trade that flow freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Let's also remember that, during the pandemic, the UK Government protected almost a million Scottish workers and nearly 100,000 Scottish businesses. It was an enormous show of support for Scotland, both demonstrating the value of the union and also that we are at our best when we are united. The people of Scotland understand that, which is why, poll after poll, has shown that the majority of Scots want to remain part of the United Kingdom. I thank the member for taking the intervention. He has mentioned democracy, mandates, will of the people, and he has told us that the Scottish Government is out of touch. Does he really mean that the Scottish people are out of touch because they are the ones who voted for a referendum? Maurice Golden? Not according to your leader, Nicola Surgeon, who said that a vote for the SNP in 2021 was not a vote for independence. Perfectly clear. Incidentally, that is the same First Minister that said that she did test hundreds of thousands of Scots, which is, in my view, a deplorable act from the First Minister of Scotland. The First Minister takes hardship facing families and tries to make it about independence, saying the cost of living crisis highlights, and I quote the pressing need for independence. With this obsession for independence above all else, is any wonder so much has gone wrong under this SNP Green Government? Education going backwards and international rankings, the worst drugs death rate in Europe, the worst A&E waiting times on record, an embarrassing approach to tackling climate change and so many more failures. The debate today has been a wasted opportunity to tackle those issues. The Scottish Government must stop acting like a pressure group for independence and more like the Government it's supposed to be. Part of the motion that we are debating today invites us to reflect on the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court. A judgment that noted that votes cast in an independence referendum would possess the authority in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that under our devolution settlement, a referendum to allow such a democratic expression of people in Scotland's views would be in itself incompatible with Westminster sovereignty and so outwith the powers of this Parliament. Without a change to this Parliament's powers, we cannot ourselves legislate for an independence referendum. That does not mean that a mandate to give people in Scotland a choice about their future cannot be delivered in a Scottish Parliament election. The precedent of the 2011 election is clear. When people elect a Parliament and a clear mandate to deliver a referendum, both of Scotland's Governments should listen to that and facilitate that referendum. The UK Government had no difficulty at that time accepting that a mandate could be delivered through an election to this Parliament and they were right to accept that and they should be doing so again now. This is Scotland's national Parliament. If a mandate cannot be delivered in a Scottish Parliament election, where can it be? Some have raised opinion polling today. Incidentally, six of the last seven polls back to November last year show majority support for independence, but no opinion poll can give a mandate to a Parliament. Only votes can do that. I would invite those who would quibble with that or try to speculate about what people in Scotland really want when they elect a Parliament to reflect on the consequences of their position for democracy. After all, polls showed no overwhelming support for independence in 2011 when the UK Government accepted this Parliament's mandate to deliver a referendum. No, when it comes to exercising the constitutional right to choose the future, people in Scotland do it in the ballot box, in elections. I am surprised that there is any doubt in this chamber that people in Scotland alone have the right to choose their constitutional future. It used to be accepted across the political spectrum. Margaret Thatcher said that, as a nation, the Scots have an undoubted right to national self-determination. Should they determine independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way. John Major said of Scotland that no nation could be held irrevocably in a union against its will. The report of the cross-party Smith commission said after the 2014 referendum that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. It was the 1989 climate right, again endorsed in votes of both Westminster and Scottish Parliament on a cross-party basis, which affirmed the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their form of government best suited to their needs. None of those quotes, not even from those Conservative and Unionist Prime Ministers, describes a right to choose as long as Westminster agrees. That is what disappoints me most today about Labour's amendment, because Labour sought to remove and delete the section in the Government's motion today that the UK should be a voluntary association of nations and that it should be open to any point to choose by democratic means to withdraw, something that was lifted almost entirely from a report from the Labour Welsh Government, confirming quite the distance that the leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland, and I say leadership because I don't think all of their members or voters will agree with the position. The STUC certainly does not, and the renaig on what they signed up to in the Smith commission. They also renaig on the report that they just published in August last year, which said that the role of the Scottish Parliament is to be the expression of the democratic will of the people of Scotland. So it's little surprise that Opposition parties have not much enjoyed the tag of dim democracy deniers that has been levelled at them today, but to paraphrase Alistair Jacks' duck analogy, if they try to block a debate in this place about Scotland's democratic choice today, if they refuse to accept the result of the Brexit referendum in Scotland, if they refuse to accept the outcome of the last Scottish election, and if they refuse to allow the people of Scotland to have their say over their future that they have voted for, then they are democracy deniers, Presiding Officer. It is not simply enough to say warm words about the rights to choose. Actions are needed. It has to be made real. There is no meaningful right to choose if the people of Scotland can simply perfuntorily be told by the UK Prime Minister no. Respecting the right to choose, putting the words that I have quoted into practice means coming to the table, entering discussions, accepting, as we accept, that while we may never agree about the ultimate destination of Scotland's constitutional journey, we agree that it is one for the people of Scotland who live and work here. The First Minister has made clear that this Government is ready to have those discussions. It is up now to the UK Government to come forward and respect the outcome of elections in this country. In conclusion, Derek Bateman was a great journalist, a committed supporter of independence and a thoughtful commentator. In one article, he argued that independence cannot be portrayed as a knee-jerk response to unlimited freedoms and imposed restrictions. The point about independence, he said, is that it is the creation of the people, not the lawyers. The people decide, the lawyers draft and the politicians legislate. It is a national creed decor and he was absolutely right. The merits of independence are not for today. Independence gives us the chance to plot a different path that rejects austerity, utilises our undeniable natural resources, the talents of our people and make our economy work for our people by tackling poverty. The merits of independence are not for today, because today is not for us to decide. Today is about allowing the people of Scotland to take their democratic right to choose their own future. That used to be something that united us all, but it is for the people to decide their own future. That concludes the debate on people's right to choose, respecting Scotland's democratic mandate. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is an urgent question. I call Neil Bibby.


So, being able to be at this college, where I'm surrounded by multiple different people with different cultures and different backgrounds, I'm able to, once I leave college and join a company where the same situation where there's multiple different cultures from around the world, and I'm able to meet and learn from those people just like I do here at ECSU.