Thank you. The next item of business is a debate on motion 7.429, in the name of Angus Robertson, on people's right to choose respecting Scotland's democratic mandate. I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Angus Robertson, cabinet secretary, to speak to and move the motion up to 11 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Rwy'n rhaid i gael i diwrnoddau i 이렇게n gwybod oedd y ddweud i'r ddweud o'r ddatblygu yng Nghymru i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Dweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud i'r ddweud o'r hydogelau arweinwyr, os ydym ni'n gweithio'r ddweud i ddweud i'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae hyn yn ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. morthol modern Unionair and Democracy than just counting up votes but when you start to undermine that fundamental when you seek to deny people what they have voted for you risk undermining democracy itself and this places obligations on those of us who win elections we have to do our best to deliver on the mandates that we are given but it also obliges us all when we do not win elections a Earlier then remove, and few of us are elected at the first time of asking to respect the decision of the people acknowledge the result and accept the right of the winner to deliver the commitments that they were elected on. Not doing that, denying democracy instead is a dangerous thing, but it is a thing that people in Scotland are becoming increasingly accustomed to. I'm going to focus in today's debate on the outcome of three votes. On the question of how we, those privileged enough to be elected to this, Scotland's national parliamentary, can best deliver what people in Scotland voted for. The first of those is Scotland's overwhelming vote in June 2016 to stay in the European Union. 62 per cent of people in Scotland, a majority in every single council area, voted to remain part of the European Union, no part of soaring, and that number of Scotland voted to leave yet two years ago Scotland was removed from the European Union against our will so this week instead of celebrating 50 years of EU membership of co-operation of multilateralism of solidarity between nations of economic development of peace we're stuck instead counting the cost of the Tories reckless brexit according to the office of budget responsibility they estimate that brexit will reduce long run productivity by four percent compared with EU membership this equates to a cut in public revenues in scotland of around three billion pounds every year keeping further massive pressure on rnhs in other public services and these statistics are stark and they mask the human reality of the impact of brexit the small businesses going under because of the price of importing the restaurants and hotels closing rooms and services because they cannot get the staff the firms passing on to customers their increased costs helping to fuel record levels of inflation the academics and scientists no longer involved in world-leading research unable to get funding to collaborate with peers in the EU diminishing our ability to innovate to be at the forefront of discoveries and threatening their our world-class standing the tax revenues that could be used to fund public services now lost and the health and social care sectors dealing with a staffing crisis while trying to rebuild from a pandemic brexit is harving everyone in scotland and there are few reasons to be optimistic yes presiding officer times are tough globally and every country is suffering from the effects of a pandemic and a global energy crisis but decades of mismanagement compounded by the foliar brexit have left the UK economy utterly unprepared to weather this storm european countries comparable to scotland are wealthier have lower income inequality in a moment european countries comparable to scotland are wealthier they have lower income inequality less poverty higher social mobility higher and often significantly higher productivity greater research and development spending and higher business investment than the UK does the member from the conservative benches can perhaps explain why quickly to other small independent european nations perhaps the minister might tell this parliament how much it costs to see a gp in ireland and what the preventing rate of co-operation taxes in ireland cabinet secretary i note the i note the the member from the conservative benches could not explain why it is that countries comparable to scotland are so much better off they are indeed in a position where they have flimsy arguments for the retention of the united kingdom presiding officer it gives me no pleasure none at all to point out that people in scotland's decisions to remain in the EU has been vindicated and since the brexit referendum of course people in scotland have voted in every single election for people and parties committed to reversing it in 2017 and 2019 elections to the westminster parliament and in the 2021 scottish parliament elections a majority of mps and msps were elected on mandate to hold an independence referendum so that scotland could apply to rejoin the EU as an independent member state which takes me to the second of the three votes i would like to discuss an independence referendum was on the ballot paper in may 2021 when this parliament was elected don't take my word for it believe the leader of the scottish conservatives because he said in the run-up to that election i quote him people have to be really clear that a vote for the snp is a vote for another independence referendum believe the leader of the scottish Labour party when he said in 2016 and i quote mandates come from the electorate in an election it should be the people of scotland who decide when the next referendum is believe the snp and green manifestos both of which committed to holding a referendum in the clearest possible terms and which 72 out of 129 of us here a clear majority in the scottish parliament were elected to deliver the parties that said vote for me and there will be no referendum they lost and the parties that said vote for me and we will give you the choice of independence one that simple act of placing one's vote next to a candidate or party that pledged in their manifesto an independence referendum is itself and exercised by people in scotland of their right to choose their constitutional future a right that used to be accepted across the political spectrum a right that the Labour government in wales accepts it says and i quote presiding officer the UK is conceived as a voluntary association of nations it must be open to any part any of its parts democratically to choose to withdraw from the union if this were not so a nation could conceivably be bound into the UK against its will a situation both undemocratic and inconsistent with the idea of a union based on shared values and interests a right presiding officer that should matter as much to those who oppose independence as to those who support it because what is scotland within the UK if we do not have the right to decide to leave trapped stuck however we vote is that the voluntary union they claim which brings me to the third vote i would like to discuss in 2014 people in scotland were offered the choice of independence and they voted against it and we accepted that result but here is the question that requires an answer after the referendum did scotland get what the majority voted for people in scotland were promised that within the UK we would benefit from the economic strength of the united kingdom instead we have suffered from years of economic mismanagement culminating in the disastrous experiment of a failed Tory budget that cost this country billions and put the final nail in the coffin containing the UK's reputation for economic competence the OECD predicts that the UK will be the slowest growing G20 nation over the next two years apart from the sanctioned Russia and perhaps the member from the conservative benches will explain why the UK is doing so badly international comparison on the point of funding choices i wonder if the cabinet secretary thinks it's better to fund the men's shed movement to the tune of 75 000 a year or fund one and a half million pounds annually for the work of 25 civil servants to work on an independence prospectus given the opportunity to rise to the challenge and explain why the UK is the worst performing country in international comparison in the G20 the member was unable to do so it's an embarrassment and they should take responsibility for it the latest OECD and IMF forecast show that the UK is set to have one of the highest inflation rates among g7 nations in 2023 people in scotland were promised that a no vote a no vote would secure scotland's place in the european union just before the referendum the then leader of the conservative Scottish conservative said in the stv referendum debate and i quote it is disingenuous to say that no means out and yes means in when actually the opposite is true no remains we stay in we are members of the european union oh really the then secretary of state for scotland said in November 2013 and i quote the only guaranteed way of leaving the european union is to leave the united kingdom and the better together campaign itself asked the question what is the process for removing our EU citizenship its answer voting yes people in scotland were promised a new era of respect for devolution and that the UK would operate as a partnership of equals instead we have seen the west minister government use its commons majority to repeatedly overrule the Scottish parliament in breach of the sewell convention we've seen a series of power grabs through west minister legislation changing and limiting this parliament's powers again and again without our consent and now we have the UK sector estate for scotland threatening with a stroke of his pen to overrule a bill overwhelmingly passed in this parliament cabinet secretary i must ask you to bring your remarks indeed indeed when the will of a huge majority of elected msp's in scotland's parliament can be reversed by a single figure from the west minister government that shows clearly where sovereignty under the devolution settlement lies far from enhancing devolution giving scotland more powers and more control this west minister Tory government is undermining and systematically dismantling devolution the motion before us today says that people in scotland's decisions matter that their votes count and their future should be in their hands because this is about who decides scotland's future is it the 59 mp's from scotland cabinet secretary you must must go and move the motion please thank you is it the scottish parliament or the sector estate for scotland is it a prime minister from a party that hasn't won an election in scotland since 1955 presiding officer there is only one answer the people decide democracy demands it i move the motion in my name thank you i will allow a wee bit of latitude for other front benchers should they take interventions although it's entirely matter to them whether they do and that is why i allowed a bit of latitude with the cabinet secretary i now call on donald cameron to speak to and to move amendments seven four two nine point one up to seven minutes please mr cameron thank you deputy presiding officer can i move the amendment in my name at the beginning of a new year there might have been an opportunity for a new approach from this government but no entirely predictably they have chosen the constitution as the subject of their first debate of 2023 we have an ongoing global cost of living crisis we have a bitter and violent war in europe and we have total turmoil in our public services here in scotland the nhs on its knees primary schools closed today many secondary schools closed tomorrow and at the top of this government's list of priorities in this chamber another independent referendum what on earth are they thinking this debate is nothing short of shameful presiding officer if the passion and energy expended today was concentrated instead on health education we would be in a much much better place not least because there's a matter of law it is now unequivocally clear that this parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence the supreme court's judgment in November was unambiguous with that in mind it begs the question as to why we are here once again debating this issue it may be that the s&p needs to give its hardcore supporters some red meat to keep them happy it may be that this government has completely ran out of new ideas on how to deliver for the people of scotland it may be that the only thing the s&p wants to talk about is the constitution because it has failed so monumentally elsewhere let's take the nhs as one obvious example parliament heard earlier today from the cabinet secretary but only after pressure from these benches and others to address the state of the nhs and a statement by minister falls woefully short of a proper and rigorous debate of the issues here in this chamber let me dwell on those failures for a moment because this is what we should be debating on sunday comments from the deputy chair of the bma said that patient safety was now at risk every day in any departments in scotland and nhs facing an unprecedented crisis dr ian kennedy the bma chair this morning on bbc scotland the nhs in scotland is broken members telling me they exhausted burnt out considering their futures many parts of the nhs collapsing so we have no doubt that the nhs in scotland in its current form is unsustainable yes julie martin i'm delighted to talk about health would donald camera and conceded that brexit has been a real problem for the nhs in scotland if not the u k and that's one of the reasons we need a democratic right to decide to go back into the eu as an independent state donald camera the problems in our nhs in scotland began long before the vote for brexit in 2016 she knows that the nhs in scotland is broken stark words from one of our most senior doctors despite repeated warnings that a winter crisis was looming doctors and nurses weren't impressed by the measures announced yesterday this is what we should be debating let me give one concrete example last week we know that bed occupancy rates in hospitals were over 95 percent that's 10 percent over the 85 percent rate which is seen as the maximum figure before patients are put at risk that kind of occupancy rate is not sustainable in providing the safe and effective care that patients need on a daily basis that's what the bma said and they're right and if the smp focus more on supporting the nhs and fixing the long-standing problems that exist there rather than obsessing over independence then perhaps some of these issues could have been addressed and i make no apology for focusing on these matters because it isn't just the nhs where snp ministers have lost focus in education deputy presiding officer we know there are 900 fewer teachers that when the snp came to power and the attainment gap between the least and most deprived is wider than it was five years ago we know that police numbers in scotland are at their lowest level since 2008 and that violent crime has risen to its highest level since nicolas sturgeon became first minister and we know that in transport this snp government has presided over the botched nationalisation of ferguson marine the delay of two ferries could run could could run into 200 million pounds over budget with island community suffering as a result failure after failure after failure and all because this government has only one real priority and a salvation poll published on monday stated that only eight percent of people feel the scotland government should prioritise an independence referendum just eight percent so turning to what the cabinet secretary's motion says if the snp were honest about listening to and respecting the wishes of the people of scotland then they would appreciate that scotland expressed its view barely eight years ago in the referendum that the UK government agreed to in 2014 a referendum that countless members on the snp benches called a once in a lifetime referendum even the cabinet secretary called it the opportunity of a lifetime well given that opportunity the people of scotland voted decisively to keep scotland in our united kingdom and rejected independence and we and others have always respected that outcome the snp and the greens have never accepted it and that's why the way in which this debate is being framed today is utterly ludicrous and indeed hypocritical so to conclude deputy presiding officer the snp green government's obsession with agitating for a referendum that nobody wants is actually harming our public services the government has taken its eye off the ball for too long and people across scotland are noticing they are seeing the crisis unfold in our nhs they are seeing standards falling in education and the attainment gap widening they are seeing increasingly poor performances in public transport and they are seeing deputy presiding officer a government which has its head in the sand when it should be addressing the real and pressing needs of the people of scotland and it is an abject disgrace thank you thank you i now call on sarah boyack to speak to and move amendment 7429.3 up to six months please miss boyack thank you very much presiding officer um so this is a this is the deployment this debate um but it is not a surprise in terms of the priorities of this snp green government um and if you look at the look at what's happened over the last few weeks over the festive period we had severe weather which caused significant disruption for many parts of scotland put massive pressures on resilient services and in the run-up if you will respect my right to actually respond to your opening remarks cabinet secretary just give me a couple of seconds the point i'm making which is absolutely clear in our amendment is this is the wrong choice for our first debate this year we should be focusing on the nhs in the run-up to new year doctors in nhs greater glasgow and clide pleaded with the health board to declare a major incident while nhs grampian issued an appeal for all staff to come in and when the cabinet secretary earlier this afternoon referred to nhs lothian today he did not acknowledge the long-standing deep issues in relation to under funding the lack of capacity which nhs lothian has now and going forward to their increasing population and crucially the lack of social care and those were not issues that started through covet and in fact there were not even issues that started because we left the the eu they were in place long before that and we know from repeated comments by representatives of the bma that they are seriously worried about patient safety being put at risk every single day and i will not be the only msp that gets repeated references from constituents who cannot get through to the nhs and they end up going to a and e now the snp and green msp's voted against our labour proposals to debate those issues today and they opted for their number one priority to debate the constitution rather than tackling the health crisis and the cost of living crisis that is getting worse yes i will briefly i thank the member for giving me that the member asks why we are talking about independence already dr allan could you please ensure your cards on your microphone it's on your microphones on it doesn't sound like it well the microphone isn't coming on so maybe you could try another seat apologies to miss boyack and i will reflect that in the time appreciate that presiding officer the reason i'm mentioning this is because it's up to us to decide what we want to debate and my view is that the choice of this discussion is more about internal snp strategic discussions than it is about the interest of the company country because we were told in newspapers in advance of this debate that we'd be offered a detailed blueprint for independence and yet what did the cabinet secretary do today he gave us repeated interpretations of history from his perspective he didn't talk about the future and once again he offered us a false choice the status quo or another device of independence referendum now we are not against constitutional change as scottish labour over our history we've advocated and delivered constitutional change we delivered this parliament and not only that but it's been strengthened since its establishment and we have done that on a cross-party debasist we have been prepared to speak to people sorry no i've already tried to take one intervention the constitutional change we want to see because i want to focus on what we would like to see that's different because we don't support the status quo as is we want to empower people and communities and where cooperation is key with nations and regions working together that should be part of the uk's redistributive union that does not need a device of referendum i'll take a brief intervention i'll take a brief intervention if she says that she is respecting of democracy but the policy that was put forward by her leader in august 2022 said that the role of the scottish parliament is to be the expression of the democratic will of the people of scotland and yet Labour's amendment today seeks to remove the section in the government motion that says that the uk should be a voluntary union of nations something that her colleagues in Welsh Labour understand why is it that that has been removed if Labour support democracy i think you'll note cue applause i think you'll note that we have retained the first half of this motion today because we do agree with the proposals that we acknowledge there was a decision by the Lord Advocate and we also acknowledge that we want to reaffirm our belief that people in Scotland have the sovereign right to determine the form of government that's best suited to their needs and we took and we took a decision on that in 2014 that is uncomfortable that is uncomfortable and since then as i said in the opening comments i made we have seen a change the devolution settlement my disappointment was donald cameron today not acknowledging that the status quo is perfect we need to change the status quo we need change in scotland and the best way to do that is not to have an independence referendum and i would say you were making a comment about what the voters think if you look at opinion poll after opinion poll even even SNP voters do not want an independence referendum this autumn and that is absolutely critical because there's interpretations of exactly what the voters think yes we are here to represent our constituents and i am determined to do that because we are working as scotch labour to look at how we change the UK to make it a more radical UK a more redistributive UK and to build on devolution with respect Presiding Officer i didn't heckle other people when they were speaking when i disagree with them members members could we please listen to the speaker who's got the floor Sarah Boyack Gordon Brown's constitution which Keir Starmer established formed the basis of the choice that voters will have at the next election and it is not a choice between the status quo or the SNP and greens independence offer at the next general election we will have a choice in Scotland to boot out the Tories to get rid of the undemocratic House of Lords have a directly elected second chamber to put in place the co-operation that in the last statement in the last statement the cabinet secretary was talking about the need to do on energy and to tackle the cost of living crisis and we would reform the intergovernmental working with joint government councils with secretariat that are not appointed by both governments that are changes now these don't sound exciting to the SNP but it is crucial and I want to finish in this point because the SNP has been a centralising government taking power away from our local authorities and communities and we are now seeing services cut in our local communities it's time to reverse that trend so it's not just about having more powers to the Scottish Parliament it's to stop the hoarding of power by the Scottish Parliament to devolve power to our councils whether it's on education on how they invest in critical services like healthcare in in terms of the supporting our health system by having care and support investment I have given you an extra minute could you please wind up and move your vote to the amendment thank you there is a better future than the divisive binary choice that's been already highlighted by the SNP today we want radical change we want to give people powers to tackle the cost of living crisis please conclude and move your amendment and that is the choice that we would offer at the next election Mr Boyk could you please move your amendment I move the amendment in my name apologies Presiding Officer very much I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton up to four minutes please Mr Cole-Hamilton thank you very much indeed Deputy Presiding Officer I rise for the Scottish Liberal Democrats and what a sorry and divisive start this is to the new year sometimes I wonder what it is we are even doing here on the day that our schools are closed and our teachers on strike when the first period of such industrial action in nearly half a century when 40 patients I can hear the SNP laughing at this but 40 patients are dying they are dying unnecessarily each week as a part of the crisis in emergency care and when people face the worst cost of living in living memory then here we are again the eyes of the nation are fixed on this chamber but far from the priorities they sent us here to deal with they see another skirmish in a make-believe battle that the SNP and green parliamentarians are fighting entirely on their own it is make-believe deputy Presiding Officer because there isn't going to be a referendum in October and the general election won't take its place either indeed it is an act of breathtaking arrogance for the first minister to simply state that she can dictate the terms of that election Presiding Officer we go to the country to receive the instructions from the people who sent us to chambers like this one it is not for a single politician to tell them that their concerns about the cost of living emergency about the climate emergency or the new cold war in which we find ourselves mean absolutely nothing and nicolas surgeon will find that out the hard way and for the green party to join the SNP in such an enterprise is astonishing they must be the only green party in the entire world to so willingly exchange environmentalism for nationalism it is a far cry from the party first represented in this place by the respected robin harper who said before the turn of the year of patrick harvey and launus slater support for the idea of a de facto referendum he said i quote i can't believe this has happened air quality knows no boundaries presiding officer in this debate we'll hear a lot about mandates and more than that we'll hear about the 2021 Scottish general election deputy presiding officer i remember that election i remember when the first minister i remember when the first minister told people who liked her leadership but didn't want another referendum that they could still vote for her with confidence i remember when she pivoted back to being the continuity candidate to see us through the pandemic when the polls shifted against independence and i remember the 25 and a half thousand west edinburgh residents who sent me to this place to oppose another referendum theirs presiding officer theirs is the only mandate that i recognise all of this debate all this debate does is allow snp and green ministers to distract attention from their singular failure to get to grips with the issues that really matter to people in their day-to-day lives knock anybody's door on any given day and ask them what they care about and they'll tell you it's whether their sister can access life-saving cancer care whether their elderly parents are getting the social care that they need they care about whether their children are receiving an education or whether they can afford to turn on their eating. Mr Cole-Hamilton can you resume your seat? I appreciate that emotions run high in this debate they will continue to run high but i would expect the chamber to listen to whoever is speaking and i would certainly expect that of the cabinet secretary who's been giving a running commentary on this speech throughout Mr Cole-Hamilton. This government is completely out of touch with reality. They should be using every waking hour in this chamber to clear down NHS waiting times and reduce the crippling costs of living emergency. The government could have chosen anything this afternoon, anything at all, but they chose this. At a time when this country is looking to us for unified determination on the many problems they face, the government are desperate to reheat this dying argument and it is a dying argument. You can see that in the language that they use and the way they conduct themselves in this chamber. The cabinet secretary refers to us as those who don't agree with the second referendum as democracy deniers. These are pages straight out of the Donald Trump playbook. They are ones used by populist identity nationalists the world over. It is my hope and my expectation that their movement will suffer the same fate as his. Deputy Presiding Officer, the cabinet secretary spoke extensively about winners. While I was elected to oppose a referendum with more votes than any other candidate in the history of the Scottish Parliament, the people of West Edinburgh had the right to choose and they chose me. They put their trust in me to do my job. I will not let them down. It is time that the Scottish Government did theirs. Thank you, Mr Cole. Hamilton, we now move to the open debate. I call 1st Christine Grahame to be followed by Shannon Dowie. Ms Grahame, around four minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Over the decades, success of UK Governments have used every trick in the book to block the Scottish people's right to determine democratically their future. The current examples, the vote in 2014, was once in a generation, there is no demand and the Scottish Government should focus on the NHS and pressing domestic issues. I will touch on those as I progress. I begin in 1979 with a referendum for an assembly. Better Together was in its infancy, but it managed the extraordinary pairing of Labour's George Cunningham, introducing the rule that 40 per cent of the electorate had to vote for it to count. The dead and those abstaining were counted as no. In fact, 51 per cent voted for an assembly but failed the Cunningham rule. Then there was the intervention of Tory peer, Sir Alec Douglas Hume, two weeks before the referendum, promising more for Scotland if it voted no. I know because I was there. We were also too small, too poor and contradictory because of oil. We were too greedy. All this and still a yes vote prevailed against the background of a winter of discontent. Fast-forward 20 years and Tory Labour, otherwise known as Better Together, has formalised its partnership and project fear, is revisited. One of the main planks of the no campaign was a yes, what would throw us out of the EU and, of course, Labour's Gordon Brown's vow, vote no and Labour would enhance devolution. Ring any bells? Despite all that, Scotland voted 45 per cent for independence. 24 years since Parliament came into being, in 1999 the SNP MSPs were in minority. We now have 64 and eight green MSPs all standing openly for independence, a majority, the unionists of 57. At Westminster there are six Tory MPs, four Liberal Democrats, one Labour, 45 SNP. Yet Westminster blocks even a referendum because, according to it, there is no democratic mandate. Well, if ballot box results do not count, what does Brexit, what a democratic affront, that while 62 per cent in Scotland voted remain, that is from Shetland to the Borders? We are out. There was no 40 per cent rule then. The argument that the Scottish Government should focus on current pressing domestic issues, which it is doing, is the very reason why the need for independence is pressing. Economic mismanagement from successive UK Governments squandering the oil and gas revenues, Norway saved trillions in the Bank of UK PLC, just a huge international overdraft, Browns Bank Collapse, Trusonomics, Results, the UK has the highest inflation of the G7, leading to the right pay demands that we see today. Just in the dark days of 1979, now is the very time when Scotland needs independence. And now I turn to the Supreme Court ruling, which only ruled on the limitations of the Scotland act. I ask you to read McCormick against the Lord Advocate, obiter, where the Lord President Cooper said, a hope of good time, the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle, which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. I have difficulty seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament, but none of the Scottish Parliament. As if all that happened in 1787 was that the Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England, that is not what was done. In Scotland the people are sovereign. Charles is king of Scots, not Scotland. Ask the people therefore if they want Scotland to be independent. Give them that referendum, and the reason you're blocking it is because it's saying, yes, we want to be independent. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today the SNP have once again chosen to put independence above all the urgent matters that this Parliament should focus on. I'm receiving emails from constituents who are worried about their children's education, safety in the streets, and they are extremely worried about the current state of the NHS. There are much more pressing issues to be debated, like Scotland's health service, which is at breaking point. Thousands of people can't get in to see a GP. They can't get screened for major illnesses. They can't get an ambulance. They're waiting hours at A&E departments. They can't get cancer treatment on time. The crisis is overwhelming our NHS. It is risking people's lives every day. I was contacted by a constituent whose 80-year-old uncle fell on New Year's Eve. She suspected that he had broken his shoulder. She called 999 at 9pm. She called again at 9.55pm. 11.21pm. 2.30pm. 4.34pm. 6.30pm. 8.14pm. Seven times she had to phone 999 while her 80-year-old uncle lay there in agony, stuck on a cold conservatory floor. It certainly wasn't a happy new year. 12.5 hours after the first call, an ambulance finally arrived. My constituent said that ambulance crews were brilliant, but we are disgusted at what our uncle has been put through. On reaching the hospital, her uncle was found to have broken his neck and shoulder in two places. This is happening all over Scotland. Frontline workers are doing their best. They are going to huge efforts to keep people safe. They are focused on doing their jobs for our benefit, because if you are a nurse, you don't get to ignore a patient and do what you want. If you are a firefighter, you don't get to ignore a burning building and do something else. If you are a police officer, you don't get to ignore a crime because you have other priorities. But if you are an SNP politician, apparently there is no need to focus on the day job. Today they are ignoring their duty to the public. They are ignoring the people's priorities. They are talking about another referendum instead of focusing on what really matters. Today SNP members are showing how out of touch they are with the real world. They have become detached from reality. They have crisis after crisis to tackle and umpteen problems that need sorting. I will take an intervention if somebody wants to explain to my constituent why we are focusing on independence and why we are not focusing on the NHS. You can answer that question. I thank the member for giving way. She has asked him why we are talking about independence. I merely put to her that her former leader Ruth Davidson said that, if the Greens in the SNP and any other parties who have declared an interest in independence get over the line and can make a coalition or make a majority, get the votes in the Parliament, then they will vote through a referendum and that is what democracy is all about. Does she agree? So the member could not tell my constituent why we are standing here talking about independence instead of talking about the NHS. I take my lead from the cabinet secretary because that is what he has done in his interventions. I am having great difficulty listening to Sharon Dowey because of the member to my left. I wonder if you could remind people of the volume that some people are using inappropriately. I thank Ms Hyslop for that point of order. I have reminded the chamber that I appreciate that our motions are running high. I would not single out one particular member, although I am aware that he was shouting so indeed were members on the Government backbenches. I would encourage everybody to treat those who are speaking with some respect. I encourage Sharon Dowey to move the microphone slightly closer to her. I think that that will help as well. Sharon Dowey, I can give you a little bit more time but you should start winding up now. So there are umpteen problems that need sorting from the ferry scandal to the drug death crisis to the life-threatening issues in our NHS. Today, yet again, the focus parliamentary time on another device of referendum. Normal hardworking people will be appalled by the priorities of this SNP Government. While our constituents go to work every day and put in a shift, SNP ministers keep wasting time talking about their obsession. Presiding Officer, it is a new year. Further resolutions, I urge Nicola Sturgeon and her allies to focus on what really matters. Make the crisis in our NHS the top priority, not another divisive referendum. Get back to the day job like everybody else in Scotland is doing. Thank you. In 2014, I got to vote for the first time somewhat unexpectedly. In a panic, I read every book, blog and briefing that I could find to figure out where my ex should go. The more I read, the more baffled I was that Scotland had let us go this long, being stuck in an archaic system that is designed not to let us make the changes and the progress that we want to. Since then, I along with thousands of others have voted SNP eight times in two Holyrood, one EU, two Westminster, two council and one by-election, expressing each time my support for independence. Whether or not you agree with my position, it is a matter of democracy and a matter of fact that the SNP has a mandate to bring this question back. If Scotland cannot test the people's will to take decisions into our own hands, this is not a voluntary union. Refusing to allow a vote on something you disagree with is not the behaviour of an equal partner, nor indeed the behaviour of an institution that has any faith in its own arguments. After a shambolic Brexit, five Tory Prime Ministers and a multitude of welfare cuts, none of which Scotland voted for, the situation has changed and people have a right to change their minds as well. We are here with yet another clear electoral mandate to hold a referendum but unable to, because Whitehall says no, is an outrage no matter what your constitutional stance is and how you would vote in that referendum. If there is any morality left in Whitehall, MPs must know that their anti-democratic, nonsensical and unsustainable stance is immoral and, honestly, making our case for us. Our voices cannot be heard in this union. We often refer to the union being broken but, honestly, this is its design. The union was not made to give Scotland its say. Whitehall's stance on a referendum is just the most visible example of how Scotland is treated as standard. This is what happens with employment rights, with energy policy, trade, immigration, equality, universal credit, Brexit and I could go on. Scotland can vote en masse for SNP MPs who then vote en masse in the commons only to be shot down by the Government of the day. One thing that is worth pointing out in response to criticism so far is that I do not want independence for the sake of it, it is not an end in itself, I do not want to move from one bad system to another, I do not want an independent Scotland to treat disabled people the way that successive Governments down south have. I want democracy here to be improved for greater community empowerment, more devolution to councils, clearer representations so that people know and understand who is making decisions that affect them and I believe that independence would pave the way for progressive politics to happen. Independence to me is a means to an end. In the Highlands and Islands, Whitehall has utterly failed to even begin to replace the EU funding for rural affairs and economic development that we previously enjoyed, leaving us worse off to the tune of nearly £20 million. We are struggling to replace the health and social care, hospitality and agricultural workers who no longer feel welcome thanks to a Brexit that we did not ask for and did not vote for. Social Security Scotland provides a massive demonstration of how we can do better and be more progressive than Westminster in redistributing wealth and supporting people rather than judging, stigmatising and gatekeeping. With universal credit still being reserved, the contrast is stark to anyone who is so much as glancing at the two systems. We do not just have a mandate to deliver an independence referendum, frankly at this point we have a moral duty to, for the sake of democracy and for the sake of the Scottish people. Michael Marra, to be followed by Michelle Thomson up to four minutes, Mr Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We debate the nationalist motion today with schools closed across Scotland in the first national teacher strike in 40 years. The last offer sanctioned by this Government was seven weeks ago. Our NHS by the First Minister's account is in an unprecedented crisis and this debate is not the priority of people across the North East or across the whole of Scotland. Of course, favouring independence is a perfectly honourable thing to do and I understand why many Scots in the face of chaotic incompetence of both their Governments think that any change might be worth it. So let's be clear. There is change coming to Scotland if we choose to vote for it. We can have a more just country without losing our currency, our defence, our markets and a significant share of our budget. We should and can have common cause beyond borders and see our neighbours' child as our own that all of our ends be bettered together. What is abundantly clear to me as an observer, is that those honourable folk who favour independence have been sorely failed by their leadership. Despite the cabinet secretary's rhetoric, there is a route to the destination that they seek. Build a case through honest deliberation and careful compromise to allow the prosecution of the argument. Build a coalition of those seeking change. Build a consensus, a settled will of the Scottish people, make it overwhelming. That is how the case for devolution was made and how it was won. No one can seriously suggest that, since 2014, that work has been done by those in the positions to do it. How about proving the case through the successful use of the powers of devolution? That is not my idea. Once upon a time it was the SNP's strategy of he whose name shall not be spoken, but what a sorrowful disaster that has been. Our precious NHS and chaos, our schools closed, our universities steadily losing their lead, the worst drugs debt record in the developed world, five times as bad as the rest of the UK under the same drug laws. Long-term sclerotic growth now recession, crumbling infrastructure, ferries that do not sail, islands locked off from the economy, our national language under imminent threat. I know if I will in one second an overwhelming feeling everywhere you go that nothing, nothing is working as it should. Ross Greer. I'm grateful to Mr Marra for the intervention. I accept that if the Labour Party won the next UK general election, they'll have a mandate for their constitutional reforms. Why does he think that if our side of this constitutional debate repeatedly won elections, we are somehow lacking a mandate to implement our own constitutional reforms? Michael Marra. I've already set out the means by which that case can be won and it can be prosecuted. It has been done before and it can be done again if you have the will and the ability to do it. Build your case, persuade people and win the politics. That's how devolution was won and the way by which you can pursue it. Instead, Parliament is invited to participate in the grand pretense that this ruling from the Supreme Court was somehow shocking and unexpected, that the First Minister, having marched her faithful troops up the hill for the umpteenth time, is doing anything more than playing to the faithful, keeping the kettle biling, another wheeze and another tune on the fiddle while Scotland burns. They claim to be opposed to austerity and produce a growth commission promising to cut further and deeper year on year. They write social justice reports, back in progressive taxation and then run in election after election on the promise of tax freezes for the middle and upper classes. Always protecting power for the party rather than exercising that power for the people. No thank you. There is a majority, no thank you sir. There is a majority for change in this country. The further devolution of power out of Westminster and to all parts of the UK, 300 economic clusters can be turbocharged for growth by empowering directly. The abolition of the House of Lords, replacing it with an assembly for the nations in the regions, a Government that will clean up politics, bringing an end to the years of Tory slays and corruption. That is the choice that is now in front of us. The job of this Government should be to make Scotland work again. Mr Marr, I now call Michelle Thompson to be followed by Ross Greer up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate and add my voice to the just and democratic cause of Scottish independence. This is a belief that I have held all my life. Independence is normal. Presiding Officer, I can taste how close it is, which is precisely why the unionists in this place get so incoherently angry. The UK is a failing state. Historically, no other state has been so dependent upon imperialism. It has created a culture and a contemporary state characterised by what Tom Nairn called a tribal state of formidable complacency. We can see and hear this tribal complacency on a daily basis. However bad things are, we are told, they could only be worse by doing something different, the UK's very own version of insanity. The entire post-colonial history of the UK is one of consistent decline and democratic failure, with Brexit being the most recent example and eloquently highlighted by the cabinet secretary in his remarks. As Oliver Bullard put it in his recent book, the UK has become a mere butler to the world with facilitation of corruption, replacing the exploitation of empire. The indignation that is shown when example upon example or success of smaller independent states are mentioned is symptomatic, not only of UK complacency, but also betrays a failure of belief in the Scottish people regarding what is possible. That, for me, is a great divide. I choose to believe in what is possible. I choose to believe in the Scottish people and I choose to believe, like many other small and medium-sized countries, accepting the responsibility and also the agency that will come with independence will be both liberating and enabling. We are now left in the ludicrous position that those devoted to the declining UK state, no matter the cost of Scotland, cannot state what the democratic route to independence is for the Scottish people. At the same time, as we rightly support the independence of other nations, we are expected to believe that a gathering of mainly English MPs in Westminster should have a permanent veto on Scottish democracy. It is absurd and it is fundamentally anti-democratic. The enduring characteristic of the Scottish independence movement is its commitment to using democratic means, but there are multiple democratic pathways to independence as the history of the United Nations testifies. There is no statute in international law nor in any UN charter that gives any state the untrammeled right to deny a nation a democratic route to independence. Now, a referendum may seem the simplest, but it has not been the most typical route to achieving independence and the will of a people can be exercised in many ways. Take the historically significant UN resolution 435, which paved the way for Namibian independence, which included defining a democratic process leading to an election and not a referendum. Part of that process involved the use of a UN transition assistance group. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might wish to consider the Scottish Government taking the initiative to appoint its own transition assistance group drawing on appropriate expertise beyond Scotland. Presiding Officer, independence is coming, and the democratic voice of the people of Scotland will not be denied. Five parties were elected to this Parliament at the last election. By any normal measure, those of us who believe that Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands won that election. Scottish Greens and SNP increased our combined majority of seats, and we won more votes—16,000 more than the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. When people vote for political parties, they reasonably expect them to fulfil the commitments in their manifesto. When anti-independence politicians take offence at our claim that they are opposing not just independence but Scottish democracy itself, the question for them to answer is, what else do you call it when those who have lost an election prevent the winners from fulfilling their democratic mandate? Do not take our word for it. Ahead of last year's election, Douglas Ross said, people have to be really clear that a vote for the SNP is a vote for another independence referendum. His Conservative colleague for the Lothians, Jeremy Balfour, helpfully stated, just remember that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for independence. Former Tory leader Ruth Davidson was even clearer. She said that if the Greens and the SNP and the SNP or any of the other parties have declared an interest in independence, get over the line and can make a coalition, make a majority, get the votes in Parliament, then they will vote through a referendum. That is what democracy is all about. Back in 2016, Labour leader Anas Sarwar observed that mandates come from the electorate in an election. If they do not believe any of that any more, it is for them to explain how they reconcile whatever their new belief is with their claim to still respect Scottish democracy. All of us on the pro-independence side of this debate accept the judgment of the Supreme Court. This Parliament cannot legislate for a referendum without a section 30 order from Westminster, but the UK's constitutional settlement is based heavily on precedent, and the precedent here is clear. In 2011, for the first time, a clear majority of pro-independence MSPs was elected. The UK Government accepted that as a mandate for a referendum, and a section 30 order was granted. So why, a decade later, when the Green and SNP manifestos were even clearer and independence a much more widely understood issue? It is not just the UK's Tory Government, but its Labour opposition rejected the precedent. Precedent can be rejected, but if the Tories and Labour want to claim that they still respect Scottish democracy and the views of the Scottish public, the onus is on them to explain their alternative method for the people of Scotland to exercise their right to choose their own future. Jackie Dunbar I thank the member for taking the intervention. Would you agree that it is totally democratic and quite frankly a disgrace that in 2023 we have got folk 25 years old and under that has never been able to have a say on how, if their country should be independent or not, and then themselves are their own generation? I thank Mr Dunbar for that intervention and it is a really important point. There are half a million people on the electoral register in Scotland who have not had the opportunity to cast their vote on Scotland's constitutional future. That to me is the definition of the generation that our colleagues in the opposition like to speak about so much. Winning an election used to be the uncontroversial gold standard mandate for delivering your manifesto. The Tories and Labour have trashed that democratic norm for no better reason than they lost the election and they do not like who and what the public chose instead. They need to be prepared to accept the accusations of being anti-democratic because that is exactly what they are doing. I believe that Scotland can be a fairer greener country with the powers of a normal independent nation. We can rejoin the European Union and begin on doing the damage of a disastrous Tory Brexit that is now also endorsed by the Labour Party. We can take basic steps to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of people who live here, like raising the minimum wage beyond the poverty pay level set at Westminster. We can undo not just the anti-trade union acts of the post-2010 Tory Government, but every bit of anti-union legislation passed since Thatcher began her assault in the early 1980s. Scotland can be a beacon of workers' rights and environmental rights. We can reduce emissions and fund the just transition with a carbon tax on big polluters and end the licenses of any new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. I believe in Scottish independence, but first and foremost I believe in democracy. If the anti-independence parties are offended by the independence movement's claim to now be Scotland's democracy movement, maybe they should stop thwarting what the public actually voted for and accept that it is time to put this question to the electorate once again. Thank you, Mr Greer. I now call Jackson Carlaw to be followed by Jim Fairlie up for four minutes, Mr Carlaw. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and as I don't get out much anymore, can I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this first, an extremely good-natured debate of the new year? Can I begin by saying that I don't think it's enough to say bad SNP? I think charitably at the heart of the Government motion is a question, what is the legitimate and democratic route to a second referendum? What I absolutely believe is that eight years of trading insults across this chamber, which is largely what we have done since 2014, has not advanced the argument one iota or one jod. I agree in part with my comara that I think that there are democratic routes towards another expression of Scotland's opinion. They just don't happen to be ones in which we agree. Firstly, since the Supreme Court has determined that responsibility for the constitution rests at Westminster, it's for MPs elected from Scotland as Mr Gray and Mr Robertson were, to argue at the House of Commons in favour of the argument that they have for a second independence referendum, and to seek, as Mr Marra did, to persuade to construct a consensus around the argument that that second referendum should take place. They say that inevitably that is not a prospect that can succeed. I don't fundamentally agree. Time is short but I may come back. Secondly, is to respect the view of the First Minister and others at the time, which was that this was a once in a generation vote. There has never been, never in the eight years since, has there been a discussion as to what a generation is, a negotiation as to what in this chamber we could agree a generation might be. It is typically, in print, argued to be between 20 and 30 years, 25 years typically. It's said that there are three or four generations in any 100 years. Arguably that might say that this Parliament could legitimately, on the words of the First Minister, look to another referendum in 2039. But it is a subject about which the Government has never sought to engage other parties in this Parliament in any discussion whatsoever. What Mr Robertson did in this debate was to keep returning to the concept of mandate. He said again that the Conservatives have not had a mandate in Scotland since 1955. I think he said that votes matter, votes count without a shred of irony, because sitting in his Government are the Scottish Green Party participating with the lowest share of the vote of any governing party in the history of the United Kingdom. 91.9% of the people of Scotland rejected the Scottish Greens and all they stand for at the 2021 election. It was even worse in my west of Scotland region where my eastward seat sits, because there Mr Greer, who desports himself now quite obviously as the self-ordained minister in waiting, was rejected by 92.9% of the people of Scotland. What mandate does that man have to stand up and boast at his imposing green policy on the people of Scotland for the Deputy First Minister? I'm grateful to Jackson Carlaw for giving me. Can I just point out the irony of his attack on the Bute House agreement between the SNP and the Greens? Coming from a Conservative, he was prepared to usher in austerity into the United Kingdom with the accompaniment of the Liberal Democrats and only the accompaniment of the Liberal Democrats, who are roundly rejected across the United Kingdom. Can I just point out the absurdity of the argument that characterises what Jackson Carlaw has put into us after? I think that the Deputy First Minister, if he checks the voting record, will find that the Liberal Democrats had something like 25% of the vote when that coalition was formed. However, there is a route through, as from the Supreme Court, for a negotiation in the House of Commons or to return in the meantime to accept the responsibility of this Parliament. Between 2011 and 2016, I, when I spoke on health, agreed and offered to take the national health service off the football pitch to try and work together to find a consensus around how we might proceed. Alex Neil, in fact, as health secretary, even convened meetings between all other parties. All of that was set aside when the 2015 election came about. However, if the health service is struggling in England under the Conservatives, in Wales under the Labour Party, in Scotland under the SNP, by what conceit does any one party think they can say we and we alone can now offer a solution to the crisis that is now evolving on health? Would it not be far better to listen to people like Wes Streeting, who I read an article on an interest at the weekend, who talked about a working partnership with the private sector and new model for GP primary care, to those who have talked about reopening the Nightingale wards as places where early discharge patients could go to free up space within our NHS, to listen to GPs like our own Sandesh Gulhani? Would it not be far better for us to work in concert to seek to try and find a solution rather than simply individually firing forward ideas that everybody else shoots down? The NHS carries on, workers do so in despair, but there is no political solution whatsoever. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I say this? Does this Parliament have a future based on the model envisaged for it by its creators and pioneers? That was for this Parliament to evolve the greatest possible consensus on issues that we possibly could. Bludgeoning ourselves on the divisive issue of independence is setting aside all the work that we could do on those priorities for Scotland. The Scots being a historic nation with a proud past, and as a nation they have an undoubted right to national self-determination. They should determine on independence, should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure, the words of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps, as she soon might reflect on this principle from one of his heroes, after all he believes in mandates, and I know that he does, because Router reported on 15 December 2019 that, during his Andrew Marr interview as Deputy Finance Minister, he said, the overriding mandate that we have from this election result is to get Brexit done. We will leave the EU in a matter of weeks. That irony surely cannot be lost to those benches. Let us turn to our colleagues on this side of the chamber here. The most powerful Scottish party for decades, who used to weigh their votes rather than count them because they were so dominant. Yet here they are, scrapping for every single vote they can muster as a result of their utter betrayal of their traditional vote, which has left them languishing in a lowly third place of Scottish politics. Yet they still have learned nothing, as Sarah Boyack has just mentioned. Keir Stammer helped to launch their latest reincarnation of a federal solution to the problems in the UK. In the fifth of December last year, he was asked by Glen Campbell if he had the courage in Scotland to test those ideas against independence. His answer? We have been absolutely transparent and clear about this. Those are the recommendations. We will put those missions before they electorate, and if we are elected into power, we will have a mandate to carry it out. That is why Labour is finished in Scotland, because its leaders over generations believe that the only mandates that are delivered by an English majority carry any value or weight. The Scottish vote is nothing more than a means to bolster their position without the need to deliver what the people demand. What the people have demanded them to deliver is the right to choose our constitutional future. Alex Cole-Hamlin, on 3 July last year, was asked by Martin Geisler if the SNP won a general election, would that constitute a mandate? He replied, no, not at all. In the same interview, he was reminded of his own party's manifesto commitment in the 2019 general election that they would simply reverse the Brexit decision. His response to that point was that they did not win the election, but we did. By the rationale of Mr Cole-Hamlin's argument, we in those benches should simply declare independence, but we will not. It is not this party's policy not to allow the people to have their say, unlike the other three unionist parties in this debate. It is for that reason that the lady who deserves the final word of my contribution is Winnie Ewing. As the opening speaker for the SNP in the Queen's Speech debate in November 1970, she said, the national movement will not go away. If the people of Scotland are satisfied with them in a Parliament, that is what they shall have. Although we shall go on protesting that they want more, and if the Scottish people do not want more, we shall not win elections after that. It is a simple matter of democracy. It is a simple matter of democracy, and if other parties actually believe in democracy, then their own denial of it should worry them far more than the outcome of a referendum. I know Paul Martin, who feels to be followed by Karen Adam for up to four minutes. I'm very grateful to you, Presiding Officer. As always, it's a fascinating debate at the start of the year, but it is a false choice that's being presented before us. We have the SNP's costly obsession with independence and we have the Tory status quo. There is a third way. The Labour is offering the choice of a stronger Scotland and a transformed UK at the next general election. Why should that be important? Because when we look at what leads the news tonight, it won't be this debate. It will be the stories of the children who couldn't go to school today because of a strike. It will be the stories of the NHS in crisis. Our beloved NHS, where every party across this chamber at various times has said is so important, and the NHS is. We've already heard stories of people waiting hours and hours for ambulances, waiting in accidents and emergency. We have the crisis of heating and of living and of feeding. We have the pressures that families are under as their children who should go to school can't today about having to take a day off work to look after them, of people working from home in the post-Covid way because they can. The stresses that are being put on our communities out here, those very communities that so many people have said today have voted for them or voted for the other, those communities who tonight aren't concerned about an argument about independence. They're concerned about how they're going to put food on the table for their families and what's going to happen at the weekend and what's going to happen going forward should one of their children fall ill and have to try and get to a hospital. That is the reality for people not just in Scotland but in England, but in Wales and in Ireland, and indeed across Europe to many different levels. We are facing crisis upon crisis and we are spending time arguing today, discussing, debating today about the differentials over an independence vote. I think that it is fascinating, more than happy to. I'm not even asking a question. I thank the member for giving way. Would you accept that there's 129 of us? We can deal with a lot of issues at the one time, including the short-term crisis and the long-term future. Yes. Martin Workfield. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Really? The crisis that we had in this chamber sitting until the early morning hours before Christmas, the fact today that we faced business motions requesting debates on the NHS. With the greatest respect, I struggle to see this Parliament deal with more than one thing at a time and I think that comes from the attitude of the Government towards this Parliament and indeed some members across this Parliament of their attitude to how Government business needs to be conducted. Do you want to intervene on that? I would love. As a committee convener, surely you must see even looking at the timetable of daily in this Parliament, there's committees dealing with matters all the time in parallel with one another. That's a ridiculous thing for Martin Workfield to say. Please, through the chair, and I would encourage members not to make interventions from a sedentary position and for those who are speaking not to take interventions from a sedentary position. Mr Workfield. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. We can discuss that comment. Yes, committees can't sit while the chamber is sitting and that's in essence doing just one thing at a time and there needs to be changed, there needs to be a better development so that this Government can be held to account and it also needs members of this Parliament. I humbly suggest to show a little level of respect if we want to conduct debates the way that people seem to indicate they want debates to be conducted rather than shouting matches. I am desperately conscious of time and it's a shame because I wanted to talk about the opportunity that Europe offers with the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and also the national delegation to the congress on which SMP Labour and conservative elected officials from across the UK but also from here in Scotland sit and can influence and influence the debate across Europe. Given the nature, I would like to finish just by asking the cabinet secretary, he opened with a very powerful statement about people should respect the winners and what they do. The fact remains that, unfortunately for us, maybe in part due to the investment that certain parties here made actually in the Brexit campaign, Brexit was won by people who wanted to leave Europe. Should we respect those winners? I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Wittfield. I now call Karen Adam for up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to stand here today in the chamber to debate a manifesto commitment that my constituents voted me in to deliver. The SMP won the Scottish election with its commitment front and centre to hold a referendum. Firstly, I just want to address my colleague Jackson Carlaw, who spoke of the Tory Labour and SMP Governments struggling with the NHS crisis. Can I point out that there's a stark difference between these Governments? The Tories can borrow more. The Tories can change immigration policy, but they choose not to, and that is the terrifying fact. In 2021, I included independence referendum in my campaign's socials and materials, as did my opposition, but theirs was with a plea to reject an independence referendum. Talk about obsessive, because their materials included more talk of an independence referendum than mine. I won a majority, such as my colleagues did, advocating for Scotland's inalienable right to independence, and it is on that basis that we formed a Government. There may be cries from the Opposition benches to halt or stall a referendum using a myriad of excuses, but we know from experience that many of those excuses to stay put in this toxic and declining union are the very reasons to leave it. At the very least, reasons that highlight the need for the Scottish people to be presented with the option should Scotland be an independent country. People don't just deserve what they vote for, they have a right to it, and certainly within the parliamentary term that they voted in. The choices that I am here to make come from the people were decided on by the people and should be carried out by us on behalf of the people. The unionist parties had their chance to convince the nation and they failed. They have a right to present their case to oppose independence, but they have no mandate to remove the choice. It is undemocratic and a shameful dismissal of the mark on the ballot paper that got us all here. What exactly would that be telling the people of Scotland that ultimately it doesn't matter what they vote for? Because politicians in Westminster can overrule it, the Supreme Court judgment laid it bare for the world to see that this union is not consensual nor democratic and it is something that could concern us all immensely. How dare politicians that Scotland did not vote for tell us what we can and cannot do? The patronising remarks that I hear I just can't bear, it's condescending to tell the electric that what they voted for might not be what they need. It's pompous, it's arrogant, it's rude and it's belittling. Do they really think that it's their place to tell the people what they want? We are here to give the people of Scotland what they want and what they elected us to do. We can listen to the cries of decisions of elections past but that is a Scotland and indeed a UK that is no longer recognisable. We have been through the ringer and much of it is self-inflicted by ideological party politics. We gave the union a chance and now we are reaping what was sown and it is rotten. Brexit and a fishing sector sold out, labour shortages and red tape that could wrap the globe thrice. To the British nationalists in this chamber today, I plead, have some integrity and be bold. Stop standing in the way of democracy and be brave in your convictions. If you are sure that they are worthy of support, then put it to the people and ask them, it's them who pay our wages. It is them that gifted us this honour. Democracy isn't just for those who agree with you, that is something else entirely. In closing, I look forward to the people choosing a fairer, richer, cleaner, more equal and outward looking country, one that isn't constrained and stripped of all its parts in some UK scrap heap. I fully support this motion and look forward with high hopes. Thank you, Mr Adam. We now move to closing speeches. I call for Paul O'Cain for up to six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We return to Parliament today with our NHS in a humanitarian crisis. The deputy chair of the BME Scotland has described hospitals across Scotland as not safe for patients. 4,977 patients are waiting more than eight hours in our A&E departments, the worst on record ever. 2,506 patients waiting more than 12 hours in an A&E department, the worst on record ever. It is a new year, as we have heard from many colleagues across the chamber, but we begin with an old and tired argument. Instead of beginning 2023 with a relentless focus on the crisis facing health and social care in this country, the first debate in this Parliament is to discuss the constitution. All of that to distract from the reality of an NHS that has been pushed to the brink in Scotland 15 years in the making with this Government, with a health secretary who has failed to show leadership and intervene to avert the current crisis, a health secretary who has lost all credibility. Frontline health and care workers, patients and the public have no confidence in HUMSA's useless ability to deal with the crisis in gulfing our NHS, yet that is not the debate that we are having today. What does that say to our constituents who are waiting for hospital treatment, struggling to see their GP or lying on a hospital trolley in A&E? I have found today's debate unedifying. Outside of this place, our NHS is on its knees, and I do not know how our hard-working health and social care staff will be thinking as they look at the debate today in this place. Throughout the debate from SNP and green members, they have been keen to assert what Scotland needs and Scotland wants. They have spoken of mandates and their mandate, yet I could paper the walls of Bute House and St Andrew's house with all the broken promises of this Government, part of the mandate on which they were elected, on ferries, on free bikes, on school meals, on a nationalised energy company, on student debt, on the council tax and the list goes on and on, because only one thing matters for this Government when it comes to delivery, is not that the case, Presiding Officer? Let's think about the reality of what the people of Scotland want. We had polling this week that revealed that more than two thirds of Scots think that the Scottish Government could be and should be doing more with existing powers to address the cost of living crisis. The reality is that the key priority issues for Scots are the cost of living crisis, our jobs and our NHS. Indeed, 61 per cent of Scots believe that the Scottish Government are failing on the NHS, and today has been another example of an inadequate response to that crisis by this Government. When I still list what the Scottish Government should prioritise, Scottish people have been clear. Those top three issues, the NHS, the rising cost of living and exorbitant energy bills, and just 8 per cent of Scots said that independence should be a priority for this Government. It is no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the Scottish National Party wants independence, or indeed now the Greens for that matter who seem to have forsaken all else in terms of their policy agenda. However, it is telling that this Government continues to pursue an agenda with an evangelical zeal, despite the desire of the vast majority of Scots, including a majority of people who would consider supporting independence, stating that it is the wrong priority at the wrong time. It is clear, Presiding Officer, that people in Scotland want to see change. That is clear. Across Scotland, communities are being let down by both their Governments. They are being let down by an arrogant and reckless Tory Government in Westminster and an incompetent SNP-Green coalition who are more interested in pursuing this debate today than in talking about the failings in our NHS and doing something about it. Two parties who are locked in a co-dependent relationship of grudge and grievance, while Scotland deserves so much better than that, so much better than the divisive debate that we see consistently played out on the constitutional settlement. I think that my colleague Michael Marra articulated this most powerfully today in what I believe was an excellent speech. Because, Presiding Officer, people do want a better form of politics than what we have seen here today in the chamber. People want a politics that serves the national interest, that brings people together and that seeks to solve our collective challenges together. It is only the Labour Party that has the energy, the ambition and the ideas to radically reshape our democratic settlement and empower communities in Scotland and across the UK. The howls of derision from the SNP benches show that they are afraid of a Labour Government being elected at the UK level. In practice, a UK Government will abolish the anti-created house of lords, replacing it with an elected assembly of the nations. Andrews, do you want to hear this? Do you not want to hear it? Mr O'Kane, please resume your seat. We have listened to most of the speakers in the latter half of this debate with respect. You can disagree with what the speaker is saying without trying to drown them out. Mr O'Kane, I would encourage you to bring your remarks down to a close. I mean, they do not want to hear it, but I have as much right and a democratic mandate to stand here and make these points as anyone else in this chamber. So let us be clear in coming to a close, as I am now in my final seconds. Changing our UK and changing Scotland within it, that is the change that this party chooses. It is the change that we will deliver at a UK general election. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr O'Kane. I now call Maurice Golden for around seven minutes, please, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me begin by saying how disappointed I am that we are not discussing more pressing matters. Families hit hard by the cost of living crisis, businesses struggling with energy bills or the emergency engulfing our health service. We should be discussing our NHS today, as my colleagues Donald Cameron, Sharon Dowie and Jackson Carlaw have all highlighted. Ian Kennedy said that many doctors remain to be convinced that the Scottish Government's practical response matches up to the huge scale of the problems that the NHS is facing. It is no wonder that, given that the Scottish Government has lost focus and instead it is once again forcing us to discuss its grievance agenda, something that we have seen from every nationalist speaker to a lesser or greater extent today. Sarah Boyack spoke about a new way forward in the work of Gordon Brown. Alex Cole-Hamilton, in a passionate speech, outlined how the Scottish Government is out of touch with reality and how the Greens have traded environmentalism for nationalism. However, let me be clear. I believe in democracy that Scotland has the right to decide on its future. However, the question of independence has been settled and the will of the people must be respected. I think that, going forward, there is much that Jackson Carlaw can offer this Parliament and, indeed, Scotland with regards to the way forward. However, the obvious question is why do the SNP keep ignoring the referendum that we had in 2014? I thank the member for giving way and he reflected in the fact that Jackson Carlaw had indicated the way forward. As I recall, Jackson Carlaw said that the way forward was through making those arguments at Westminster. Does he acknowledge that, for the last few elections, the overwhelming majority of people that Scotland has sent to Westminster have been of my point of view and not his? Will he not come to acknowledge that at some point? I think that the point that the nationalists are struggling with is that if a councillor at a local government election has it in his or her manifesto that they will increase income tax, they cannot do it because the institution to which they serve does not have the power to do so. The referendum in 2014 was free and fair. That saw Scotland vote. I would like to make some progress. That saw Scotland vote decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that, according to the SNP at the time, removed the question of independence for at least a generation. Why won't the SNP respect the result of that? Excuse me, Mr Golden. Could members give Mr Golden the respect of listening while he is speaking? Thank you, Presiding Officer. So why won't the SNP respect the result of that referendum? Let me give you the answer. It's because they lost. They've never been able to accept that, so they want to keep running referendums until they get the answer they like. It makes their talk of democracy, mandates and respecting the will of the people so horribly hollow. Such as the SNP's intent to overturn the 2014 decision, they even took to the courts trying to force through another referendum, wasting more than a quarter of million pounds of taxpayers' money before the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against them. Let's be clear here. The Scottish people don't want another referendum any time soon, and Ipsos Moraypole last month found that just 35 per cent of people supported a referendum in 2023. Thwarted by the courts and with the public opinion against them, the SNP now wants to turn the next general election into a de facto referendum. The absurdity of the idea should be obvious to everyone. As the constitutional politics expert Professor James Mitchell explained, there is no such thing as a de facto referendum. It's not for a political party to dictate the terms of an election. The case for independence has never been strong. The SNP has no credible answer for why Scotland should leave the most successful political union in history. A union that benefits Scotland enormously from the £12 billion union dividend that allows Scotland to spend more on vital public services to hundreds of millions being directly invested in local communities, from the shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde to the vast quantities of trades that flow freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Let's also remember that, during the pandemic, the UK Government protected almost a million Scottish workers and nearly 100,000 Scottish businesses. It was an enormous show of support for Scotland, both demonstrating the value of the union and also that we are at our best when we are united. The people of Scotland understand that, which is why pole after pole has shown that the majority of Scots want to remain part of the United Kingdom. Do you have time, Presiding Officer? The member for taking intervention has mentioned democracy mandates the will of the people, and he has told us that the Scottish Government is out of touch. Does he really mean that the Scottish people are out of touch because they are the ones who voted for a referendum? Not according to your leader, Nicola Surgeon, who said that a vote for the SNP in 2021 was not a vote for independence. Perfectly clear. Incidentally, that is the same First Minister who said that she did test hundreds of thousands of Scots, which is, in my view, a deplorable act from the First Minister of Scotland. The First Minister takes hardship facing families and tries to make it about independence, saying that the cost of living crisis highlights, and I quote the pressing need for independence. With this obsession for independence above all else, is it any wonder that so much has gone wrong under this SNP green government? Education going backwards on international rankings, the worst drugs death rate in Europe, the worst A&E waiting times on record, an embarrassing approach to tackling climate change and so many more failures. The debate today has been a wasted opportunity to tackle those issues. The Scottish Government must stop acting like a pressure group for independence and more like the Government is supposed to be. Part of the motion that we are debating today invites us to reflect on the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court. A judgment that noted that votes cast in an independence referendum would possess the authority in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that, under our devolution settlement, a referendum to allow such a democratic expression of people in Scotland's views would be in itself incompatible with Westminster's sovereignty. Out with the powers of this Parliament. Without a change to this Parliament's powers, we cannot legislate for an independence referendum. That does not mean that a mandate to give people in Scotland a choice about their future cannot be delivered in a Scottish Parliament election. The precedent of the 2011 election is clear. When people elect a Parliament on a clear mandate to deliver a referendum, both of Scotland's Governments should listen to that and facilitate that referendum. The UK Government had no difficulty at that time accepting that a mandate could be delivered through an election to this Parliament and they were right to accept that and they should be doing so again now. That is Scotland's national Parliament. If a mandate cannot be delivered in a Scottish Parliament election, where can it be? Some have raised opinion polling today. Incidentally, six of the last seven polls back to November last year show a majority support for independence, but no opinion poll can give a mandate to a Parliament. Only votes can do that. I would invite those who would quibble with that or try to speculate about what people in Scotland really want when they elect a Parliament to reflect on the consequences of their position for democracy. After all, polls showed no overwhelming support for independence in 2011 when the UK Government accepted this Parliament's mandate to deliver a referendum. No, when it comes to exercising the constitutional right to choose their future, people in Scotland do it in the ballot box in elections. I am surprised that there is any doubt in this chamber that people in Scotland alone have the right to choose their constitutional future. It used to be accepted across the political spectrum. It was Margaret Thatcher who said, as a nation, that the Scots have an undoubted right to national self-determination, should they determine independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way. It was John Major who said of Scotland, no nation could be held irrevocably in a union against its will. The report of the cross-party Smith commission said after the 2014 referendum that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. It was the 1989 claim of right, again endorsed in votes of both Westminster and Scottish Parliament on a cross-party basis, which affirmed the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their form of government best suited to their needs. None of those quotes, not even from those Conservative and Unionist Prime Ministers, describes a right to choose as long as Westminster agrees. That is what disappoints me most today about Labour's amendment. Labour sought to remove and delete the section in the Government's motion today that the UK should be a voluntary association of nations and that it should be open to any point to choose by democratic means to withdraw, something that was lifted almost entirely from a report from the Labour Welsh Government, confirming quite the distance that the leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland, and I say leadership because I don't think that all of their members or voters will agree with the position that the STUC certainly does not, and that they renaig on what they signed up to in the Smith commission. They also renaig on the report that they just published in August last year, which said that the role of the Scottish Parliament is to be the expression of the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It is little surprise that the Opposition parties have not much enjoyed the tag of democracy deniers that have been levelled at them today, but to paraphrase Alistair Jacks' duck analogy, if they try to block a debate in this place about Scotland's democratic choice today, if they refuse to accept the result of the Brexit referendum in Scotland, if they refuse to accept the outcome of the last Scottish election and if they refuse to allow the people of Scotland to have their say over their future that they have voted for, then they are democracy deniers, Presiding Officer. It is not simply enough to say warm words about the rights to choose. Actions are needed. It has to be made real. There is no meaningful right to choose if the people of Scotland can simply perfunctorally be told by the UK Prime Minister no. Respecting the right to choose, putting the words that I have quoted into practice means coming to the table, entering discussions, accepting as we accept that while we may never agree about the ultimate destination of Scotland's constitutional journey, we agree that it is one for the people of Scotland who live and work here. The First Minister has made clear that this Government is ready to have those discussions. It is up now to the UK Government to come forward and respect the outcome of elections in this country. Derek Bateman was a great journalist, a committed supporter of independence and a thoughtful commentator. In one article, he argued that independence cannot be portrayed as a knee-jerk response to a limited freedoms and imposed restrictions. The point about independence, he said, is that it is the creation of the people, not the lawyers. The people decide, the lawyers draft and the politicians legislate. It is a national creed decour and he was absolutely right. The merits of independence are not for today. Independence gives us the chance to plot a different path that rejects austerity, utilises our undeniable natural resources, the talents of our people and make our economy work for our people by tackling poverty. The merits of independence are not for today, because today is not for us to decide. Today is about allowing the people of Scotland to take their democratic right to choose their own future. That used to be something that united us all, but it is for the people to decide their own future.


As Americans watch and try to process the information that's coming out of the January 6th public hearings one question that is obviously on all of our minds is Is this going to amount to anything? Will there be any accountability after they've exposed? So much criminality from Donald Trump including witness tampering just from a couple of weeks ago I mean he's been incredibly brazen so for Merrick Garland to let him off to not prosecute him would feel like a total Abdication of his responsibility as attorney general, but will he do it? And today we got a little bit clearer of an indication as to what Merrick Garland will or will not do and this is based off of a memo that he signed on May 25th now this was a story that was Published on MSNBC Rachel Maddow had a little bit of a breakdown. So here's some snippets from Her going over the memo that is really important on her show take a look This is a document that we have just obtained that has not been published elsewhere It is from Attorney General Merrick Garland. It is addressed to all Justice Department employees. It is dated May 25th 2022 so that's about eight weeks ago, but again, we believe the first time this document has been shown to the public As you can see it is titled election year sensitivities Department of Justice employees are entrusted with the authority to enforce the laws of the United States and with the responsibility to do so in a neutral and Impartial manner. This is particularly important in an election year now that the 2022 election season is upon us And as in prior election cycles I am issuing this memorandum to remind you of the department's existing policies with respect to political Activities and again, this is a memo that is from Attorney General Merrick Garland It has his signature on the top of it in blue ink and now get this Finally Department employees must also adhere to the additional requirements issued by the Attorney General on February 5th, 2020 February 5th, 2020 Governing the opening of criminal and counterintelligence investigations by the department including its law enforcement agencies Related to politically sensitive individuals and entities See Memorandum of Attorney General William Barr February 5th, 2020 Any questions regarding the scope or requirements of the February 2020 Attorney General's memorandum should be directed to the public integrity section February 2020 Trump Attorney General Bill Barr put out new guidance over and above what all attorneys general had previously said and What Bill Barr said in February 2020 was specifically that in essence Nobody's allowed to investigate anybody connected to a presidential candidate without his permission personally as Attorney General memos Barr's memo from February 2020 the language of it specifically it said quote no investigation including any preliminary investigation Maybe opened or initiated by the department or any of its law enforcement agencies of a declared candidate for president or vice president a Presidential campaign or a senior presidential campaign staff member or advisor Absent prior written approval of the Attorney General through the deputy Attorney General Trump Attorney General Bill Barr established that new rule in February 2020 No investigating any declared candidate for president or anybody working for that candidate unless I personally give my permission That new rule was established by Bill Barr when he was working for Donald Trump Merrick Garland has just formally extended that guidance and told every employee of the Justice Department that it is still in effect So overall there are primarily two implications in my opinion based on that the first is that Prosecuting Trump isn't necessarily out of the question per se for Merrick Garland It's just that he has to have the final say and a lot has changed since May 25th when he signed that memo However, the problem is that he firmly believes that Investigating somebody who is seeking political office makes the DOJ appear Hyper-partisan and he doesn't want the Department of Justice to have that perception therefore He doesn't want to investigate people running for office in other words if Trump runs for president again Not gonna do anything sorry because we don't want to come off as too political That in and of itself is a political decision, but it's also an act of cowardice and he's doing this For no good reason. He's following a standard put in place by Bill Barr why I mean this was put in place specifically to protect Donald Trump So Merrick Garland has no responsibility or obligation to adhere to that standard But for whatever reason he's choosing to do it anyway Look if I'm Biden, I'm exerting maximum pressure on Merrick Garland To resign if he doesn't do What's necessary and that is prosecute Donald Trump the evidence of criminality is overwhelming And so if you don't prosecute Donald Trump, then you are literally telling the American people that presidents are above the law And that standard is so absurd try to think of that applying to anyone else So if you're getting arrested and you just proclaim that you're running for president No, don't handcuff me. I'm running for president. Do you think that a cop is gonna comply with that?  It's preposterous Now the reason why this is an indication that Trump will not face accountability is because he wants to run for president He's made that incredibly clear in fact this article from Rolling Stone was published this week in recent months Trump has made clear to associates that legal protections of occupying the Oval Office are front of mind for him For people with knowledge of the situation till Rolling Stone Trump has spoken about how when you are the president of the United States It is tough for politically motivated prosecutors to get you says one of the sources who has discussed the issue with Trump this summer He says when not if he is president again a new Republican administration will put a stop to the Justice Department Investigation that he views as the Biden administration working to hit him with criminal charges or even put him and his people in prison The former president is motivated to announce early even before election day of 2022 in the hopes of clearing the field of primary rivals But GOP leaders including some of Trump's closest advisors don't want him to declare his intentions until after the midterm elections But as Trump talks about running the four sources say he's leaving confidence with the impression that as his criminal exposure has increased So has his focus on the legal protections of the executive branch So we're in this situation where we have a top presidential candidate for 2024 running again Not necessarily because he has a grand vision for the country or has any policy goals that he wants to execute He's running because he thinks that if he gets elected then he'll be above the law and unfortunately according to this memo He may be right about that Merrick Gorlin may actually view him as being about the law and because he's seeking office again He's untouchable because don't want to appear too partisan. I mean this is why Nobody respects the United States of America its own citizens View this country as having a two-tier justice system where peasants are arrested for committing crimes that elites will never See a day in jail for if they committed themselves and we're talking about sedition here we're talking about inciting an insurrection tampering with witnesses and All Trump has to do to escape culpability is run for president I mean Merrick Garland might actually be one of the worst attorneys general in American history just because of how feckless and shameless he is and trying to Cover for Donald Trump and this isn't the only area where he has continued Trump era policies Defended Trump cases or cases that the Trump administration has defended more specifically, but if this is it, you know where Trump is found to be Guilty potentially at least in the eyes of the public after the January 6th hearing exposes all of his crimes and Merrick Garland Just chooses to not do anything with that information I just don't know how trust can ever be restored in American institutions again and more importantly I don't see how Trump doesn't remain an office forever because if political leaders see That a leader a sitting president can quite literally incite an insurrection and try to steal an election and there's no repercussions whatsoever Well, they're gonna do that because if you have nothing to lose and you can remain in power and perpetuity Well, some demagogue who wants to be a dictator is going to do that.  You won't regret it