I want to move on. There's just a little time in hand, so interventions please should be short as should the responses or a run-out of time for interventions. The next item of business is a debate on defending the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I call on Mike Russell to open with the Government Minister 15 minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Today, as you say, we have a debate without motion. These infrequent but valuable occasions give members across the chamber the opportunity to express their views on the issue at hand without forcing us into a binary division, a simple yes or no. Today, every party has the opportunity to consider the most important issue that is presently facing this Parliament—how to defend and protect Scottish powers when the UK Government of the day will not respect the constitutional rules. We can also put forward ideas about how we can move forward and protect Scotland itself from the chaotic disastrous Brexit that the UK Government is attempting to foist upon us. We could, of course, constrain this open opportunity, Presiding Officer, within 19 minutes of the time that is made available to the House of Commons to nod through provisions in the EU withdrawal bill, which fundamentally alter the nature of the devolution settlement. That time was entirely occupied by one speech by a UK minister. No Scottish MPs were able to talk about the UK Government's proposals, never mind have a proper debate, never mind have a vote. The devolution settlement, voted for by the people of Scotland in a referendum almost exactly 20 years ago, has been altered, changed utterly, without any input at the final stage by any elected member from Scotland at all, of course. Mike Rumbles. The powers of this Parliament have not been altered. The powers of this Parliament are only under threat from the one party that seeks to destroy devolution, and that is the party of government in Scotland. Presiding Officer, for those who did not catch, the viewers at home did not catch this, you have just seen the recreation of the Tory Liberal Democrat Alliance, which we thought came to a happy end, a blessed end, in 2015. As I was saying, Presiding Officer, the devolution settlement, voted for by the people of Scotland in a referendum almost exactly 20 years ago, has been altered, changed utterly, without any input at the final stage by any elected member from Scotland at all, but there was a clear democratic voice from Scotland. On 15 May, we here in Scotland's Parliament refused to give legislative consent to the withdrawal bill by 93 to 30. All the parties represented in this Parliament accept the Conservatives. As the vote was clear, so are the rules of our constitution. Where legislative consent is required, sought and refused, so the UK Government must amend its bill to reflect the views of this Parliament. The English language is clear too, for when someone asks for consent and it's refused, that's not consent. The real point of devolution was to ensure that decisions were made as close as possible to those affected by them, to ensure that those with the most knowledge of the prevailing circumstances took responsibility for moving Scotland forward. It should give real power, real influence to the range of views in all the nations of these islands. Alas Brexit has proved how illusory that power and influence is in the face of a UK Government determined to ignore the views of democratically elected legislatures. This weekend, I heard Professor Christine Bell of Edinburgh University define a constitutional crisis as one that could not be solved by the operation of the existing constitution. We are presiding officer in that situation. The constitutional crisis in these islands cannot be resolved by the existing constitutional settlement. The weight of Brexit has been too great for the existing constitution to bear. The hostility of the avid Brexiteers, the indifference of the Prime Minister and the failure of the Tories, perhaps and one liberal Democrat in this place, has allowed devolution to be broken. Now it must be remade or replaced. This Parliament and this Government has done its best to avoid such a situation. We have made our position clear again and again. We have negotiated to achieve that position by offer and by compromise. Immediately after the referendum on 23 June, in which Scotland rejected Brexit, this Parliament voted for a motion mandating the Scottish Government to discuss with the UK Government options to protect Scotland's relationship with the EU and our place in the single market. On 14 September 2016, we voted that article 50 should not be triggered without an agreed UK approach. On 17 January 2017, we voted to support the approach that was set out in Scotland's place in Europe, including membership of the Single Market and Customs Union. On 7 February 2017, we voted that the UK article 50 bill should not proceed in the absence of a clear plan and a joint approach. We presented all those positions to the UK Government. We asked for them to be taken to account and ways found, which we suggested for them to be folded into the UK Government negotiating mandate. That has not happened. Indeed, all those votes have in common is that they were completely ignored by the UK Government. No, not all, because I should add that, on 21 March this year, we voted in favour of the Scottish continuity bill. That vote was not ignored by the UK Government. Instead, it referred the bill to the Supreme Court. So what can we do to protect the powers of this Parliament and devolution settlement? My party, of course, believes that the best future for Scotland is to be an independent country, free to make its own decisions. Not everyone here—this is a democracy—shares that view. However, I would hope that all of us, as parliamentarians, can agree that this Parliament's power should not be eroded and that its competence should not be altered without its consent. Until now, this protection has been provided by a combination of statutory provisions in the Scotland Act and the Sewell convention. Can you give us an example of a single power currently being exercised by this Scottish Parliament that is being removed? I commend the member who has clearly not done his homework to the list of 111 of them, which are there. Indeed, not only 111 of them, but the UK Government is able to list any other power and just do it. I am afraid that that is the reality. Let us return to the facts of the matter. The Sewell convention, the Sewell convention— Can I just ask the Conservative convention to calm down a little, please? Your time will come as Mr Tomkins will be leading for your shortly clarification, minister. The Sewell convention is what is known as the constitutional convention. A binding rule of our constitution, although a non-legal rule, cannot be enforced in the courts. The effect of those conventions as rules depends, in the absence of judicial oversight, on the actors in the system behaving as they should. It depends, if you like, on trust. However, as the T-Shucklet said last week in Guernsey, you have to underpin trust with legal frameworks. That is what makes the EU work and that, in its absence, is what now makes devolution not work. The breach that we have seen of the Sewell convention has been the result of deliberate, considered actions by the UK Government and, moreover, in the full knowledge that they cannot be held to account by any legal framework. It is now crystal clear that we need more than trust to protect us. There is a type of statutory provision on the Sewell convention in the 2016 Scotland Act, but that provision has been tested in the Supreme Court, in the case of Miller, which has been found to provide no legal protection at all. It is now time to revisit the issue of a proper statutory footing for the Sewell convention, as recommended by the Smith commission. As a start, we could dust down the proposals that were made in 2015 by the Scottish Government and committees of this Parliament, notably the devolution for the powers committee, under my friend Bruce Crawford. In January, the plenary session of the joint ministerial committee, including the First Minister and the Prime Minister, agreed that the existing inter-governmental arrangements should be reviewed. That work should now consider how disputes can be resolved, including on the Sewell convention, and how a legal framework can be established to underpin the necessary relationships between the four nations of these islands. I put those ideas to the UK Government last week in both informal and formal settings. I am now looking for urgent progress on them, and the ball is in the UK Government's court. I am also pleased that the Welsh Government has fully backed such a process. I would be pleased to hear the views of this chamber in these matters today and going forward. I am sure that the committees of this Parliament will have views as well as the parties. To solve the current constitutional crisis, we need some new thinking. No one has a monopoly on that. Although the simplest solution, I have to say, as Occam's razor suggests, is usually the best. The simple solution is for the Parliament to have all the powers of a normal Parliament. Finally, Presiding Officer, I want to turn to a broader issue, that of the impending June meeting of the European Council and what the Scottish Government will use to see emerging from the various debates there. European leaders will come together to discuss matters of huge importance, such as migration, economy, security and defence. It is hugely regrettable that the UK seems almost inevitably to have excluded itself from these important meetings after 29 March next year. We will all be the weaker and the poorer for that. The EU 27 will also discuss the current state of play with the Brexit negotiations, namely that serious divergencies remain between the EU and the UK Government on a solution for the Irish border, amongst other issues, and that a huge amount of work needs to take place before October. The unthinkable risk of a no-deal outcome continues to increase. Delay means ever greater pressure on the October meeting of the European Council to avoid such a disastrous outcome. We are told by the UK Government that a new white paper will provide the answers, but it is already delayed beyond the June European Council. There cannot be answers before the devolved Administrations are properly consulted on that, and we have not been. I will be in London tomorrow for the second meeting of the ministerial forum, which is meant to be looking at that white paper. So far, I have only seen a draft content sheet now at this moment, with the meeting tomorrow afternoon. I have not seen another word, although apparently it has been written. That really says it all. The truth is that, riven by its internal disagreements, engagement with us or any of the devolved Administrations has been tokenistic. It remains deeply concerning that the UK Government seems determined to continue to pursue wholly unrealistic negotiating positions, wasting precious months in the process of doing so. I, alongside my Welsh Government counterparts, continue to engage in good faith through the joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations to seek to hold substantive and constructive discussions on those negotiations of the EU concerning matters for which this Parliament is responsible. Our position has been consistent and clear if Brexit is to happen and Scotland and the UK should remain within the single market and the customs union. Support for our position from people and businesses is going daily, and I remain determined to reflect Scotland's democratic decision and to champion Scotland's interests. Last week, the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland called on the UK Government to commit to staying inside the single market and the customs union. It is the UK Government's own red lines, which mean that Brexit would deeply damage our economies. It is time for the UK Government to stop negotiating with itself, faith up to the real danger of the type of EU exit that it is proposing and listen to our consistent evidence-based proposals. We move into the summer recess and face an uncertain future. Uncertain in Europe, with the UK Government's approach to negotiations no clearer than it has been at any point over the last two years with time rapidly running out. Uncertain in the UK, with the UK Government apparently willing to cast aside the rules of our system of government—no, I'm sorry, I want to finish—when it suits them. An uncertain at home, with business, communities and individuals left still, with little idea from the UK Government about what will happen next year and the year after. Brexit still means Brexit, and not much else. In these times, it falls to us in the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to stand up even more for the democratic institutions that we represent and to redouble our efforts to strengthen and protect them. That's why I laid out last week our next steps and promised to do everything that the Scottish Government can to provide information, move forward the repatriation of regulation and secure the only sensible outcome short of staying in the EU, that of staying within a single market and the customs union. That is why cabinet secretaries are now bringing forward, as Fergus Ewing did last week, consultations and plans to allow policy to be developed and progress made, even if only to mitigate the damage that is inevitable if the UK Government stays on its present track. I'm happy to hear this afternoon other ideas, but I hope that no one will assert that it is possible to have a good or successful Brexit. It is not. Brexit is and will be collateral damage inflicted by the UK Government as a result of the endless internal civil war in the Tory party, aided and abetted by a shadowy bunch of chances who we know now were in it to make money. Many people were duped by them. My sympathy lies with those people who are already waking up to the disappointment of promises broken and pledges dishonoured. There is no, there can be no Brexit dividend except in the negative, more costs, less income and a declining economy. This Scottish Government will do everything to protect Scotland from such things. We want to do it collaboratively across this chamber and across the nation. I hope that this afternoon's open debate is a chance to move forward in that way, for there is much that's needed to be done and very little time. Thank you. Before I call Adam Tomkins, can I ask all members who wish to speak to the debate? Please press your request-to-speak buttons now. I'll call Adam Tomkins home to the Conservatives. 11 minutes, please, Mr Tomkins. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given that this is a debate without motion, I want to use my remarks to reflect on the events of the last year, and then perhaps at the end to point something of the way forward. Brexit can and must be delivered compatibly with the United Kingdom's devolution settlements. That's the starting principle on which the Scottish Conservatives stand and have stood ever since the British people voted two years ago to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. Whatever else it may mean, Brexit cannot mean, and indeed has never meant, that the UK somehow reverts to the constitution of 1972. In 1972, when the UK joined what was then the European Economic Community, there was no devolution. However, reversing 46 years of EU membership does not mean and cannot mean that we reverse at the same time all of the other non-EU-related reforms to our constitution that we have seen since the 1970s. Mike Russell claimed last week, and indeed repeated the claim a few moments ago, that Brexit is being delivered in breach of fundamental principles of devolution in Scotland. He has made this claim because the European Union withdrawal act, as it now is, was enacted by the Westminster Parliament, despite the fact that a majority of MSPs here voted to withhold their consent to that legislation. This, he has claimed, is a breach of the Sewell convention. It's a shame that Lord Sewell doesn't agree. However, the SNP's misconception of the nature of the Sewell convention and Mr Russell's somewhat error-strewn account of what happened in the passing of the withdrawal act need to be confronted and corrected, for there has been no breach of Sewell, and the European Union withdrawal act was enacted by the Westminster Parliament, compatibly with and not in defiance of our constitutional rules. Bruce Crawford I wonder if Mr Tompkins would agree with the following wise words. The requirement in the convention to respect the views of this Parliament and not to proceed with legislation that affects the powers of this Parliament without our consent is not a nice city, it's not an add-on, it's a fundamentally important part of our constitutional settlement. Why has Mr Tompkins changed his mind, given that these are his own wise words? I haven't changed my mind. I haven't changed my mind, but the Sewell convention was effectively suspended by the SNP front bench a few months ago, as I shall explain. This is the key point that Mr Crawford deliberately overlooks, and I know that he knows this. The Sewell convention provides that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or indeed, as the case may be, without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales. On a narrow construction of the convention, there is an argument that it should not even have applied to the European Union withdrawal act. The subject matter of that act is the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, and that is a reserved matter under our devolution legislation. It is not and never has been devolved to this Parliament, but, to their credit, neither Westminster nor Whitehall have ever taken such a legalistic or narrow view of the scope of the Sewell convention. Sewell applied to certain provisions of the withdrawal act because those provisions, among other matters, extended the powers both of this Parliament and of the Scottish ministers. Let's just pause here to note that the withdrawal act does not remove powers from this Parliament. When asked about this a few moments ago by Murdo Fraser, Mr Russell could not name a single power that is being removed from this Parliament for the simple reason that there is no such power. The withdrawal act adds to the powers of this Parliament, but the problem is, of course, that the SNP does not want any of those powers. It wants them all to remain locked away in Brussels. In a few moments, when the withdrawal bill was first introduced, a year ago now, this Parliament was united in viewing its key devolution provision, clause 11, as defective. It is so defective that, in the unanimous words of the All Party Finance and Constitution Committee, that provision needed to be removed or replaced. The problem with clause 11 as introduced was that it turned one aspect of devolution on its head. In Scotland, all lawmaking powers are devolved to this Parliament unless they are expressly reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act. That is known as the reserved powers model. Clause 11, as introduced, sought effectively to reverse this principle and to convert this aspect of Scottish devolution to a devolved powers model. However, after hearing our objections, the UK Government undertook to amend clause 11. That happened. Later than would have been ideal, but it happened at report stage in the House of Lords. The amended clause 11, now section 15 of the EU Withdrawal Act, fully respects the reserved powers model. All powers that fall within devolved competence in a minute, all powers that fall within devolved competence, which are to be returned from the European Union to the United Kingdom following Brexit, will come here to this Parliament unless it is necessary to hold them at the UK level for a limited period so that the vital integrity of the UK's internal market can be safeguarded. Holding such a power at the UK level does not mean that the UK can change anything. It simply means that for as long as the power is held, it will continue to be exercised just as it is now, that is to say in accordance with EU law. I give way to Mr Rumbles. Mike Rumbles. Can I thank Adam Tomkins for giving way? Our politics may differ, markedly, and we have our disagreements. I agree with him entirely that, in my view, there is no constitutional attack on the powers of this Parliament, as in the heading of this debate. Would he agree with me that the only people that are intent on destroying devolution in the Scottish constitutional system is the SNP opposite? Nationalists have never believed in devolution. They do not like devolution. They do not believe in the United Kingdom whether they are devolved or not. They want to break up the United Kingdom and they want to bring an end to devolution. The revised amended section 15 of the European Union withdrawal act is manifestly in Scotland's interests. None of us should forget that Scotland trades nearly four times as much with the rest of the United Kingdom as it does with the whole of the European Union. Safeguarding the integrity of the UK's internal market is essential to Scottish business and to the Scottish economy. No one who is genuinely seeking to be stronger for Scotland could object to it, but object the SNP's due, Presiding Officer. The amendments were good enough for the Labour Government in Wales. They were good enough for opposition and cross-bench peers in the House of Lords. They were good enough for everybody involved in the process, except the SNP. Indeed, the story was that the amendments were good enough even for Mike Russell until he was overruled by his boss. Whatever the rights and wrongs in a moment, whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular story, one thing is crystal clear. It is Nicola Sturgeon's belligerence that broke the consensus in this Parliament, and that has not strengthened our hand, Presiding Officer. It has weakened it. I give way to the minister. I am sure that Mr Tomkins would not want to be totally wrong. For example, the STUC has indicated that they do not agree with what has taken place. A whole range of bodies have indicated that. I am sure that the member did not mean to indicate that the SNP was on her own in that actual fact. It is considerable support. Even the First Minister of Wales last week was indicating how strongly opposed he was to the way that the UK Government was acting. The First Minister of Wales leads a Government that signed up to the deal that Mr Russell himself wanted to sign up to until he was overruled by the belligerence of his boss. On one view, the most critical event in this whole saga was not the withdrawal bill or the amendments to it, but the unilateral, hasty and ill-advised action that the SNP took in bringing forward their own Brexit legislation. The so-called continuity bill, but in reality a wrecking bill designed not to deliver continuity but to sow the seeds of legal confusion and chaos, was both a tactical error and a huge strategic mistake on the Scottish Government's part, a mistake compounded by Mike Russell's insistence that this Parliament enact that legislation under fast-track emergency procedure. Even Mr Russell knows that you do not legislate using emergency procedure in normal times. You legislate using emergency procedure when there is an emergency. It was no surprise that in moving the motion that is continuity bill be fast-tracked, Mr Russell insisted and I quote, these are not normal times. Oh dear, what a blunder. Let's go back to Sewell. Mr Crawford, this is the answer to your question. Sewell says that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without our consent, but it was Mr Russell himself who insisted that these are not normal times. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pull stunts in the House of Commons screaming from the rooftops that Westminster has breached the Sewell Convention whilst at the same time insisting that this Parliament uses emergency legislative procedure because these are not normal times. To make matters even worse, the continuity bill was enacted in the face of legal advice from the Presiding Officer no less that the legislation was beyond our legal powers and the bill now awaits trial in the Supreme Court, whose verdict we expect in the autumn. So what have we learned, Presiding Officer? Through its own actions, over the past 12 months, the SNP has undermined Scotland's interests and has weakened this Parliament's hand in the Brexit process in three main ways. First, by refusing consent even to the amended EU withdrawal act, the SNP has isolated Scotland, breaking not only the consensus in this Parliament but also the joint working with the Welsh Government that, until the nationalists broke it, had enjoyed considerable success. Second, by rushing ill-conceived Brexit legislation of their own through this Parliament, the SNP sold the pass on the Sewell Convention. It undermined the integrity of this Parliament's emergency lawmaking procedures. It willfully ignored the legal advice of our own Presiding Officer and they have exposed this Parliament's legislation to unprecedented legal challenge in the country's highest court. Third, by refusing consent to Westminster legislation that protects the UK's internal market and by enacting their own legislation that attempts to undermine the UK's internal market, the SNP is acting directly contrary to the business and best economic interests of the people of Scotland. That is the record of the last 12 months, but it is not too late, Presiding Officer. It is not too late for the SNP to change course. It could take its lead from the Welsh and drop its objections to the withdrawal act. It could drop its belligerent attempts to undermine Brexit at every turn. It could work with and not against the UK Government in ensuring that future Brexit legislation, including on trade, agriculture and the environment, is properly compatible with our devolution settlements. Constructive engagement in the process is likely to yield a far greater return than the shouting from the sidelines that Nicola Sturgeon seems to prefer. It has been a disappointing year from the SNP. Let's hope that ministers take the summer to reflect on how little they have achieved in the last 12 months and that they return here in September, ready to get on with the job at hand, working with and alongside the UK Government to secure the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland and the whole of the UK. I call on Neil Findlay to open for labour. Eight minutes please, Mr Findlay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The last nine months have been extremely frustrating. We have across our public services a whole host of problems that are impacting on people's lives and our communities. The issues that come up time and time again, and surgeries, emails from constituents and conversations on the doorstep, in my region, we see GP practices closing. We see hospital waiting lists—lothian waiting lists for new patients have closed at around 40 per cent of GP practices. The system would collapse without locoms being paid £1,400 a day. We see a mental health crisis. We see orthopedic waiting times at 54 weeks. We see care homes closing and wave the side as market failure.  Next week it will be a year since St John's children's word closed its doors to inpatients out of our families forced to travel 30 miles for hospital treatment. Then we have child poverty, rising class sizes, a shambles off an education bill, the growing attainment cap, cuts to bus services, a housing crisis. Those essential public services civilise our society and are under pressure, like never before, yet all the focus of the last nine months has been elsewhere. It has been on the increasingly polarised and divisive debate around the devolution of post-Brexit powers. Prior to Christmas, the cabinet's invisible man, David Mundell, gave a commitment that the UK Government would bring forward amendments in the commons to resolve the issue of consent. We were told that it would be resolved at the committee stage, then it would be resolved at the report stage. During the debate, Scottish Conservative MP Stephen Kerr said that it sticks in my craw to think that unelected laws will make vital amendments to this vital constitutional bill. It is really not good enough. As a member of the House of Commons, I hang my head to that. We have somehow dropped the ball. He went on to say, let me be absolutely clear about the clause. We must have an agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments to allow for the passage of a legislative consent motion. Paul Masterton, MP. On the second reading, I said that I would not allow legislation to pass that undermined the union or the devolution settlement. That remains my position today, he boldly claimed. However, like all other Tory commitments Mundell's promise to deliver was without any foundation whatsoever. The cabinet's invisible man was posted missing once again. Then, to cap it all off, we had the ludicrous situation of just 15 or 20 minutes being set aside to debate the impact of this legislation on this Parliament and the people we represent. Here, of course, we had the continuity bill rushed through but taken up a significant amount of this Parliament's time and effort that we could have been using to debate and discuss the issues that I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution. Later, the cabinet secretary thought that he had a deal similar to the deal in Wales, but, of course, it was kiboshed by the First Minister leaving the minister high and dry. No matter how many times he tries to tell us all that that was not the case, everyone knows that it was the case. Well, that's no surprise to me, Mr Stevenson. Mr Stevenson is off another world, of course. He is in a parallel universe. Of course, we all know for the SNP that this is not really about powers for this Parliament. It's not really about the disputed areas such as fertiliser standards. It's not really about pedigree sheep or academic qualifications. It's about the stoken up of a sense of injustice and a sense of grievance to further the reason that they exist and that is independence. As the two nationalist parties have scrapped it out, it has been the Labour Party that sought repeatedly to find a way through this mess while protecting the principle of the wall power and soul. All the way through, Labour has put forward constructive amendments in the comments that were rejected when the Scottish Tories were whipped to vote against what Paul Masterton and Stephen Kerr among the many who broke their previous commitments. We then had Labour amendments in the laws that were rejected by the Government. We then proposed further amendments to the devolution element to the bill that would have brought some sanity to the definition of consent and reduced the sunset clause from five to three years after leaving the EU. The only time that the UK Government could legislate without the permission of the Scottish Parliament would be when the UK Government would have reason to believe that not acting would leave them in breach of international obligations—a provision that is already contained within the Scotland Act. Even now, we seek constructive ways to bring about a solution. We have tried many times to bring some sanity to proceedings, and each time that has been rejected. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government when they have sought to bring parties together. We will continue to do that. We are available to speak any time, my colleague Leslie Laird. Today, we are still attempting to make progress on that, yet every time we see it rejected. Why is that? We are not naive. We know that both Governments are putting their narrow party advantage before the national interest. The UK Government is stoking up constitutional conflict. It spits narratives, zone division in order to secure unionist votes. That is the game being played.  Of course, the SNP seeks to further that division because it keeps its supporters angry and fed enough so that they are diverted away from Nicola Sturgeon's tactical dilemma over a second independence referendum. That is the game being played out here, and as the two sides become more shrill in their approach, it becomes ever more evident. However, we will continue to be constructive. We will continue to support, defend and enhance devolution, because we are the only party in here that actually believes in devolution. We will try to assist in finding a way through this mess. James Dornan Finlay, can you explain to me then, if you are so concerned about devolution, why only four of you bothered to turn up this afternoon? Good to see Mr Dornan's turned up. I will tell you why, because this is a debate that has no motion. This is a debate that is a talking shock. Why didn't we bring forward a substantive debate then? If we had, then we could have debated it and made a decision. However, what are we talking about here? There is going to be nothing to vote on at the end. Probably Mr Dornan was not even aware of that. This is a mess that has been created by the Tory party, exploited by the SNP. If we look at what is happening through the Brexit process, Theresa May has been pushed by Labour to change her position on the customs union, and she changes it by the day. She is moving on single market alignment. She is weak and vulnerable, so we should continue to pressure her on this issue too. I think that, in the days and weeks to come, we still have the opportunity to see the real change that we want in Scotland, and that is the end of this rotten Tory Government, and let's see a Labour Government for the many, not the few. Thank you. I call Patrick Harvie to open for the greens. I don't know Mr Harvie. Mr Arthur, please open for the green six minutes. I'm grateful. Debates without motion can be good opportunities to explore a new issue or to allow free debate across the political spectrum where there is no consensus or clear position from parties yet. The Scottish Government suggested that approach for this debate. I was very clear that I think that that's a mistake. It was suggested at one point that it would offer the chance for a calm, reflective debate on these issues, and I don't think that that's terribly likely from some. I don't believe that it's an adequate response to the constitutional crisis that we find ourselves in at the moment. As we prepare to break for summer recess, we should be passing a robust resolution to oppose the UK Government's actions. That is an unprecedented situation. The Brexit crisis itself is bad enough, an economic crisis, a political crisis, a democratic crisis and potentially a security crisis for our friends in Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now, as a result of deliberate UK Government choices, it has led to a devolution crisis as well. The UK Government's approach is supported only by the Conservatives in this chamber who stand alone in that position and yet accuse others of breaking the consensus in this Parliament what an absurd claim. I've previously argued that the principle of legislative consent needs to be clearly understood and should be clearly defined. If it's to be meaningful, the word surely must carry the same meaning that it carries in our everyday language. Consent must be freely given or withheld without coercion or threat. It must be capable of being withdrawn at any time and, most fundamentally, it must be respected. The UK Government has shown contempt for those principles. Professor Tomkins tells us that the phrase, not normally, is the clenching issue for him. He hands everything, it seems, on the idea that this phrase, not normally, will trigger in the current situation. What does this phrase mean? I think that it's perfectly understandable to suggest that, prior to the creation of this Parliament, it was thought necessary to plan for a potential scenario in which legislation was urgently needed but the new mechanisms were not functioning properly, not capable of meeting that need. However, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are functioning normally. Let's contrast the situation that we have here with what's happening in Northern Ireland, where there is a clear human rights abuse, as found recently in the legal ruling on abortion rights in Northern Ireland. There is a rising tide of public campaign and impatience to change that iniquitous situation, a moment of opportunity and no functioning Northern Ireland assembly at all. However, in that context, the UK Government says that it will not legislate on abortion rights. It will not take the responsibility to resolve that human rights abuse, because that's Northern Ireland's responsibility, and they must do that through the Assembly. Here in Scotland, meanwhile, devolution is functioning normally. Both Parliament and Government are operating. There is an emphatic political majority shared across four political parties in this chamber, and a devolved legislative response to the Brexit crisis is available already passed overwhelmingly by this Parliament. In that context, the UK Government decides to override this Parliament, trigger and never before use power to legislate without our consent, in fact, in defiance of an explicit refusal of consent. In that context, there is no case for our pretending that the principle of legislative consent exists any longer at all. It has been unilaterally abolished by the UK Government. If the UK Government has any interest in restoring normal relationships between the two Governments and the two Parliaments, there must be concession on their part. The cabinet secretary's suggestion that that concession involves putting the legislative consent principle onto a statutory footing is one way of doing so. That would be a concession towards this Parliament's legitimacy, and I would welcome a discussion on that. However, I also believe that there needs to be a concession towards Scotland's national interests as well, which are being shown such contempt by the UK Government. One way of doing that would be to agree that, in the Brexit crisis, there will be a moment of opportunity to see at least some control over powers such as immigration to allow us to meet Scotland's economic and social needs in the face of the threat posed by Brexit to our public services, to our culture and to our economy by the UK Government's ideological hostility to people's freedom to move. Those two measures—a concession on the Scottish Parliament's legitimacy and a concession on Scotland's national interests—would offer some chance to normalise relationships again and move forward. I see very little chance that the UK Government is remotely interested in achieving that. Westminster is archaic. That is not news. We have an unelected House of Lords. There is a greater debate about this whole issue than the elected House of Commons. You have one Conservative MSP who can veto a sensible bill about upskirting, with just one shout, not even a contribution to the debate. We know that Westminster is archaic. That is not new. What was new was that the Conservatives have mishandled this whole affair from beginning to end. The fact that they promised that there would be extended debating time in the common at numerous stages, they said that it would be inappropriate for the House of Lords to have the final say on those issues. Despite all those promises, David Mundell repeatedly promised that there would be extra time, all that we got was 19 minutes. That was cat-handled management by the Conservatives. There is no doubt. That started months ago. I was also disappointed by the SNP response. Walking out of the chamber, I have to say, in Prime Minister's questions, was a waste of time. It potentially lost a long debate exploring these very, very issues. It was grandstanding, and I have to say that it did not help. I think that criticising ourselves in the Labour Party for abstaining on the clause 15 progress that we had made was wrong, too. On the one hand, they said that there was unity in Scotland bar the Conservatives, and on the next breath, they criticised us for breaking that unity. They cannot have it both ways. There is either unity or there is not unity, so they need to be careful with the collaboration and the co-operation that they seek and the claim that they have in Scotland. This whole episode has been marred by macho chest beating on both sides. What we need is a much more mature approach to resolving disputes. We have put forward proposals in the continuity bill to try to get a mature dispute resolution procedure. Those were rejected by the SNP Government. It did not want any Government in the United Kingdom having any say over the collaborative arrangements in the United Kingdom. Only Scotland's voice mattered. I happen to think that, on areas of common interest in the United Kingdom, we should be seeking genuine partnership. That is why I am in favour of a federal structure, because I think that that embeds the co-operation that we all seek within the United Kingdom. I am afraid that I do not support a Scottish or so-called Scottish veto. I also do not support, and this is where the Conservative members need to listen, a Westminster dictat. We should not have the case where there is a disagreement between different partners in the United Kingdom that Westminster has the final say. We need something like a qualified majority voting system, some kind of independent arbiter to bring together the different parties at times of dispute. One claiming that they should have all the power or the other claiming that they should have all the power is not the way to proceed. The Brexit is potentially creating a president for other areas of co-operation as well, because if you look at the industrial strategy for the United Kingdom, the UK Government did not bother to consult the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament on that. I think that they should have. I think that they should have been required to do so, and I think that there should have been that kind of co-operation embedded in the structures of the United Kingdom. That is why I think that we have had a big missed opportunity in this cat-handed process from beginning to end. We have seen this coming. The Conservatives were warned about this right at the beginning, but they played right into the SNP's hands. The whole thing has been one big, macho chest beating exercise, and I think that everybody in the UK has lost out as a result. The big opportunity that has been missed is that the inability of the SNP Government to get off the fence. I agree with Mike Russell when he talks about the Brexit exercise that has been a shambles from beginning to end. I agree with him on that. I agree that we are on a cliff edge. I agree the potential economic damage to our country. If that is all the case, why is he not coming off the fence and backing a people's vote, the opportunity for the British people to have the final say on the Brexit deal? If it is going to be that bad, why not put it back to the British people? All the polls are showing that movement is towards having that final say, movement is towards people saying that the Brexit deal is not good enough. I think that the member is aware—I have made it very clear and did it again on Sunday—that I am not unsympathetic towards that, but we need to find a way to ensure that we do not repeat the experience that we had in June 2016 when Scotland voted to stay in the EU but was overruled. We cannot have that happening again. If the member is and he is good liberal and likes to negotiate to be positive and discuss those terms, I am quite sure that we can make progress on it. I have said this much to him and I say it again here. Willie Rennie He is so uncharacteristic of Mr Russell to be shy and cautious. He is normally out there beating his chest, demanding the rest of the UK, follows exactly what he wants to happen. Why is he not doing it on this case? Why does he not stand up and say that British people should have the final say on the Brexit deal? Movement is going that way. Look at the massive protest in London at the weekend. People were speaking out, demanding a say. Why did they not get off the fence and say something about it? His proposed declaration, I think, is one big compromise too far. I want to stay in the European Union. I make no bones about that. To accept a compromise of justing in the single market or the custom union is not good enough, I think that we should scrap the whole thing. Let's have a people's vote. Let's reject this Brexit deal. Open debate, speeches of five minutes. Mary Gougeon, followed by Maurice Golden. Ms Gougeon, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that we really shouldn't be discussing this in Parliament today or in fact at all because I don't think that we should be in the position in the first place of having to defend the powers of the Scottish Parliament. But here we are, and like a growing number of people right across Scotland, I'm angry. I'm angry that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against it's will. I'm angry that, since the vote and throughout the Brexit process, our Parliament has been repeatedly treated with contempt and I'm angry that a Tory UK Government ignored the expressed will of this Parliament and in doing so dismantling the core principles on which the devolution settlement was based. We also shouldn't be in this position today because the Tories, if you take them at their word, which is probably never a good idea in the first place, would have had us convinced that we are a partnership of equals. Theresa May told us that we had a future in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side by side as equal partners, but then Brexit. The Prime Minister stated her vision for working with the devolved Governments during the process. Her wish to create a relationship built on the principles of mutual understanding, consensus and co-operation, and so the Joint Ministerial Council for European Negotiations was established. Now, as a member of the European Committee in Parliament, I'm aware from our sessions with Minister Mike Russell to what extent those objectives were met, if at all, from a Scottish perspective, and he alluded to some of that in his opening statement today. But what about the view from Wales? Mark Drakeford, the Welsh member of the GMC, said of its operation, that agendas arrive less than 24 hours before the meeting takes place. When you leave Cardiff to attend a meeting, there's not even a room identified where the meeting is going to happen. Minutes are not produced, so we are unable to track progress against things that have been agreed. The GMC was seen as a vehicle for managing and suppressing difficult issues, rather than addressing and engaging with them. The GMC failed to meet for nine months of the year last year, during which time papers outlining the UK's position on a number of areas used as a basis for negotiations with the EU were submitted, and some of those were related solely to devolved areas. Now, it's hard to reach consensus in co-operation when one side won't come to the table. There wasn't even a word to the devolved Governments when article 50 was triggered—a fairly pivotal moment to discuss with your equal partners, one would have thought. But that's the intergovernmental relations. How about those with the Scottish Parliament itself? Despite numerous attempts to contact the Brexit minister, David Davis, and numerous invites to attend the European Committee, we're still waiting. Michael Gove is video conferencing with the REC committee tomorrow after cancelling three times. The Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, due to appear at the Justice Committee to address our concerns, cancelled, rescheduled, then cancelled with less than 24 hours' notice. Though I'd like to give Mr Mundell's due, he did attend the EU REC committee on two previous occasions, the first of which he informed the committee that there was no Scotland-specific Brexit analysis. For this very same, Scotland-specific Brexit analysis to be leaked to BuzzFeed shortly after. Our Secretary of State for Scotland either deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee or showing complete incompetence by the very fact that he didn't know, and I don't know which either of those situations is worse. However, this, like the GMC, perfectly characterises the attitude of the UK Government towards the devolved Administrations, which we saw culminate in the withdrawal bill debate two weeks ago. Arrogance, no respect, treated with disdain and ignored. Given the power dynamic, though, I don't think that this could have ended any other way. In committee, we took evidence from Professor Michael Keating, who told us that the last resort is always that the UK Government can get its way, and our knowing that changes the whole dynamic of negotiation. I do not know of any other system of intergovernmental relations in the world in which that is so comprehensively true. Now, it was the privilege of my life to be elected here to represent my home region in our Scottish Parliament two years ago. I didn't stand for election to stand by as the Tories in their UK Government trample over the democratically expressed will of the people in this country and ignore the expressed will of this Parliament. To do that would be a complete dereliction of our elected duty, yet that's exactly what the Tories in Scotland have done. Now, we've all seen the impact of Scotland when powers rest in a Tory UK Government's hands. Universal credit, immigration, bedroom tax, rape clause, policies rolled out regardless of what we say or do here in the Scottish Parliament, and policies that leave a string of human catastrophes in their wake. That is no different. In fact, it is even worse. It is assuming control of the powers that we do have, which more often than not we have to use to mitigate against the damage that they are doing across the country. We have been failed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the man whose sole job is to promote and protect the devolution settlement and who then trampled all over it when he walked through that voting lobby. We've been failed by the Scottish Tory MPs and we've been failed by the Tory members of this Parliament. While the Tories continue to strip our powers away, this party will always continue to do our job, standing up for the people of Scotland and defending the powers of our Parliament. Thank you. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Richard Lochhead. Mr Golden, please. Presiding Officer, today I would like to talk about respect. Respect for the people, for Parliament and for politicians. I believe that we need to act with the decorum and diligence that reflects the office to which we have been elected. Undoubtedly, constitutional uncertainty has strained that respect, almost to breaking point, but there is still an opportunity to put the interests of the people first. We must respect democracy. To do this, we must respect the democratic will of the Scottish people, who voted firstly to remain as part of the United Kingdom, then, as part of that single entity, voted to leave the European Union. That is where we are at and we must accept it and move on. I say this to my colleagues in Hollywood as fervently as I say it to colleagues in Westminster. We all need to focus on getting the best deal and leave the egos and ideology to student politics. Pauline McNeill I have taken an intervention, but will the member agree that the Scottish people also voted in a referendum in 1998 for the Scottish Parliament and a reserved model of powers and that that too should be respected? Maurice Golden No, it was not voted on in 1998. I know that, because I was not old enough to vote in that. It was voted in 1997 for that and indeed the practices of the devolved government have been vastly extended by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that is something that we should be applauding. We also must show the respect for Holyrood and Westminster and indeed the interlinkage between both parliaments and government. Let me be clear. I am passionate about defending the powers of this Parliament and being a champion of devolution. The SNP is committed to independence, a position that I can respect even if I disagree with it, but the trouble is that the SNP is using Brexit as a weapon to advance the cause for independence, thus showing a lack of respect. The use of Brexit as a weapon is why claims of a power grab are completely untrue. Not one power will be grabbed, not one. Quite the opposite, over 80 new powers will be flooding to this Parliament with many more to come. Everyone acknowledges that we must agree common frameworks for certain returning powers to ensure that the continued smooth operation of the UK internal market. It makes sense, but instead the SNP has been opportunistic, creating needless confrontation and grievance by utilising guerrilla tactics and non-cooperation. The SNP MPs claim that they have not been given sufficient time to have their say, but the issue has been debated for 95 hours in Westminster. That is, in fact, longer than any bill here in Holyrood. Stuart McMillan I thank Maurice Golden for taking intervention. He spoke there regarding non-cooperation. Surely, then, Maurice Golden would agree with me that to have UK ministers refusing to come to this Parliament, to speak to committees of this Parliament, is an example of non-cooperation. I think that you should recognise the fact that a whole host of UK ministers are coming to the Scottish Parliament to be here in front of committee, and indeed have done so markedly over the past few years. Furthermore, Members of this parliamentary system must recognise that we have a fixed parliamentary business. Bulletin and Westminster system are vastly different in terms of decision time, in terms of how and when progress is made through, and you must recognise and respect each system before you make calls such as that. It is no wonder that you are doing that, because your Westminster colleagues show a complete lack of respect for Westminster by deciding not to ask questions on behalf of their constituents when they stage a humiliating walk-out at Prime Minister's questions. Just last night, the farce continued with SNP MPs voting against up to 16,000 jobs coming to Scotland. That is why we must respect each other as politicians. I respect that the SNP have attempted to take some of the heat out of the argument today by setting up the debate in the manner that it has. I urge those moderates in the SNP to calm their more tribal colleagues. It was disappointing to see Ian Blackford resignate the nastiness of his past to attack the secretary of state, David Mundell, in what can only be described as an appalling and ill-judged tirade. Looking to the future, this Parliament is about to gain control of a raft of new powers. Our time and energy should be spent on exploring how best to use them to drive Scotland forward. The impasse must end. There is no room in the Brexit process for anything other than the national interest and respect between Parliament and politicians. I would like to begin by picking up a point by Maurice Golden. He makes the point that the SNP Government party is using Brexit and weaponising the issue to promote the case for Scottish independence. Of course, what is happening today—in fact, we have to have this debate—does promote the case for Scottish independence. However, the reason why we are having to have this debate is because the Conservative Party is using Brexit to attack Scottish devolution. That is the reason why we have to have this debate in the first place. It is sad that we are— Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to Mr Lockhead for giving way. Can he give us an example of a single power that is being removed from this Parliament as a result of this so-called power grab? A single power currently being exercised by this Parliament is being removed. Richard Lochhead. I realise that Murdo Fraser and the Conservative Party think that that is a very, very clever point. I am going to answer the point, but I know that you think that it is a very clever debating point that you are making there. What is happening here, of course, is that we are debating the potential for Scotland to lose 111 powers, if not more, because you are taking a power to legislate and devolve issues without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. According to the Conservative Party, there are now two types of devolved powers. There are two types of devolved powers. There are those that we enjoy exercising in this Parliament at the moment, and there are those that come back from Brussels that should somehow perhaps stay at Westminster in London. If there are different types of fishing powers, there are some that come back from Brussels and there are some that stay with the Scottish Parliament here in Scotland. There are devolved powers and there are reserved powers. Fishing powers, whether they come from Brussels or whether they have been here since 1999, are devolved powers, because once they get from Brussels to the UK, within the UK, we have the Scotland Act, we have devolution and they are devolved powers. That is why we are having this debate, because you want to take powers to re-reserve powers that should be exercised in this Parliament. I will come on to later if I get the chance. That is why that is such an important issue and also the motivations of why the Conservative Party is doing that. However, there are scenes that we witnessed in Westminster over the last week or two. They just widen the gulf between that institution and the people of Scotland, and it is no wonder that the official statistics publication that has just been published in the last 24 hours or so shows that 61 per cent of Scots trusted the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interests and 20 per cent trusted the UK Government to work in Scotland's best interests in enormous gulf. It goes on to say that whereas nearly three quarters, 74 per cent of people said that the Scottish Government should have the most influence over the way that Scotland is run, 15 per cent said that the UK Government should have the most influence over how Scotland is run. I know that you are all looking down at your desk at the moment in terms of the Conservative Party, but those are really fundamental points. The Conservative Party in Westminster is taking powers away from the Parliament people trust to pass them in to the power within the remit of the Parliament that the people of Scotland have less trust in. You are going against the grain of Scottish democracy and the will of the Scottish people. I will come back on to the motivations of why you are doing that shortly. However, what we are witnessing in Westminster is not just perception about the gulf widening between Scotland and Westminster, it is actual reality. I was surprised that other people were surprised when the minister, Steve Bryan, got his feet after the emergency devolution debate and said that he was glad that there was a debate in devolution because he gave him time to go and watch the England match. I was surprised that other people were surprised by that comment, because that is just a fact of life in terms of the attitude of most Westminster politicians who do not represent the Scottish constituency, particularly the Conservative members in the UK Parliament. When I was in the cabinet and when I was negotiating with the other UK ministers in terms of Brussels when we had to have the regular UK meetings that we could persuade the UK ministers to attend them, the body language would always much rather be out at the fine restaurants in Brussels than have to sit down and discuss issues with the devolved ministers. When we had the regular meetings in Whitehall in London with the other UK ministers, the body language from the UK ministers was that we were ticking a box and it would much rather be elsewhere, perhaps getting their teeth pulled than having to have time on their diary to discuss issues with the devolved ministers. Scotland, as has again been shown in Westminster in the past couple of weeks, is simply not a priority with many of the Westminster politicians and the Conservative Party. Best evolutions are thorn inside and that is simply the fact of the matter. I absolutely congratulate the SNP group of Westminster for walking out of the House of Commons in the last week or two, because sometimes you have to take a stand if people are not listening to you and that is the problem at the heart of this matter at the moment is Westminster is not listening to Scotland. Indeed many of you, just before you come in the chamber, might have noticed that there is a stand-out side being hosted by the charity Listen Well. I am delighted that two of my constituents were there—Alana Smith and Kayleigh Dergarno from Keith Grammer School, because they were supporting that charity and they are here in Parliament today. Ironically, if you read this leaflet, it is something that we should be sending to the Westminster politicians and the Conservative Party and the Conservative UK Government. It is a training programme on how to listen. I think that, honestly, the Scottish Government should pay for the Westminster Government to go on this course. It says that, within us all, there is a need to be understood and understand, to feel value and respected, to express feelings honestly, find meaning and purpose and built in a resilience and discover hope. Of course, it is a very useful charity because it helps people with mental illness, it helps young people and other people as well. However, the importance of listening is so, so important to the political world as well in politicians. There is no respect just now between the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament. You should start listening. If you do not listen, it will come back to haunt you at the next elections in Scotland, but it is very, very important that you start listening. The reason why we are expressing concern in my closing 15 seconds— No, you will have to listen to me now. You have to sit down, please. Okay, thank you, so I urge the UK Government to start listening to Scotland. Pauline McNeill, followed by Ivan McKee. Presiding Officer, I agree with Maurice Golden who calls for respect in the debate. However, we cannot be selective about the aspects of the debate that we are prepared to respect, unless we forget that Brexit through year anniversary has come around. The biggest single decision affecting our domestic interests in most people's lives and we still do not really know what that holds. The men and women leading us out of Europe, its agreements and treaties spend their days falling out over whether the hard line Brexit is enough or micromanaging the negotiations that Theresa May is meant to be leading. Only this week, Jeremy Hunt criticised Airbus for saying that they might leave Britain and Greg Clark, the business secretary, attacks him for commenting at all and the PM has to intervene between ministers. We have had the starkest warnings yet from major manufacturers, BMW U-turn today, but others have said that they may leave Britain if there is not an agreement for those industries. Despite all that, as a remainder, I have agreed to honour the outcome of a referendum and I respect that result. However, I did not agree with most people about agreeing with the antics of the Tory party that is leading us out, and I did not agree that the devolution settlement would be undermined in the process. The Scottish Tories, despite their early constructive role, do not believe that we are comfortable with where we have ended up. Neil Findlay refers to Stephen Kerr, who is on record as saying, I hang my head so that somehow we have dropped the ball. We have heard the quote from Paul Masterson, who says quite strongly that he will not allow the legislation to pass to undermine the devolution settlement. However, the clever words of Murdo Fraser, who asks Mike Russell to name a single power that is currently exercised, ignore the fact that the principle model of the devolution agreement is that those powers are not reserved. All powers that we refer to are vested in the European Union. Biden has been a member of the European Union. They are not reserved to Westminster, and therefore they should come back to Scotland in the first interest. If the UK Government, party having made this point, if the UK Government had wanted control over all those powers vested in Europe, then it should have been the subject of discussion or action during the passage of the Scotland bill. However, the people of Scotland also voted in a Scottish referendum, and that must also be respected. I agree that the UK's interests towards the internal market should be respected and moving forward. However, I think that that should be done with Scotland being an equal partner and not being dictated to by the UK Government. However, how serious is the power grab? I think that it is pretty serious. As someone who is supported and worked on the early days of the devolution settlement, I believe that it is. I believe that it has undermined our nearly 20-year-old Scotland act next year by preventing the Parliament from legislating in areas that it would agree that it would absolutely be in control of. What Wales does in reaching an agreement is what devolution is about. That is a matter for the Welsh, but in judging whether the devolution settlement has been agreed to, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Brexit so far has created unnecessary internal battles, the way that has been handled between Governments. I do not really think that dragging Lord Sule into what he really meant by the Sule convention is really taking us anywhere and meddling with the principles of the Scotland act does the Tory party no service whatsoever. Is this really the level of debate that anyone on any side would have hoped for as we tried to manage the situation out of Brexit? All of this and we do not even know what our future trade agreement consists of. We do not really know what the consequences of Brexit are for ordinary people. We do not really know what the immigration model will look like and how it will serve Scotland's interests. I, for one, are worried about the impact of Brexit on ordinary people's lives. How seriously we take this power grab is fundamental, as far as I am concerned. The Labour Party, which brought devolution and endorsed by the Scottish people, is an important principle. It should be a matter for which every single member of this Parliament is prepared to stand up for. I, for one, will not stand by and see the devolution settlement undermined in any shape or form. I am no nationalist and I will unlikely ever to vote yes in a referendum. However, if you want to serve the interests of those who believe in the union, then protect the devolution settlement. Colin McKeith, followed by Liz Smith. Some things we take for granted are part of our world view, and then something happens that shakes that perception. Something that clearly demonstrates to us that what we thought were solid foundations can crumble beneath our feet. This is the situation that we find ourselves in today with respect to the devolution settlement. The idea that the views of the people of Scotland matter has been challenged like never before, and it has been done for a reason that it is not of our making to decide the outcome of a civil war within the Tory party. Let us be clear what the people of Scotland think. 61 per cent trusts the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interests. Three times as many trust the UK Government. Most people currently think that the Scottish Government has more influence over the way that Scotland has run than the UK Government does, and fully 74 per cent think that the Scottish Government should have the most influence over how Scotland has run. Five times the number who think the same about the UK Government, because, when it gets right down to it, devolution matters to the people of Scotland. Meanwhile, as Brexit busts hurdles towards the cliff edge of impending economic catastrophe, we have a UK cabinet who cannot agree amongst themselves on where they want to go. A foreign secretary is a laughing stock of his peers, but his boss cannot move him from post for fear of the whole rotten edifice coming tumbling down and finding herself buried in the rubble. Buying time while the economy burns, businesses leave the shores fearful of the illiteracy of a hard Brexit or worse, no deal at all. Meanwhile, all the Boris can do is tell those businesses to go forth and multiply. A sector of state who promised that devolution would be protected, who failed to deliver, stitched up by his own side and, instead of resignation and apology, he now confesses all that Scotland is simply a part, not a partner, a man who fails to understand the meaning of the word consent, a man with no credibility left. Meanwhile, others fail to understand why Scotland should have a say. A UK Government minister tells us that she wouldn't grant any ability to the Scottish Government that she wouldn't also be granting to Lincolnshire County Council. A Scottish Tory MP makes it clear that the UK Parliament can legislate for the whole UK, no ifs, no buts. A Tory party that has never believed in devolution, dragged into it by the will of the people but for ever looking for an excuse to clip the wings of this Parliament elected by the people of Scotland, feel the love of Scotland, because if there is one thing that the events of the past week have taught us where words are redefined to make their meaning suit the ambitions of the UK Government of the day, where the meaning of consent is expanded to include precisely the opposite, where normal is redefined to mean anything the current UK Government says it means, it is that power devolved is indeed power retained. The Sule convention, the fig leaf that was supposed to protect the devolution settlement from the real politic of Westminster, cast a sunder. Let us be clear why that is the case. The Scottish Parliament and the will of the Scottish people cannot be allowed to stand in the way of future trade deals that the UK will strive to do, however vainly, with Trump's America and others, be that to risk our environment, our food standards or, indeed, our health service. Presiding Officer, when Gordon Brown has brought out to defend the union, you know that the stakes are getting high. The last time that happened, let us forget, was in a run-up to the 2014 vote. The brun has been deployed much earlier this time, but the context is also so different. Not only is the vow history, its promises cobbled together in a last-minute panic line ruins, their credibility shattered, the very architect of the vow has moved to yes. Still preaching a federal solution, we will now see that solution lies in tatters, because, Presiding Officer, the reality is that in a country with no proper constitution, there is only one rule. Yes, indeed, Mr Finlay. Neil Findlay? I wonder if Mr McKee can tell us why he does not respect the result of that referendum. Ivan McKee. Because, as Mr Findlay well knows, things have changed, that is precisely why we are here debating today. Things have changed and things have moved on and the people have the right to decide based on that. You do not understand that Brexit has happened, thank you very much. Because, Presiding Officer, there is only one rule that Westminster is sovereign, nothing else matters and everything else is illusion. In that context, where no Westminster Parliament can bind the hands of another, where 85 per cent of the population and the power lies on one part of this disunited kingdom, there is no hope at all for a truly fedrust solution. That is where we find ourselves today. The UK Government's fruits of obsessions elsewhere has ripped away the middle ground, the truth-laid bear, power devolved as power retained, with trust destroyed and the mechanisms under pin devolution shown to be worthless, there is no standing still. The choice before us to go forward or to go backwards, the people of Scotland will make that choice and, given those options, there is only one outcome. Collez Smith, to be followed by Ash Denham. Presiding Officer, there was a time in my own political journey quite some time ago when I was sceptical about the existence of a Scottish Parliament. Whilst that scepticism was partly attributed to having some sympathy with those who feared that devolution would be a stepping stone to independence, my main concerns were much more pragmatic in terms of the economic performance of Scotland. Having witnessed what had happened to both the UK and the world economies in the 1970s, my no vote in 1979 was based on my fears that devolution could result in the economic fragmentation of the UK, rather than any opposition to the Scottish Parliament per se. However, I appreciated fully that there were issues about the status quo, and I also appreciated that there was a very logical argument to be made for devolution. As such, I became very interested in what conditions would be necessary to convince a sceptical public that there should be a move away from that status quo. We now know, of course. Devolution's failure in the 1970s and not just in Scotland rested on the fact that it seemed to be designed by remote politicians in the corridors of power. However, despite what some people will argue, it is now seen to be owned by the people of Scotland, something that was enshrined in the principle of the Edinburgh agreement, signed jointly by David Cameron and Alex Salmond. Over time, there has been a radical movement away from the process of devolution being debated just in the corridors of power to one that is held by the Scottish people. That, in my view, is a very good thing. Indeed, I believe that most Scots are very comfortable with devolution. Despite all the huffing and puffing among politicians—and there is certainly plenty of that—most people, deep down, are very comfortable indeed with that dual identity, because there is a philosophical belief that we are stronger together. Why? Because I think that Scots want the best of both worlds. They want enhanced devolution, which, as time has gone on, is exactly what they are getting. People are comfortable with the Scottish Parliament and they want it to work well. They want it to work well in the context of a stronger United Kingdom when both Governments work together. Just as they did in the 2012 Scotland Act, which gave new powers over income tax, stamp duty, landfill tax, borrowing and more, or in the 2016 Scotland Act, which gave full devolution to the crown estate, transport policing, the new benefits structure and justice agreed in the fiscal framework. In recent times, whether it is the city deals, welfare powers, bottle deposit schemes, exports and immunisation, there is a whole raft of examples where the two Governments have worked effectively together, sometimes at the request of the SNP, it has to be said, to ensure that there is a smooth transition to legislative competence for Holyrood. However, what people in Scotland do not want is divisive and intolerant politics, or the constant bitter and very public personal battles between politicians, or the on-going uncertainty with constitutional wrangles. They rightly see devolution as a process and not as a single event. A process that is about gaining increasing constitutional maturity and stability and in one that they can have growing an ultimate trust. That, Deputy Presiding Officer, is what I believe the vast majority of people in Scotland actually want to see. It is the basis of what changed my mind, albeit a long time ago, when I was very sceptical about the existence of this place, but I have grown to see that I was perhaps misguided. I feel that devolution is very much the right approach and the one that not only enhances the nation of Scotland but the one in which we are very comfortable in our own skins. Can Liz Smith also see her way forward to a time in the future when she will reflect back and realise that independence is the right choice for the people of Scotland? May I finish, on the fact that this Parliament has grown in its maturity, I am one of the members of this Parliament who has been here for some time. I value it, despite the fact that I have many political differences with a lot of people across the chamber. I value what this institution stands for, what it has become and what I believe it can be in the future. For that reason alone, I think that we should always be very careful about the language that we use in a constitutional debate and always remember that we are here because of what the people demand. I call Ash Denham to be followed by Graham Simpson. Sir, this debate on protecting the powers of this Parliament takes place in very stark contrast to the time afforded at Westminster to the very same issue. The 1999 devolution settlement that bestowed legislative powers on this Parliament is based on the principle that every policy area is automatically devolved unless it is explicitly reserved by the UK Government. It is on this foundational principle that the Scottish Parliament has proceeded. The late Donald Dure described the Scottish Parliament as the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common wheel. Our attendance here, as members of this Parliament, recognises this and confirms our belief that Scotland has the ability to govern itself, to act on the priorities of the Scottish people and to enact change and progress for their benefit. It is a great shame, therefore, that we are here today, nearly 20 years on, called upon to defend the powers of the Scottish Parliament and to protect the devolution settlement. Instead of celebrating the result of that referendum and the upcoming anniversary of the re-establishment of this Parliament, we must act instead in the face of a UK Government that has fundamentally undermined the devolution settlement. Over the past 20 years, this Parliament has accomplished a great deal for the people of Scotland. Scottish values run through this place like lines through marble and are reflected back at us in the changes that have been made here. In its first term, this Parliament scrapped tuition fees, widening access to tertiary education for all and ensuring that they were not saddled with crippling debt from tuition fees, undertook land reform, introducing the right to Rome and were the first in the UK to limit the hunting of foxes. In 2005, Scotland led the UK again in introducing the ban on smoking inside, putting the health of its citizens first. Further devolved powers in 2012 and 2016 have enabled this SNP Government to mitigate the worst of the UK Government's welfare cuts and freezes, helping to keep many across Scotland out of poverty, I will. Neil Findlay. She may just be coming to this, but also in this term this Parliament reverse one of the most illiberal pieces of legislation that this Parliament has ever passed, thanks to my friend James Kelly, who is sitting here when we repealed the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. Ash Denham. The member is entitled to that view. I do not share it, however. We enforce effective bans on onshore drilling, protecting the Scottish environment, scrap prescription charges, ensuring that individuals do not need to choose between food or medicine, setting new tax bans, creating the most progressive tax system in the UK to support some of the best public services in the UK, and providing baby boxes for every new child born in Scotland, a policy that is not about cardboard boxes or thermometers, but it speaks to every child born in Scotland. You are ours and we care about you and we want the absolute best for you. We have invested in Scotland's infrastructure and transport links to build a Scotland fit for the future and introduced minimum unit pricing to tackle Scotland's difficult relationship with alcohol, again leading the world in progressive policy. All of this is possible because of the decisions that we were only able to make because of devolution. Scottish solutions for Scotland. We can see, as a result, a different Scotland, a more confident Scotland, a more self-assured Scotland. A country where bringing political decision making about Scotland into Scotland has resulted in a resurgence of trust in politics. After 20 years, there is no wish to go back. Over 70 per cent of Scots trust the Scottish Government, the highest since Parliament was established, and three times higher than the trust in the UK Government. The overwhelming majority of Scots believe that a Scottish Government should have the most influence over the way that Scotland is run. We must trust that the Scottish electorate elected the Government it wanted to deliver for Scotland, and we will. That means defending this Parliament's powers against any effort to undermine them. When I questioned the Secretary of State for Scotland over his Government's wish to casually derail devolution, he said to me that Scotland has two Parliaments. I would say to you, Presiding Officer, the Scottish people have only one Parliament that acts in their interests. This Parliament and devolution belong to the Scottish people, and it is the duty of every member in this chamber to protect its powers. The Scottish Parliament is worth protecting and worth standing up for, and I say to the Conservatives in this chamber today, there is no shame in defending this place, the place in which your own constituents trust to do right by them and to respect their priorities. The priorities of the people of Scotland, not the priorities of the UK Government, now is the time to stand up and be counted, not to fall on the wrong side of Scottish history. We must find a way to protect the powers of this Parliament, and I believe that we should work together. Please close. Graham Simpson, to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Can I confirm its five minutes? Thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, when a million fellow Scots voted to leave the European Union, we did so in the knowledge that powers currently held in Brussels would come back to the UK, and for the Scottish Parliament that would mean a host of powers coming here. For some of us that was an attractive proposition. For me it wasn't the main reason for voting to leave. That came down to a simple matter of democratic accountability, but it was an added bonus. From any nationalist, those like Alex Neil, voting for Brexit was the only logical course to take if you really wanted this Parliament to have more controls over affairs in Scotland. Grumbling about powers being in Westminster but being over the moon about them being held in Brussels was and is simply illogical and hypocritical. The UK voted to leave the EU, and that's what's going to happen. It's incumbent on all parts of the UK to make sure that Brexit works. Now mature politicians would sit down and do the deals that are necessary. Mature politicians do not stamp their feet, throw their toys out of the pram and scream, I will never agree with you. But that's where we are now. We've had a staged walk out in the commons, led by an appalling, boorish character, shamefully applauded by the First Minister. We've had vicious attacks on the Secretary of State for Scotland, who wherever others may think of his politics is a thoroughly decent man who does not deserve such insults. And we now have Mike Russell saying that this Parliament won't give consent to any more Brexit-related legislation. Where does that leave the parliamentary scrutiny process? Willie Rennie said that. Does he acknowledge that the Conservative Government has mismanaged this process from the very beginning? Does he have any regrets about any of that? Graham Simpson. I've got no regrets but I do have some ideas which I'm coming to.  But worst of all Scotland looks to the outside world like a childish nation of impudence and we're not that. So what of this power grab? This Parliament isn't losing any powers. SNP members haven't been able to name any, it's gaining them, lots of them. And because we're part of the UK then common frameworks are needed. There are just 24 areas where agreement needs to be reached. Sensible heads would be able to do that, Mr Russell would be able to do that but when he's been harangued from Bute House his hands are tied. There is no power grab. If there's a constitutional crisis it's entirely of Nicola Sturgeon's making. Deputy Presiding Officer, last week I represented this Parliament at the latest meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum on Brexit. Unfortunately Bruce Crawford could not be there as a counterbalance as his flight never took off. But there is an appetite for cross-parliamentary working. We had a very interesting discussion with the Institute for Government on how devolution might work after Brexit. Of course all Governments of the UK have to want devolution to work. Sadly this one does not and the poor souls at the Institute for Government had rather overlooked that. The forum previously recognised that the current system of inter-government relations is not fit for purpose and is in urgent need of substantial reform. Last week we discussed the need for inter-governmental mechanisms for UK common frameworks and the importance of effective scrutiny of these processes. We discussed a number of ideas, an overhaul of the joint ministerial committee structures, formalising inter-government relations mechanisms, the reformed JMC's being the forum for discussion and decision making on common frameworks, decision making structures for JMC's being clearly set out and clear arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of inter-governmental relations mechanisms being established and inter-parliamentary working being encouraged. Those are the kind of serious proposals we should be discussing but we are not. We are stuck in a trumped-up grievance groundhog day. It is time for the SNP to get on with the serious business of government. It is time for the SNP to grow up. Thank you very much. I am preparing for this debate. Today I found a brilliant article by Jamie Ross on the BBC about the history of the fight for a Scottish Parliament. The article starts with a quote. We have a right with all our separate national characteristics to manage our own affairs in our own way. Jamie Ross also tells us in his article that this might sound like a line from a yes Scotland's latest campaign leaflet but it was actually said over a century ago. In 1913, William Cullen presented a successful Scottish home rule bill to Westminster but the outbreak of World War 1 prevented the creation of a strong Scottish Parliament, which could have completely changed Scotland's modern day history. In 105 years ago, we could have had that home rule, that near federalism, that most powerful of all devolved parliaments. In his summing up of the home rule bill, William Cullen said, I should like in conclusion to say a few words in some of the details of the measure that I am asking the House to read a second time. The Government of Scotland bill is introduced on the footing that it represents a further instalment of the Government's policy of devolution. It would be easy to get evidence that this is the Government's policy. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said so and other members of the Government have made similar statements. We are proposing this bill as a further instalment of that policy. The powers delegated to subordinate legislators under a federal system are those at which we must aim. Those powers must be similar, if not identical, close quotes. Pedal forward 86 years later to 1999, when Donald Dure proudly proclaimed in this place, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. From that day on, we have taken up our role and right to make some decisions for ourselves. Decisions that we have never wanted to give back, but decisions in powers that we have wanted and successfully extended. Decisions that mean a Scottish resolution for Scottish issues and many that have seriously deviated from the path of our neighbours. We have had Kalman commissions and Smith commissions, all of which spoke to and, in limited ways, advanced the powers of this place. I have seen no or very little expressions from people who want to end the powers of this Parliament in Scotland. As William Cowan commented in his summing up, he said the same. He also said in his summing up, and I quote again, you cannot nowadays take up a Scottish newspaper with very much chance of finding no reference to this burning question. I do not care who goes to Scotland today if he speaks to anyone, he goes anywhere. If he consults the people, he will find that this is the most absorbing political topic in Scotland. True 105 years ago and still true today. The majority of the Scottish people preferred decisions about Scotland to be made in Scotland by their democratically elected Scottish Government irrespective of what political colour that Government may be. Oliver Mundell, I thank you for giving way. Can the member explain why she wants those powers to go back and be exercised in Brussels rather than here on behalf of the Scottish people? Christina McKelvie, I refer the members to go and look at the functioning of the treaty of the European Union. He will know that all 27 independent nations have the choice to do whatever they like to do. They do not give sovereignty back to Brussels. At least we have seen 105 years of stuttering progress, but what do we see now? We have seen just 19 minutes dedicated to Scotland, 1140 seconds to wipe away all that progress. A debate of just one UK minister who has no understanding and very little interest in the powers of this place. That is why I welcome today's debate without a motion or a question being asked, because, sadly, any question now from this place will be wiped away by Tories in London demonstrating their deep and utter contempt for the Scottish people and her Parliament. We dedicated a whole afternoon to this debate compared to 1140 seconds of contempt from Westminster. Scotland knows your place and the chuntering from the sidelines just proves my point. Lord Steel of Acwood, the former Holyrood Presiding Officer, has told his fellow lords that the UK Government's flagship Brexit bill has dispensed with the power of the Scottish Parliament and cuts across the devolved settlement. I agree. As Parliamentarians, we have a duty to our constituents to ensure that we have not dispensed with our voices or our powers, because our voices will be heard in this place today and our voices shall ring out from this place today to that other place Scotland will not be silenced. The last of the open debate speakers is Ben Macpherson. Ben Macpherson, for my generation, the conception and realisation of this institution, our Scottish Parliament heralded the beginning of a more positive era for our country, an exciting new chapter in our nation's story. Since 97, 98 and 99, when I then watched Donald Dure and Winnie Ewing and others turn a new page in Scotland's democratic journey, together as a country, we have achieved so much for the common good that simply would not have happened without devolution. Devolution has delivered progressive, pioneering new policies. Across political parties and society, we have worked together to enhance the public services that we value and support those most vulnerable in our communities. We have developed our economy where we have responsibility and power to do so, and we have protected our environment. We have made Scotland fairer and more successful, despite imposed austerity and challenging global events. Since I was a boy in 1999, I think of how much has been achieved. I think of this today in the context of the year of the young people and of the young people growing up in Scotland today, and how much this Parliament is part of their normality. I am sure that other MSPs are the same that, when we go to speak to school groups, whether here in the Parliament or in our constituencies, we really feel that. In this time of unprecedented flux and ever higher Brexit-driven uncertainty, how we protect and enhance the strength of this place, this Parliament, Scotland's Parliament, matters to us all. It matters not just in the here and now, but for the future, for those future generations. We must move forward, not backwards. That is why making time for this debate about the scenario that we are in is so important. The UK Government's EU withdrawal seeks to take us backwards. The Westminster bill, which was passed in the Commons, with very little to be on the effect on devolved powers, includes what Professor of Public Law, Eileen McArg, has called a radical re-reading of the sole convention that would seriously undermine the protection that it offers for devolved autonomy. Initially, I am happy to take an intervention. Mike Rumbles Can you start again, please, Mr Rumbles, if your mic wasn't on? Thank you. I thank Ben for giving it away. He's eloquently defended devolution and saying that's a really effective thing since 1999 for Scotland, but isn't it true that he actually doesn't want devolution to succeed because he wants to end devolution? That's really what he wants to do. I give him credit for it. It's what he wants to do, but could you make that clear? Ben Macpherson I was reluctant to take the intervention there because I was expecting that debasing intervention that has been made to others with respect to my colleague. While we are in the devolved framework, we all want to protect and enhance devolution until, if and when, the Scottish people through their sovereign right vote for independence, we in the SNP will proudly and strongly stand up for the powers of this devolved Parliament. I was going back to the point about the debate in the comments and I have to get on because my time is limited, but when consent for the UK Government's bill was not granted by this Parliament on 15 May by 93 votes to 30, cross-party remember, the bill should not have progressed in Westminster in its current form, but instead the UK Government went back on its word, ignoring this Parliament and, by extension, ignoring the Scottish people. That should not be a surprise to us, Presiding Officer, because the UK Government, as others have said, has shown a lack of respect to the Scottish Parliament since the EU referendum by cancelling meetings and not appearing at committees. That is all in spite of the fact that there was an emphatic vote in Scotland to remain in the European Union. I have not got long, but I would like to conclude with this. Scotland wants more powers. It is on a journey of increasing confidence. It does not want more Westminster interference or oversight. That is what the UK Government bill proposes. It is undemocratic. It is highly disrespectful. It has refused by doing so to listen to the people of Scotland. Westminster is trying to ignore Scotland. We will not accept that. The people of Scotland will not accept that and they will not forget the attempts that have been made to try and dampen their voices and ignore their preferences in this debate. We now move to the closing speeches. I call James Kelly for around six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is no doubt that the debate this afternoon, despite the SNP's attempts to hype it up, has had an element of the last week about it. Patrick Harvie was right to pinpoint the fact that a debate without motion was unlikely to shed much further light in the situation. That has been very much the case. There is no doubt that, although we have packed the benches over there, the Tories will have sat uncomfortably through another afternoon debating the powers of the Scottish Parliament and shedding light on the fact that it was the Tories that created this situation in terms of Brexit. Do not forget that it was David Cameron, who, in deciding to call a referendum in 2016, in order to placate the right wing of the Tory party, thinking arrogantly that he could win it for remain backfired on him. It will not only cost him his career but it has been absolutely chaotic and disastrous for the country. In two years down the line, we are still all that uncertainty not just in Scotland but throughout the whole UK in terms of our relationship with the European Union and the impact on the economy. That has also been underlined by the fact that the Tories have mishandled this in terms of the EU withdrawal bill and the LCM and consequential powers that would come to the Scottish Parliament. Those are the benches that told us confidently before Christmas that a deal would be reached and that the situation would be resolved. When I came to it as Neil Findlay pointed out, David Mundell did not even submit any amendments at the House of Commons. The Tories have failed the country on that. It has been interesting to listen to the speeches on the SNP benches, Ash Denham, Ben Macpherson and the great defenders of devolution. It should be remembered in 1997 that the SNP was somewhat reluctant, certainly in the initial stages, to support devolution. You weren't members of the... Despite the protests, you weren't members of the... No, I won't take an intervention. You weren't members of the constitutional convention. No, no, no. Oh, he's back. He's back. Did you survive? Don't forget. Don't forget. Don't forget. He's survived the reshuffle. He's come all the way from Butehouse. And don't forget, Mr Swinney, in 2014, you and your colleagues wanted to smash the devolution settlement, and you wanted to tear it up all together. And if... No, no, thanks. And if... Okay, Mr Swinney. I'm certainly going to educate Mr Kelly in a moment. I was a very enthusiastic member of Parliament who voted for the 1997 referendum act and the 1998 Scotland act, and very proud of the fact that I used my parliamentary voting strength to support the establishment of this Parliament. Now, in the light of that educative contribution from me, would Mr Kelly change his remarks? James Kelly. I certainly want to change my remarks. As I said, no, no, as I pointed out as well, Mr Swinney, in 2014 you wanted to smash the devolution settlement, and if Nicola Sturgeon and your party had had our way last year, we would have been on our way to another referendum and more threats to devolution. No, no, thank you, Mr McPherson. The other point that I would finally make on the debate is that I think that there's a fundamental issue for Parliament. I get the fact that it's very important to consider Brexit, and there are occasions over the last eight months where Parliament has had to look at the legislative consequences of that and understand that. But I think that the reality is that, as Neil Findlay pointed out, this Parliament, over the last eight months, has not spent enough time looking at the fundamental issues that we were sent here to represent people for. The reality is that, in the health service, for example, there continues to be a growing GP crisis, the BMA telling us yesterday, that the health service is in a worse state now than it was a year ago. The housing waiting lists continue to stand at 150,000, and we continue to have a housing crisis. Only this afternoon, we have had a climb down from Mr Swinney in terms of not being able to publish the education bill. There are real issues in terms of access to university from kids from underprivileged areas and areas of social deprivation. Even with the rail issues, people in Scotland, on occasions, are not able to get to their working time because the train service is not working properly. The Government might want to reflect, as they put their new team together and come back after the summer, that what we need in Parliament is more meaningful debates about the fundamental issues that affect people's lives, and less of the grandstanding that we have seen from the SNP benches this afternoon. As people head off to the summer recess, some of them to new jobs, some of them losing their jobs, when we come back, let us accept our responsibilities in parliamentarians and come back seriously committed to making the differences to people's lives in Scotland rather than posturing what we have seen from the SNP benches this afternoon. I call Murdo Fraser for around seven minutes, please. Excuse me, Mr Fraser, could you please be quiet and allow Mr Fraser to begin and get a little bit into his speech before there is anybody? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start on a note of agreement with what James Kelly just said about the debate, because I think that we would hope for a helpful and enlightening debate. In reality, I do not think that we are, after two and a bit hours, any further forward than when we started, because all we have heard from the SNP benches this afternoon is what we have heard from them here and indeed at Westminster over the last few weeks, simply sound and fury, with their near hysterical rhetoric about power grabs, demolishing, devolution and yet to quote a famous Scottish king in the words of Shakespeare, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. When is a power grab not a power grab? When there are no powers being grabbed? That is the simple fact, because when you cut through all the bluster, all the noise, all the hyperbole, not one person on the SNP can give us one single example of a power being removed from this Scottish Parliament. No, thank you, Mr Harby. I asked Michael Russell this question and I asked Mr Lockhead this question. No, the single member of the SNP could give it the answer. Oh, Mr Harby wants to give an answer on behalf of the SNP. Mr Stevenson will give me an answer, one power exercise with this Parliament today that will be removed, Mr Stevenson. Minister of the Secretary of State has already been to the Danes and the Dutch to promise their access to our waters will remain. We will not have the power that we were promised to control access to our waters. I answered my question, Mr Stevenson, and the reason for that is simple and straightforward. There is not a single power being removed from this Scottish Parliament, as Maurice Golden reminded us. There is nothing that this Parliament is doing today. Sit down, Mr Harby. There is nothing that this Parliament is doing today. It will not be able to do after the fact that the EU withdraws it. Sorry, Mr Fraser. It is quite clear that Mr Fraser is not taking an intervention from you. Thank you, Mr Fraser. That is because the EU withdrawal bill makes it perfectly clear that what it is dealing with is EU retained law. In other words, laws currently being dealt with in Brussels and those alone. Nothing that this Parliament does today is being affected. There were some 111 powers covered in the EU withdrawal bill that the Scottish Government were concerned about quite rightly. Of those 111 powers, over 80 are being devolved immediately. That is a power bananza in any definition. Of the remaining 24, there will be UK-wide common frameworks that are widely agreed are necessary. Trade bodies such as the Food and Drink Federation, the Retail Consortium, Scottish Bakers and the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Federation of Small Business all recognise that common frameworks across the UK are essential to protect the integrity of the single domestic market in the UK. A market that Adam Tomkins reminded us is four times more important to Scottish business than is the EU single market. The real issue of contention here on common frameworks—not at the moment, thank you—is whether the Scottish Government and indeed the other devolved Administrations should be given a right of veto over the terms of those common frameworks that would apply across the whole United Kingdom. It is the view of the UK Government that those should be agreed by discussion, by consultation, not giving either the Scottish Government or any other Government a right of veto. Nor should we forget that, in relation to every single one of those powers, not just the 24 powers subject to common frameworks, but each and every one of the 111 powers are powers that the SNP does not want to be exercised here at all. They want every single one of them returned to Brussels, as Graham Simpson reminded us. No, thank you. So powers over the environment, powers over agriculture, powers over fishing, every single one to be returned to Brussels at the first opportunity. Is the real power grab taking away power that Scotland should have, giving it back to the EU? I will take an intervention from Ash Denham. Ash Denham. Thank you for allowing the intervention. The member sits as I do on the Finance and Constitution Committee and we spent hours and hours and hours taking evidence from expert witnesses about the common frameworks and intergovernmental relations. Not one of them at any point said that clause 11, now section 15, was necessary in order to agree common frameworks. Can the member explain why it was had to be done in this way when it completely was not necessary? I think that it is entirely reasonable for the United Kingdom Government to say that it is not going to give a right of veto to the Scottish Government nor the Government of Wales nor the Government of Northern Ireland over the terms of common frameworks. Do you know what external bodies, those interested in trade, farmers, fishermen, want to see these common frameworks set up, want to see them established and not become political playthings such as the SNP are trying to turn them into? We heard a lot on this debate about the Sewell convention, so it is worth reminding ourselves what the author of that convention, Lord Sewell, has had to say about the current situation. For sure, if anyone has an opinion on this matter that is worth listening to, it is the man who gave his name to the convention that the SNP are so exercised about. What he said in an interview with the BBC is that this is not a power grab and he wanted to say that it is not a constitutional crisis. However, let us not just listen to Lord Sewell. Let us listen to those who are connected with the SNP, because even the former SNP deputy leader, Jim Sillers—I do not want to hear from him now, do they? Even Jim Sillers could have been clearer when he wrote this in the times. Let me be blunt that the standoff between Hollywood and Westminster is primarily the fault of Nicola Sturgeon. Castigating the Tories for a power grab of repatriated powers while acting like a fifth column for the EU in Scotland has left the SNP in the ludicrous position of demanding powers from Theresa May that Nicola Sturgeon promises an independent Scotland will hand back to Jean-Claude Junker. Jim Sillers has got this right and the SNP benches should be listening to him. What is all about is a grievance agenda from the SNP. It is all about stoking up constitutional tensions with Westminster and all about trying to drive up support for independence and the second independence referendum. We do not need to debate protecting devolution, because devolution is not under threat. What is happening here is that devolution is being strengthened, with more than 18 new powers coming to this Parliament. You would think that they would welcome that, Presiding Officer. Those are the powers that Jim Sillers has stated that the SNP benches want to send straight back to Brussels. In the meantime, the Conservatives will get on with the job of strengthening devolution and strengthening the powers of this Parliament. In a considered contribution, Liz Smith reminded us of the journey of devolution, a journey that is still going on. It is a Conservative Government that has already delivered fiscal devolution, control over income tax, control over landfill tax, control over LBTT and shortly to come the assignation of VAT. It is a Conservative Government that has delivered the devolution of social security with a bill passed unanimously by this Parliament just a few weeks ago, and it is a Conservative Government now delivering an additional 80 new powers over forestry, over carbon capture, over franchise legislation to name but a few. Devolution, Presiding Officer, is not under threat. It is being enhanced, and it is time that the SNP dropped its ludicrous rhetoric, its sound and fury signifying nothing. Before we move on to the minister, I remind Mr Fraser and others in this chamber that it is the job of the Presiding Officer to tell people to sit down and remind everyone that there should be courtesy at all times to fellow members. I call Mike Russell. Nine minutes will take us up to five o'clock. I think that when I listened to some of the Tory contributions particularly, they confirm the impression that I have had for some time when dealing with UK ministers that the Tories no longer live in the same world as the rest of us. They live in a completely artificial world, but rather noisy world, where they simply assert things and believe them to be true. However, the most astonishing assertion this afternoon came from Adam Tomkins, who tore up the constitutional settlement. Not the Tories, according to Adam Tomkins, it was me. How did I do it? I did it by using my special powers. I have special powers because—I know that Neil Findlay knew that—just by using a six-letter word in this chamber, I managed to destroy the constitutional settlement. According to Adam Tomkins, my using the word normal suspended the Sewell convention. I was completely unaware that I had the special magical overwhelming powers that influenced the UK Government that way. As we are heading towards recess, I intend to use a substantial part of the time during recess flexing my muscles and learning how to use those powers. If I can do it to change to magic away the Sewell convention, maybe I can magic away Brexit and all the Tories. I shall be practising. It might take more than a six-letter word, maybe it might take Boris's four-letter word, but I will do my best to do so. Presiding Officer, this has been a debate of contrast. I want to contrast two sets of speeches in a moment, but I just want to comment on two or three things that deserve an answer. Quite a lot of what we have heard does not deserve an answer, but there have been useful things that do. I want to say to Neil Findlay that I disagree with his analysis of course of the Scottish Government. I disagree with what he believes that we are doing, but I do agree that we need to keep on talking and we need to keep on having a debate and a discussion, and we need to look at ideas to see how we can move forward. Actually, those ideas are valuable. We heard some of those ideas from Graham Simpson, but unfortunately the ideas that he came up with were rather fortunately the very same ideas that I was putting forward last week. I seem to have influenced Graham Simpson sort of subliminally so that he now recognises that what I was talking about about putting it could be my magic powers again. They are working on Graham Simpson. In reality, looking at the SOAR convention and putting it into legislation, looking at how you put the relationship between the Governments on statutory footing, those are all things that we need to talk about and find out how we can do, and we should move forward in that way. I did think that Patrick Hardy added to that process, too, in terms of the contribution that he made. He was absolutely right to say that he did not wish, when I spoke to him, to have a debate with that motion. The other party has agreed to it, but he did not. I hope that what we have out today has got some few additional ideas that we can work on together to try to make some progress. However, I want to make this contrast. I start with one with two people with whom I do not agree and who, in their speeches, said things with which I did not agree that there is a contrast between Pauline McNeill and Liz Smith. Pauline McNeill, who has been in this Parliament with a brief interruption since 1999—I have had a brief interruption, too, so I know what it is like—Liz Smith since 2007. Both came to this question from entirely different perspectives than I have. Pauline McNeill said that she is unlikely ever to vote yes, and, unfortunately, Liz Smith said that she would never vote yes. However, she has already changed her mind once in the constitution, so there is life, there is hope, as far as I am concerned. However, both of those talked about the operation of devolution in a positive way. I want to add to that that all the parties in this Parliament have operated devolution in a positive way. This Government has, the Liberal Democrats and Labour-winning coalition have and the Tories have, but the difference now is that one of the parties in this Parliament and one of the Lib Dems is not there. Clearly, he has been so horrified by the contribution that he has gone away, but all of the Tories and one Lib Dem are now colluding to undermine the devolution settlement. That is not a question of moving devolution on. That is, of course, what I want to do to the full powers of a normal Parliament. It is a question about reversing devolution, sending it backwards, so that is precisely what the Tories are doing, and they are doing it with the support, unfortunately, of their party here, or at least the collusion of their party here. I will take Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the minister for giving way on a point in which no Conservative speaker was willing to hear from me when they constantly asked what existing powers would be taken away. Isn't it clear that whether you see devolution as an end result or as a step in a journey, whether to independence or to federalism, all of us have to rely on the fundamental fact, the most underlying power that this Parliament has is the power to say yes or no freely on a matter of devolved competence and have that respected? That is the fundamental power that is being taken away. Mike Russell. In the time remaining to me, let me make two points. The second contrast that I want to make is between the two MGs, the Marie-Gougeon and Maurice Golden. Maurice Golden followed on from Marie-Gougeon. I really hope that we take those two speeches and we cut that piece of videotape and we show them to every school in Scotland and we show them to every village hall in Scotland. There could not have been a stronger contrast and a better illustration of what this debate is about. I am sorry to say that Maurice Golden, I respect his position, but it was, in my view, passive, bloodless, process-driven. It was just accepting what existed. It was saying that nothing could change in that regard. Neil Findlay shouted at Maurice Golden at one stage, is that it? Indeed, I very rarely commend the comments of Mr Findlay, but I felt that at the end regrettably. Is that it? Is that the result of 19 years of this Parliament? Is that it? We heard from Marie-Gougeon, a tremendously strong and passionate advocacy, not just of this Parliament but of the rights of the people of Scotland. That is what this is about. It is the people of Scotland to whom we report and for whom our efforts are in the end judged. Finally, let me come to the canard of the debate, constantly repeated, as usual, by somebody who likes those things, Murdo Fraser. At that curious admission that there are powers that we are not getting, because the way in which his intervention was put all the time was, you just want to hand those powers back to Brussels. They confirm it. Think about this for a moment. That does two things. It confirms that there are powers that we are not getting, but it also says that we cannot trust you to use those powers. You are not getting those powers to the Parliament because we do not like the way that you would deal with them. It also shows that Christina McKelvie was absolutely right no understanding of how the EU works, but let us pass on that. The reality of that line is that it says everything that the Parliament needs to know about the attitude of the Tories. Just as consent does not mean consent or maybe means consent, on this issue what it means is that we are not giving the Scottish Parliament the powers that it should have because we do not like the things that you do with it. That is not devolution, that is the antithesis of the devolution and in that regard what Murdo Fraser said was unfortunately not accurate. It is the Tories who are threatening devolution and we have to resist it. Thank you very much and that concludes our debate on defending the powers of the Scottish Parliament and we will move on now to the next item of business, but there are in fact no questions to be put as a result of today's business, so we will move on to members business. That is members business, the name of Richard Leonard on the NHS's 70th birthday. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister in fact to change seats.