My topic for this morning is markets and prices. So before we hop in, I just kind of wanna think a little bit about what we want the economy to do, in a sense. And I think that Dr. Murphy did very well, saying that when we think about human action, what it's really all about is me as an individual, applying the resources I have at my disposal to accomplish my most important goals. So I have these various purposes in mind. Some are more important than others. I have various means at my disposal. I apply those means to attain my most important ends. And I think it's fair to say that when we are involved in a social economy, like we are involved with other people, that we'd like the economy to allow us as individuals to achieve our most important ends. So that that way I'm not just bound by the resources that I individually have in my pockets or in my house, but that if there's something say that you have, they'll be very valuable to me and I have something that would be very valuable to you. We now have the opportunity to exchange these things so that each of us can fulfill a more important goal than we could if we were totally isolated. So I think ultimately the goal of the economy is for us to use all of the resources available in our society to attain a maximum value in the eyes of us as the people using these resources. So I'm gonna suggest that the market and the pricing system that coordinates our behavior in such a way that we do actually do that. That is we do actually apply resources to the most important goals. Now first we have to kind of establish what do I mean by most important goals? Building on what Dr. Murphy said, remember that value is subjective. So we can think about something very simple like a box of chocolates. What is a box of chocolates really worth? Well, it depends who you ask. If you're say someone like me or I have a wife who likes chocolate, to me a box of chocolates is very valuable because I can then take it and give it as a gift to my wife and that makes her happy and that makes me happy and my life is much better. And other people may say, and the box of chocolates is worthless, it's not really good for your health, there's all the sugar and fat and various other things in it. It's just, it's on the whole, not good. Well, different people have these opinions and if as economists what I'm interested in is people's behavior, then I just have to accept, right? The value is subjective. Different people will disagree about the value of different things. And so value is then in a sense personal. That's what I mean by being subjective. Now we'd also add to this that how useful a particular box of chocolates is saying, on the way that I established this is by thinking about the order of different potential uses. So I'll just introduce, say, three different possible uses for a box of chocolates. So the most important thing that I might be able to do with a box of chocolates is I give it to my wife as a gift. I think she might be listening in on this, so I have to say that first. The second most important thing might be that I eat it myself because I also, it ends up really like chocolate. So that may be the second most important thing to me. A third most important thing is that I also have a couple of boys and I know my kids like chocolate because I'm not a very good father, so I give it to them anyway. So I give them chocolate and that makes them happy and it makes my life a little bit better for the few minutes before the caffeine kicks in. So I have these three different goals. One, giving a box of chocolates to my wife. Another, eating a box of chocolates for myself. Another, giving a box of chocolates to my children. And so here we can see I've established an order of different uses. And this would be the order in which I'd say rank their usefulness. First is the most useful thing I can do. Second is the second most useful thing. Third is the third most useful thing. Now, we as Austrians have a very specific technical name for what I just said. We'd say that utility, utility is really just a word for usefulness, is ordinal. That is it's all about an ordering of various uses. So usefulness is ordinal. I have one use is more important than another. That one is less important than some but more important than another still. Now this is important because a lot of economists in other approaches would say that no, utility is more cardinal and which means we can assign a specific number to it. So I can say that, oh, giving a box of chocolates for my wife is worth 15, having one for myself might be worth something like 12, giving one to my children is worth three, something like that. But what we find is that when we really think about people's decisions, we don't have to come up with these cardinal numbers at all. What really matters is the order in which these things are presented. If I have one box of chocolates, what am I going to do with it? It doesn't matter whether the numbers are 12, 7 and 3 or anything like that. What matters is what is the most important thing. So the order is sufficient for me to explain behavior. I'd also suggest that this cardinal approach is probably wrong. You ask most people, what is the value to you? They might give you a dollar figure in terms of what they're willing to pay for the thing.  Oh, okay, it's worth 12 happiness units or utils as economists might call it. Okay, so the ordinal approach is perfectly sufficient and will get us where we need to go. Next, I want to touch on the law of diminishing marginal utility. This is something that Dr. Murphy did very well presenting, so I'll present it again. And the reason that it's important is that it helps us explain really why some of the very early economists, people like Adam Smith in the late 1700s, got price theory very wrong. Because what ended up happening, we're going to show that usefulness in the end underlies pricing in the market system. And this is totally divorced from the approach that Adam Smith took. Adam Smith, he was looking at prices, he wanted to explain them, and he said, well, we have this problem. Do we know that water is very useful?  On the other hand, diamonds are basically useless. He was a good Scottish Presbyterian. Diamonds are frippery, they're basically worthless. But at the same time, when we look at the market, here I am in Scotland, water falls out of the sky on a regular basis, nobody is willing to pay for it. So it has a value of zero on the market in terms of prices. But at the same time, people are willing to pay huge amounts of money for a diamond. So he said, you can't have anything to do with usefulness then if something that's vital for survival were unwilling to pay for, while at the same time, something that's a frippery we're willing to pay a lot for. So there must be a separation according to Adam Smith between the exchange value or the price and its use value that is what I would actually use the painful. The law of diminishing marginal utility was essential in solving this paradox. And in fact, coming up with the answer that yes, it is usefulness that matters. So what usefulness exactly? Now, before I lay it out, let's just give some of the technical conditions. We talk about the law of diminishing marginal utility. First, we have to say we're dealing with homogeneous goods. What that means is that we have two different units of the good, so they could be exchanged with one another if they can fulfill the same purposes. So if I'm thinking about that box of chocolates again, for me to say that these two boxes of chocolate are homogeneous, means that they are equally able to satisfy the same list of goals. So I could give this one to my wife and she'd be fine. I give this one to my wife. It works just as well. It doesn't necessarily mean that the contents of the box of chocolate are exactly identical, just that it satisfies the same set of goals. So we have homogeneous goods. As long as we have that, but we can say with great confidence, as Dr. Murphy mentioned, that each unit in a larger stock has a lower value than each unit in a smaller stock. Now the reason for that is we can think, suppose that I don't have any boxes of chocolate, I would naturally be very sad, especially because my wife is very sad. But then you give me that one box of chocolate and suddenly my life has improved immensely. I can fulfill that most important goal. Now on the other hand, if you give me three boxes of chocolate, my life has still improved immensely. That's true. But each of these units isn't quite so important to me as that one when I only had one. Now the reason why? Let's imagine what happens if I lose a unit. If I only have one to start with and I lose it. Now I don't have a gift to give to my wife. And then I hear again about how I never get her gifts. I'm very dissatisfied with that situation. On the other hand, if I have three boxes of chocolate and one of them vanishes, I put them in the trunk of my van, the sun heats it up and it totally melts and is worthless for any use. I throw that box away. Then what has happened? Well, we know my use is most important, give the gift to my wife. I'm still gonna do that. I have two boxes of chocolate. Second most important, eat one myself. I'm still gonna do that. I have a second box of chocolate. The least important thing would be giving that I'm boxed to my children. Well, that's what I'm gonna give up. So that one box, when I lost it, made me lose something really important that is the gift for my wife. Whereas that third box made me lose something that is important but not as important as a gift for my wife. If we apply this to things like diamonds and water, if we're thinking about Scotland, I live in Northern Ohio, which has whether or not I'm like Scotland or water falls out of the sky on a regular basis, it pools in my backyard, plenty of water. Well, I have so much of it. Any particular unit, any say eight ounce glass, isn't that valuable to me? Now it's true, if I didn't have any water, if I was in the middle of the Sahara and somebody offered me an eight ounce of glass, that's very, very important. So we can then see why water in places like Scotland or Northern Ohio would be basically worthless in exchange. Having that one additional unit, which is the unit I would be buying in exchange, it's not that valuable to me. On the other hand, having an additional diamond, which are not very common in Northern Scotland or in Ohio for that matter. Well, in that case, having an additional unit might be very useful. At this point, I believe my wife owns exactly one diamond. And I think she'd be very happy with another diamond. I've not yet been willing to buy it, but it would be very valuable, certainly more valuable than an additional glass of water, which we can easily have thousands of where I live. So we have the law of diminishing marginal utility, which tells us then that if we have a larger stock, each individual unit of that stock isn't that valuable, compared to if we have a smaller stock. Now, following from this would be that that first unit we receive is more important than the second unit we receive. The first unit we receive goes to the most important thing, that first box of chocolates goes toward giving my wife a gift. Second box of chocolates goes toward a second more important thing, in this case, meeting myself. So it's the law of diminishing marginal utility as Austrians would present it. Now, this is different from the way you might hear it in say a conventional economics classroom, where there they might say open up the box of chocolates, have a student come to the front, say, okay, eat this piece of chocolate, student eats it and say, okay, how much happiness did that add to your life? Oh, 10, come up with some number. Okay, we give them a second piece of chocolate. How much happiness did that add to your life? Eight? Okay, I give them a third piece of chocolate. How much did that add? Until eventually they're eating the whole box, they're feeling sick, and they're saying, oh, I'm actually getting less happy the more that I eat. So we might think of this way of proving the love diminishing marginal utility, but this is notably not the Austrian way of thinking of it. It is not just that psychologically that we react in this way to getting more of the thing, it's that we have a list of uses and logically we're going to fulfill the most important use first with any unit that we get of the good and we'll move down that list as we get more units of that good. So it's not just a psychological thing. I actually did read a case where somebody did this, this psychological approach, and they gave the student pieces of chocolate and they never decreased. They apparently were just a chocolate lover. They could just eat an entire box of chocolates and it was a 10 every time. As far as Austrians are concerned, this would not disprove the love diminishing marginal utility because it's all about this list of usefulness, not about psychologically, how does it affect your sense of wellbeing or happiness? Are you satisfying a more or less important use? Now last point before we really get into price determination. It's just pointing out that we can rank not just say the first box of chocolates versus the second box of chocolates and the third, we can rank different goods on a preference scale. One of the things that I hear people say all the time that really irritates me is that you can't compare apples and oranges. Have you ever been to a grocery store? Have you ever decided, gee, I think I'm going to buy apples rather than oranges? If so, you've compared apples and oranges. You've decided this is in fact going to be more satisfying for the various goods I have, whether it be maintaining my budget or cooking apple pie or what have you, then the oranges would be, right? We can compare apples and oranges, which means then, when we think about our preference scale, we don't just put in say different ranks for first, second, third box of chocolate, we can also compare that with say first, second, third bag of apples or we could compare that with say $10, $9, $8, 10 I'd certainly prefer to nine, nine I'd prefer to eight and so on. If you have the opposite preference, rather of $8 than 10, talk to me afterward, we can solve that problem for you, right? But we prefer more money to less and we can compare, right? Money and oranges or money in boxes of chocolates. In fact, we know we do this all the time, right? Every time I go into the grocery store and I look in the candy aisle, which happens more often than it should, right? And I see, okay, it's $10 for this box of chocolates. What's really happening is that the grocery store is asking me, right? Which is more important to you, right? This box of chocolates we're offering to give you or the $10 you have sitting in your pocket. I'm being asked to compare money versus this particular good. And this then feeds directly into price determination. How do prices get determined? Well, in the end, what a price really is, right? It's just an exchange ratio, right? Between a sum of money and a good that is being exchanged for that money. So thinking again about that box of chocolates for $10. If I go and I say, yes, $10 for a box of chocolates, I'm willing to do that. My wife will be very appreciative. I'm willing to give up $10 for that box of chocolates. That is implying that to me, that that box of chocolates is more important to me than $10. So when I look at my ranking of values from most important to least important, that somewhere $10 is below that first box of chocolates. Right, so there's an inequality there. At the same time, the seller, in this case the grocery store, by offering to sell me this box of chocolates for $10 is indicating that they would rather have my $10 than their box of chocolates. So there's what we call a double inequality of value. That is, on my side of things, I consider this particular box of chocolates to be more valuable than the money I'm giving up. On the side of the seller, they consider that quantity of money to be more valuable than the box of chocolates that they're giving up. Now it ends up as a very important point. Because when you go back to the Smithian way of thinking about things, what then does exchange mean? And often we saw amongst the classical economists this idea that if we are exchanging $10 for a box of chocolate, it indicates there's an equality of value between the two. One of the projects I'm undertaking at the moment, because I have very poor judgment, is that I'm reading Marx's capital. This is the third time I've attempted, I've given up at least twice before. But this time I said, I'm going to go, I'm going to read Marx's Das Kapital and find out where he makes his mistakes. I found the first major mistake on page four. So it didn't take long, unfortunately, and that I guess provided some energy to continue with the project. And the mistake he made was exactly the one I just mentioned. He said, if we exchange a certain amount of gold, gold being the currency at the time, for a particular good, I think he was talking about thread or yarn or something like that, that indicates there's an equality of value between these two. And then he reasons further and says, well, what then is equal? Well, it must be labor. And then we end up with everything that we know is communist theory. But that point that he makes about this equality of value is exactly wrong. It's exactly wrong. Because when I pay $10 for that box of chocolate, what I'm really saying, again, is the box of chocolate's worth more to me than $10. They're not equal. Similarly, on the seller's side, what they're really saying is the box of chocolate is worth less to them than the $10. Again, they're not equal, because there is no equality of value whatsoever. In fact, we need the inequality of value for the exchange to happen. All right. So then taking this in mind, the way we would think then about say things like price determination, we have these exchanges, an exchange the buyer is indicating that they value the good more than the money they're asked to give up. The seller's indicating they value the money more than the good that they're giving up. So what is going to determine prices? We can imagine then in my value scale, I have my first unit, that gift that I'm giving to my wife, my second unit, we know it's somewhere below the first. I'm going to say it's also below $10. So when I see that $10 price tag, I'm willing to buy the gift for my wife, that box of chocolates, but I'm not really willing to buy one for myself. And down further, it'll be some price like $8 down further that I'm unit for my boys, right? Down further, something like $3. And so what does this then indicate? I'm willing to give up $10 because it's less important to get that gift for my wife. So $10, I'll buy one unit of the good. If instead when I walked into the grocery store, the price had been something like $8, I walk in there saying we'll sell you these things for $8 a piece. I say, well, I was willing to make 10 for my wife. So certainly I'm going to buy that one for eight. That's a great deal. Not only that, but the second unit, the one for myself is also worth more than $8. Let's all go ahead and I'll buy two units. Maybe they offer me a really low price. They're selling them for a dollar a piece, something like that. In that case, I might be willing to buy not just the first and second, but also the third, right? To buy this gift for my children. I said they can have chocolate as well. Okay. So we end up then with what I just described is really the law of demand. It indicates that all else equal, the lower the price is, the more units I'm willing to buy. And the reason is really just because we know that that first unit is going to satisfy the most important goal. So I'm willing to pay more for that first unit than I would be a second unit. For me to be convinced to buy that second unit, you have to drop the price enough for I'm willing to do it. At the same time, third unit, you have to drop the price even more and on down we go. This is the law of demand. It ends up we can also reverse everything we've done to come up with the law of supply. So now we imagine, say that I have a bunch of boxes of chocolates, say three of them, and somebody's thinking about trying to buy them from me. So we know, because I have a lot of them, that last unit, the one that I would feed to my boys, isn't worth that much to me. If they offer me say six or seven dollars, that's a six dollars, I'm willing to sell it too long. Now for them to convince me to sell them, the gift that I would give to my wife, they have to offer me substantially more. So we then end up with the relationship that to convince me to sell more of the good, you have to offer me a higher price. Or stated then as the law of supply, the higher the prices that offered, all else equal, the greater quantity is going to be offered for sale by suppliers. Okay, so demand we have this inverse relationship between the level of prices and the quantity that people are willing to buy, high prices, people don't buy much, low prices, people will buy more. Supply on the other hand, we have a direct relationship at higher prices, our suppliers are willing to sell more of the good. So then how do we end up with prices in the economy that we have? Well, I'd suggest that there are really three possibilities when we're first putting a price tag on an item. One possibility is that we price in a sense too low. So we price really low. So we say, I don't really want to sell much of this good. I'll get rid of it for say $3 or something like that. But this attracts a huge number of buyers. So lots of buyers want to buy lots of the good. So what do I see? I see immediately, I sell out of this good, people comes ahead, do you have any more chocolate? No, no, we're sold out. Now in the economy as we run it in the United States, we know that we don't have much negotiation with most of our sellers. I don't go into the grocery store and say, let's talk down or talk up prices that are posted. We just kind of accept the posted price. But it's very believable that the supplier is going to see that they're regularly selling out of boxes of chocolate and say, well, might be worthwhile for me to both stock more of this good and also charge a higher price. I'm only gonna stock more if I can charge a higher price. I'm selling out so quickly, looks like I can get away with it. People really want this good. So if we price in such a way that the quality demanded is far beyond what is supplied by suppliers, there's going to be a natural tendency for prices to rise from that point. Or we can imagine exactly the opposite. We could say, perhaps the store is very optimistic about the quantity they can sell. They say, we're willing to sell a lot as long as the price is really high, say $20 per box. And then they see that it just kind of sits there. They're on the shelf, these boxes of chocolate, nobody's buying them because the price is simply too high. At this point, the supplier may say, well, I would like to sell at least some. So if I lower the price, maybe I'm going to attract more potential buyers. So we put things on sale, clearance, these types of things. We lower the price, either temporarily or permanently. And that does in fact, convince some people to go ahead and buy. If you're not asking me to give up as much, then the use that I'm fulfilling doesn't have to be as important for me to go ahead and pay the price. And so in that case, we have these very high prices where we have lots being offered for sale, not so much being bought. But there'd be a tendency for these prices to fall. Now, the last possibility would be that maybe we price in such a way that the quantity that is being offered for sale is basically equal to the quantity that is being purchased. In this case, all of our buyers and sellers are perfectly satisfied. We don't have these lines of people waiting for chocolate that isn't there on the shelf. Nor do we have chocolate on the shelf going unsold. We have what we would call an equilibrium. That is where we would expect this to maintain stability. There's no natural reason that things would have to change from this point. And in the end, this is where we'd expect prices would come from. That there is this process of demand and supply interacting over time as we discover the prices that will lead us toward that stable point. The last point I wanna turn to, we really need to talk about it because it's very easy to say, well, this all sounds well and good for things that I as a consumer get direct value out of. I like to give gifts of chocolate to my wife. I like to eat it myself. My kids like to eat it and I like to give that gift to them as well. But what about things that are not directly useful? What about things like cocoa beans? I've never eaten a cocoa bean and I suspect it would not be a pleasant experience for me. I think it would probably be overly bitter for me. And so I really wouldn't value this directly. So how then do we end up with prices for cocoa beans? Because we know that they have prices and we know that machines that we use to process chocolate and like also have prices, though it's not something I'd want to buy to put on display in my house or anything like that. It doesn't have a direct use that is satisfying my ends directly. And so how is it that we end up with these prices? Now here, Austrians appealed what we call the theory of imputation, which suggests that the price of something like cocoa beans or these various machines needed to process cocoa beans and chocolate, that price ultimately comes from the demand for the end good. In this case, the demand for chocolate. So we know that cocoa beans have a number of uses. We can grind them up, turn them into chocolate bars or boxes of chocolate. We could also turn it into say hot chocolate mixes which are also valuable. We could turn it just into cocoa powder which I may buy so I can put it in cakes or something like that. And so we have these various uses for cocoa beans and each of these uses has some price based on the direct use that consumers expect to get out of the thing. So then I as an entrepreneur would look at these various prices. Let's say okay, if I can sell this box of chocolates for $10, that's going to limit what I'm willing to pay for cocoa beans for the machinery that I need to process these cocoa beans into chocolate and the like. So the value of these various factors of production, my workers, the materials, the capital, the land that I build my factory on is going to be limited by the price that I expect to earn. And not only is it limited by it but once we have a competitive process. So we have lots of different entrepreneurs out there. Some are making cocoa powder, some are making chocolates, some are making other things but using the same materials. Now the bidding process is going to be such that whoever thinks they can get the most value out of this resource is going to be willing to pay the most for it. So as a result, the price is then going to approach what is the value of that particular good in that use by looking at the final good. Now here we can note that there should then be some kind of connection between what is the price of the final good and what is the end cost of production. So if we expect our consumers are going to pay something like $10 for that box of chocolates then I'm willing to pay $10 adding up all of the resources minus a little bit for the amount of profit that would be reasonable. So I might say be willing to pay $9 or something like that for all of these materials. So then I entered into this competitive process and if this is the most valuable use of those resources then we'd expect the prices to get bid up to something close to $9 which means the resources would not go toward things that are less valuable than that $9. So then we'd end up resources are going toward the uses where people are willing to pay the most but what I'm willing to pay is really based on how valuable this thing is to me in terms of the goals that it helps me to pursue. Now there is kind of an opposite way of thinking of this which I would suggest is certainly fallacious is to think of what we call the cost of production theories which I think Dr. Murphy did allude to. And so the cost of production theory would suggest the way that prices appear on markets for goods is that producers produce the thing, find out what their costs are and then add some kind of return to it. In practice it may often feel this way but in the end we would know that this would not actually sustainably explain prices. The reason being we can imagine cases but probably my favorite case is the glass sword. And yeah, Pawn Stars if you've not watched it it's a great show about economics. It stops being great after about a season. But it's people that run this pawn shop, people come in offering to sell them weird things and this one person came in and said, well I made this glass sword as far as I know it's the only one in existence. So one would think in terms of diminishing marginal utility it should be very high except it ends up that even the most important use for a glass sword isn't very important compared to most things. So I'm willing to sell you this glass sword and the pawn broker just turned him down so there's no way that I'm gonna be able to resell this thing because he understood that in the end it's really the consumer's value that determines the price you can charge. So it doesn't matter how much money, how much time, how much effort you pour into producing this glass sword you're not going to be able to charge cost plus to a consumer if they don't want the glass sword that doesn't help them satisfy their goals. And so while we may see a connection if you have resources that help you satisfy really important goals those resources will go for a fairly high price. The reason is that entrepreneurs are bidding up the prices of those resources because it's going to command a high price for the product. It's not the other way around that the valuable resources then lead to high prices for the good. Okay, so then we can see just kind of taking a look back. In the end it's really our uses for the various consumer goods to determine the prices of those consumer goods. It's the prices of those consumer goods then determine what entrepreneurs are willing to pay for the factors of production. And thereby we end up with factors of production going toward wherever they're going to be most useful that is most profitable for the entrepreneur. So in the end we end up in this economy through the pricing system with resources going toward the places where they will achieve the maximum value in the eyes of consumers. Thank you very much. Thank you.


The next item of business is a statement by Nicholas Sturgeon on independence referendum. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. Nicholas Sturgeon, First Minister. Presiding Officer, the campaign to establish this Parliament was long and hard. It was rooted in the belief that self-government would improve the lives of those who live here, a so it has proved. There were, and still are, honourable differences about the ultimate destination of Scotland's self-government journey but all who campaigned to establish this place were united in and by this fundamental principle. The democratic rights of the people of Scotland are paramount. That principle of self-determination was encapsulated by these words in the Scottish constitutional conventions claim of right. The sovereign rights of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. When the late cannon Kenyon Wright, who led the convention, addressed Westminster's refusal to accept the democratic demand for a Scottish parliament with this question, what if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying we say no and we are the state? His answer, well we say yes and we are the people, was simple but powerful and it is as relevant now as it was then. Last May the people of Scotland said yes to an independence referendum by electing a clear majority of MSPs committed to that outcome. The democratic decision was clear. Two weeks ago the Scottish Government started the process of implementing that decision with the first in the building and new Scotland series of papers. That paper presented compelling evidence of the stronger economic and social performance relative to the UK of a range of independent countries across Europe that are comparable to Scotland.  Scotland over generations has paid a price for not being independent. Westminster Governments we don't vote for, imposing policies we don't support too often holding us back from fulfilling our potential. That reality has rarely been starker than it is now. The Conservatives have just six MPs in Scotland, barely 10 per cent of Scottish representation, and yet they have ripped us out of the EU against our will. They have created the worst cost of living crisis in the G7 and saddled us with the second lowest growth in the G20. They are intent on stoking industrial strife, demonising workers and provoking a trade war. Businesses and public services are struggling for staff because freedom of movement has been ended. Our young people have been robbed of opportunity. The Scottish Government will do everything in our power to mitigate the damage, but that is not enough. Our country deserves better. Yet this Parliament, looked to for leadership by so many across Scotland, does not have the power to tackle the root causes of the financial misery being inflicted on millions. We lack the full range of levers to shape our economy and grow our country's wealth. We are powerless to stop our budget being cut. We cannot block the Tory's new anti-trad union laws or stop them tearing up human rights protections. We are not able to restore freedom of movement. While we invest billions in measures to help with the cost of living, tens of thousands of children can be pushed deeper into poverty at the merest stroke of the Chancellor's pen. It does not have to be this way. Independence is about equipping ourselves to navigate the future guided by our own values, aspirations and interests. It is about helping us to fulfil our potential here at home and play our part in building a better world. That does take more than a changing of the guard at Westminster. I fervently hope that the Tories lose the next election that they thoroughly deserve to. On the big policy issues of our time, from Europe to migration, to human rights and fairness for workers, Labour is more a pale imitation than a genuine alternative. Labour will not take Scotland back into the European Union or even the single market, and neither will the Liberal Democrats. They will not restore freedom of movement for our young people. They will not prioritise tackling child poverty over investment in nuclear weapons. I have asked that there are no interruptions during the First Minister's statement. I would be grateful if we could have some silence. Independence will not always be easy. It is not for any country, but independence will give us the opportunity to chart our own course, to build a wealthier, greener, fairer nation, to be outward looking and internationalist, to lift our eyes and learn from the best. Now is the time at this critical moment in history to debate and decide the future of our country. Now is the time to get Scotland on the right path, the path chosen by those who live here. Now is the time for independence. This Parliament has a clear democratic mandate to offer Scotland that choice. The UK Government regrettably, however, is refusing to respect Scottish democracy. That is why today's statement is necessary. The UK and Scottish Governments should be sitting down together, responsibly agreeing a process, including a section 30 order, that allows the Scottish people to decide. That would be the democratic way to proceed. It would be based on precedent, and it would put the legal basis of a referendum beyond any doubt. That is why I am writing to the Prime Minister today to inform him of the content of the statement, and in that letter I will also make clear that I am ready and willing to negotiate the terms of a section 30 order with him. What I am not willing to do, what I will never do, is allow Scottish democracy to be a prisoner of Boris Johnson or any Prime Minister. Members, there should be no interruptions. Thank you. Any interruptions. Thank you. Presiding Officer, the issue of independence cannot be suppressed. It must be resolved democratically, and that must be through a process that is above reproach and commands confidence. That is why I am setting out today the actions that the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate will take in the absence of a section 30 order to secure Scotland's right to choose. My determination is to secure a process that allows the people of Scotland, whether yes, no or yet to be decided, to express their views in a legal constitutional referendum so that the majority view can be established fairly and democratic. The steps that I am setting out today seek to achieve that. They are grounded in and demonstrate this Government's respect for the principles of rule of law and democracy. Indeed, those core principles—respect for the rule of law and respect for democracy—underpin everything that I say today. Respect for the rule of law means that a referendum must be lawful. That, for me, is a matter of principle, but it is also a matter of practical reality. An unlawful referendum would not be deliverable, even if it was, it would lack effect. The outcome would not be recognised by the international community bluntly. It would not lead to Scotland becoming independent. It is axiomatic that a referendum must be lawful. However, my deliberations in recent times have led me to this further conclusion. The lawfulness, or otherwise of the referendum, must be established as a matter of fact, not just opinion. Otherwise, as we have seen again in recent days, Opposition parties will just keep casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process so that they can avoid the substantive debate on independence, which Scotland deserves, but they so clearly fear. That is not in the country's best interests. Let me turn then to the detail of the steps that we will now take to secure that objective of an indisputably lawful referendum, and then ensure that, from today, we can focus on the substance of why Scotland should be independent. I can announce, first of all, that the Scottish Government is today publishing the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. I will draw attention in particular to three key provisions of the bill. Firstly, the purpose of the referendum, as set out in section 1, is to ascertain the views of the people of Scotland on whether or not Scotland should be an independent country. In common with the 2014 referendum, indeed in common with the Brexit referendum and the referendum to establish this Parliament, the independence referendum proposed in the bill will be consultative, not self-executing. Just as in 2014, and recognised explicitly in the 2013 white paper, a majority yes vote in this referendum will not in and of itself make Scotland independent. For Scotland to become independent following a yes vote, legislation would have to be passed by the UK and Scottish Parliaments. There has been much commentary in recent days to the effect that a consultative referendum would not have the same status as the vote in 2014. That is simply wrong, factually and legally. Let me be clear. The status of the referendum proposed in this bill is exactly the same as the referendums of 1997, 2014 and 2016. The next provision of the bill, I wish to draw attention to, relates to the question to be asked in the referendum. The bill states that the question on the ballot paper should be, just as it was in 2014, should Scotland be an independent country. Finally, the bill includes the proposed date on which the referendum should be held. In line with the Government's clear mandate, that is a date within the first half of this term of Parliament. I can announce that the Scottish Government is proposing that the independence referendum be held on 19 October 2023. The key elements of the referendum legislation that the Scottish Government wishes the Parliament to scrutinise and pass. Let me turn now to the aim of establishing, as fact, the lawfulness of a referendum. As I have already indicated, I consider to be of the utmost importance. I will start with what we know already. We know that the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to pass this bill in the absence of a section 30 order is contested. We know that legislative competence can only be determined judicially. We know that, for as long as there is no judicial determination, opinions will differ and doubt will continue to be cast on the lawful basis for the referendum. That benefits only those parties opposed to independence, because it allows them to avoid the substance of the independence debate. Finally, we know that if this Parliament does seek to legislate without a section 30 order, the bill will go to court. That is inevitable. The only questions are when it ends up in court and at whose hand. If the issue of legislative competence remains unresolved at the point of formal introduction of a bill, the UK Government will almost certainly use section 33 of the Scotland Act to refer it to the Supreme Court after it has passed. It is also possible that one or more private individuals will lodge a judicial review of the bill. Indeed, it was reported last week that Tory supporters are already planning to do so. A challenge by private individuals could also go through successive courts and so be a very lengthy process. Either way, at the point of Parliament passing the bill, there would be no certainty about when or even if it could be implemented. A court challenge would still lie ahead and the timetable that I have set out today would quickly become difficult to deliver. Between now and then, claim and counterclaim, good-faith arguments and bad-faith fearmongering about so-called wildcat referendums will continue to muddy the water, cast up doubt and taint the process. That may well suit politicians opposed to independence, but none of it would be in the interests of the country and none of it would serve democracy. The fact is, neither legal opinions nor political arguments will resolve this point. We must establish legal fact. That is why, in my view, we must seek now to accelerate to the point when we have legal clarity, legal fact. Crucially, in doing so, I hope to establish and safeguard the ability of this Parliament to deliver a referendum on the date proposed. It is to this end that, some weeks ago, I asked the Lord Advocate to consider exercising the power she has under paragraph 34 of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act to refer to the Supreme Court the question of whether the provisions in this bill relate to reserved matters. That is a power exercisable by the Lord Advocate alone, not by Scottish ministers collectively. Whether or not she does so is accordingly a matter solely for her. However, I can confirm that the Lord Advocate has considered this request. She has taken into account the following factors—this Government's democratic mandate, the constitutional significance of this issue, the fact that the bill does raise a genuine issue of law that is unresolved, and the importance of ensuring that this Government and Parliament act lawfully at all times. She has now informed me of her decision. I can advise Parliament that the Lord Advocate has agreed to make a reference of the provisions in the bill to the Supreme Court. Indeed, as I speak, the process for serving the requisite paperwork on the UK Government by lawyers and messengers at arms is under way, and I can confirm that the reference will be filed with the Supreme Court this afternoon. Whether or not the reference is accepted, how long it takes to determine and what judgment is arrived at are, of course, all matters for the Court to determine. I accept that, as I have made clear throughout this Government respects the rule of law. However, by asking the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Court now, rather than wait for others to do so later, we are seeking to deliver clarity and legal certainty in a timely manner and without the delay and continued doubt that others would prefer. Obviously, it is this Government's hope that the question in this bill, proposing a referendum that is consultative, not self-executing and which would seek to ascertain the views of the Scottish people for or against independence, will be deemed to be within the legislative competence of this Parliament. If that outcome is secured, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the referendum is lawful. I can confirm that the Government will then immediately introduce the bill and ask Parliament to pass it on a timescale that allows the referendum to proceed on 19 October next year. It is, of course, possible that the Supreme Court will decide that the Scottish Parliament does not have power to legislate even for a consultative referendum. To be clear, if that happens, it will be the fault of Westminster legislation, not the Court. Obviously, that would not be the clarity we hope for, but if that is what the law establishing this Parliament really means, it is better to have that clarity sooner rather than later. What it will clarify is this. Any notion of the UK as a voluntary union of nations is a fiction. Any suggestion that the UK is a partnership of equals is false. Instead, we will be confronted with this reality. No matter how Scotland votes, regardless of what future we desire for our country, Westminster can block and overrule, Westminster will always have the final say. There will be fewer stronger or more powerful arguments for independence than that, and it would not be the end of the matter far from it. I said earlier that two principles would guide what I said today—the rule of law and democracy. Democracy demands that people must have their say. Finally, in terms of process, let me confirm this. Although it describes a scenario that I hope does not arise, but if it does transpire that there is no lawful way for this Parliament to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence in a referendum and if the UK Government continues to deny a section 30 order, my party will fight the UK general election on this single question. Should Scotland be an independent country? Members, if I may, I think that it is important, regardless of the content of any statement, that we adhere to parliamentary standing orders and that we continue to hear the statement without interruptions. The path that I have laid out today is about bringing clarity and certainty to this debate. Above all, it is about ensuring that Scotland will have its say on independence. I want the process set in train today to lead to a lawful constitutional referendum and for that to take place on 19 October 2023. That is what we are preparing for. However, if the law says that that is not possible, the general election will be a de facto referendum. Either way, the people of Scotland will have their say. The Lord Advocate is now referring the question of legality to the Supreme Court. That need no longer be the subject of sterile political debate. Indeed, the subjudice principle and our own standing orders demand that the arguments on competence now be made in court and not here in this chamber. That means that we can and we should now focus on the substance. That is what this Government intends to do. In the weeks and months ahead, we will make the positive case for independence, we will do so with commitment, confidence and passion. Let the opposition, if they can, make the case for continued Westminster rule and then let the people decide. Presiding Officer, to believe in Scottish independence is to believe in a better future. It involves an unashamedly optimistic view of the world, the belief that things can be better than they are now. Above all, it means trusting the talents and ingenuity of all of us who live here, no matter where we come from. It is not a claim to be better than anyone else. It is about looking around at all the other successful independent countries in the world, so many of them are smaller than we are and without the resources we are blessed with and asking why not Scotland. Think of all our talents and advantages, unrivaled energy resources, extraordinary natural heritage, exceptional strengths in the industries of the future, brilliant universities and colleges, a highly skilled and creative population. There is no reason at all that an independent Scotland would not succeed. Nothing in life is guaranteed, but with hard work and the independence to chart our own course, Scotland will prosper. The people of Scotland have told us, all of us in this chamber, that they want the right to decide. Presiding Officer, today we have set out the path to deliver it. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members wished to ask a question where to press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I wonder if that SMP applause was to make up for the people in the public gallery actually walking out, as the First Minister was speaking. Nicola Sturgeon is at it all over again. Her eye is off the ball once more. The real priorities of people across Scotland are on the back burner. Instead, the First Minister is putting her plans to divide Scotland front and centre. Nicola Sturgeon has shown again today that the SMP's selfish obsession with another divisive referendum is always their top priority. Nicola Sturgeon will use Government time and resources to further her plan to break up the country just when we need to be pulling together and working as one. All of our focus should be on tackling these huge challenges that we face right now—helping families with their bills, supporting frontline services and creating good jobs. A potentially illegal referendum next year is the wrong priority for Scotland. Members, we will hear Mr Ross. Well, SMP members are unhappy about that. It is being referred to the court because the legality of it is not known. Therefore, it is a potentially illegal referendum, and it would distract away from our recovery. It will damage our efforts to rebuild the country after Covid. It is also the last thing a clear majority of Scottish people want. The First Minister speaks of fear, but what concerns all of us is the price Scotland pays for her continued obsession with another referendum. We will not play Nicola Sturgeon's games. We will not take part in a pretend poll when there is real work to be done—real work on the global cost of living crisis, real work to invest in public services, real work to rebuild our economy. Those are our priorities, and they are the real priorities of people across Scotland as well. Instead of focusing on the right priorities, Nicola Sturgeon is railroading this Parliament into talking about the SMP's obsession. On the First Minister's watch, this is becoming a do-nothing Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed today that she will introduce a bill for another independence referendum, but what is she doing about the country's top priorities? Nothing. Education, no bills. Drugs, no ideas. Ferries, none that float. That is Nicola Sturgeon Scotland, and this Parliament is beginning to be a Parliament that does not get to act on the people's real priorities—a Parliament that only exists to further the SMP's interests. A do-nothing Parliament with a First Minister obsessed with another referendum at all costs. Why should the people of Scotland's real priorities be put on the back burner for another device that is damaging an independence referendum? At the last count, Douglas Ross had three jobs. He may be a do-nothing MSP, but this is certainly a do-much Parliament. Douglas Ross has also demonstrated a parent inability to listen to what we said in the statement. I know that the legality of a referendum passed by this Parliament without a section 30 order is contested. That is why I have asked the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court so that that can be put beyond any doubt. A referendum that goes ahead will be indisputably legal because the Supreme Court will have deemed it so. At that stage, any claims about boycotts will sound even sillier than they do now and demonstrate one thing and one thing only—the Conservatives of no confidence in the arguments for the continuation of the union. We have a strange conundrum in Scotland where the Tories suggest that nobody in Scotland wants the opportunity to choose independence in a referendum, yet they have somehow managed to elect a majority of MSPs in this Parliament who propose an independence referendum. Douglas Ross also says that a clear majority do not want independence. Can I gently suggest to him if he was confident in that he would be desperate to put the question to the people of Scotland in a referendum? My plans are to equip this Parliament and this country with all of the powers and all of the resources that other independent countries take for granted and that we need to navigate the challenges that Scotland in common with the rest of the world face right now. The truth is Scotland is paying a price for not being independent, ripped out of the European Union in the single market completely against our will, suffering one of the worst cost of living crises in the developed world because of that higher inflation than any other G7 country, lower growth than any G20 country other than Russia. We are seeing children pushed into poverty by a Conservative Government that we did not elect. Scotland needs independence to better navigate those challenges so that all of the focus, all of the power, all of the resources of this Government and future Scottish Governments can be on exactly that, addressing the priorities of the Scottish people in line with mandates given by the Scottish people. It is important to establish the legal basis of your referendum, but it is also important to consider the timing, the context and the effect. I think that the First Minister gave the game away in the latter part of our statement. This is actually all about the general election and the SNP having some relevance in it than actually about the Scottish people. It is important to recognise the context of the election campaign last year. We were still a country living under Covid restrictions. Over 10,000 of our fellow citizens had lost our lives. Nicola Sturgeon said during that campaign that people who did not support a referendum or independence through the recovery should vote for her safe in the knowledge that Covid recovery would be her priority. Covid has not gone away and our recovery has not even started. Since that election and when Nicola Sturgeon gave that pledge, 4,000 more Scots have lost their lives. 43 in the last week have died due to Covid. There are over 700,000 Scots on NHS waiting lists. Over 10,000 children and young people waiting for a mental health appointment. Almost 20,000 fewer businesses in Scotland today than when the pandemic began, and this week the ons warned that inflation could reach 11 per cent, meaning higher bills and the deepening of the cost of living crisis. For households across the country, it does not feel like the crisis is over. Is it not the case that the pandemic Nicola that Sergio Sturgeon wanted to pull us through is gone and the partisan Nicola Sturgeon that wants to divide our country is back pursuing a referendum that two thirds of Scots do not want right now? Worse still, is she not using the thank you she was given and the promise she made to lead us through the recovery to instead pit Scots against Scots and focus on her priority, her obsession and her purpose? Frankly, Scotland deserves better. First Minister, democracy is not pitting anyone against anyone. Democracy is allowing the people of the country, all of the people of the country to choose. That is not just the right way to resolve differences of opinion on the constitution, that is the only way to resolve these differences of opinion. It does not surprise me to hear the Conservatives say differently. It still surprises me to hear Labour set its face so firmly against that fundamental concept of democracy. Anna Sarwar said that it is all about the context and the timing of a referendum. He may have more credibility in saying that if his position was not exactly the same as the Tories, which is that Scotland should never get the right to choose independence in a referendum. The First Minister standing here is the First Minister who does and who always has believed that the right thing for Scotland to have the powers, the levers, the resources in our hands to chart our course in line with our values, our interests and the aspirations, ambitions we have for the country. I do not want a recovery in the mould of Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. Anna Sarwar is right that Covid has not gone away, but I tell you what has happened. A Westminster Tory Government that we did not vote for has taken the funding for dealing with Covid away from this Parliament. We are seeing a Chancellor take money away from the poorest in our society. The way to build a recovery, the way to build the kind of country we want, that Anna Sarwar and I probably agree on, is to put the levers and the control of that in the hands of the people of Scotland. That is what independence is about. As long as Anna Sarwar and his party set their face against that, then I suspect they will continue to struggle in the way that they have over the last decade and more. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Well, here we are again. What an appalling waste, what an appalling waste of energy and focus this is. Frankly, I can think of better uses of our time. Presiding Officer, I am not alone. I am sure that those waiting for cancer care in the longest queue on record can think of better uses of our time. Those children suffering long Covid left disappointed after they waited to meet her in the cold outside Parliament this afternoon can think of better uses of our time. The island ferry passengers, the Ukrainians stuck in hotels, those victims of violent and sexual crime left waiting for justice can all think of better uses for our time. Presiding Officer, the First Minister is putting disquiet in her party ahead of the needs of this country. So can I ask her why her fixation with breaking up the United Kingdom will always trump the needs of the people that we are all here to serve? First Minister. Presiding Officer, we have so many Ukrainians here in Scotland right now in the process of being given refuge because we fought to get a super sponsor scheme in order to speed up the process for those fleeing the war in Ukraine. We would be able to give more refuge to people fleeing conflict and famine from around the world if we were not trapped in a hostile environment immigration policy by a Government that we do not vote for and does not have the support of people across Scotland. Yes, it is this Government's responsibility to support the NHS and through recovery. It is this Government's responsibility to deliver for long Covid patients. I pose the question, are we going to be better able to do that or not in charge of our own budgets and resources or still subject to a Government that cuts the budget of this Parliament at every opportunity? Finally, Presiding Officer, it is not that many years ago that Alex Cole-Hamilton and I were actually on the same side of a debate in the Brexit referendum when he told people across Scotland rightly that Brexit would be a disaster and so it is now proving, but the difference between Alex Cole-Hamilton and I is that his party no longer even says that it would try to take Scotland back into the European Union. While I do not want to give up on that European ideal and aspiration, now the only route for Scotland back into the European Union and to the European family of nations is by becoming an independent country. Before I go on to the next question, Members will wish to be aware that I have 20 Members wishing to ask a question in a 20 minute period. I will certainly do my best to get through as many questions as possible, but Members, we are going to have to focus on more concise questions and responses. I call Graham Day to be followed by Donald Cameron. Following the 2014 referendum, Opposition parties promised through the Smith commission that there was nothing preventing Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. Does the First Minister therefore share my view that it is completely indefensible for the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer and Opposition members in this place not to respect that pledge and the clear mandate that is secured by the Scottish Government for our referendum to be held on Scottish independence? Of course, in the 2014 referendum, the leaders of the no parties at the time said power lies with the Scottish people and it is for the Scottish people to decide how Scotland is governed until Scotland might take a decision that they do not like and then they think their right is to block it. Of course, the Smith commission said that there was nothing in it that prevented Scotland from becoming independent. The truth is that Opposition parties in this chamber will always try to block an independence referendum. They do not do that out of concern for the country, they do that because they fear the debate and the verdict of the Scottish people and independence. I was reminded the other day that in June 2017, the Conservative Government said this, and I have the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail from June 2017, we will block a referendum for five years, they said. Here we are five years later and they are still blocking a referendum because they fear Scottish democracy and they fear the verdict of the Scottish people on independence. Given the centrality that the First Minister calls to the Lord Advocate in this process and having set the precedent a few years ago with the continuity bill, will the First Minister, as a matter of urgency, commit to having a Lord Advocate herself appear in this chamber to answer questions from MSPs on the legality or otherwise of the proposals that the First Minister has just outlined, given that subjudice rules do not apply in Scottish proceedings until parties' pleadings have been finalised? I can't and won't seek to commit the Lord Advocate to do anything because she acts independently. On this matter, the power that she has agreed to exercise is one of her retained powers under the Scotland Act, but I'm sure that the Lord Advocate would be more than happy to answer questions from MSPs, but can I just make clear this point? The course of action that has been set out today is to ask the Supreme Court to opine on the legality of a referendum, not to make it the matter of opinion, even the matter of very esteemed legal opinion, but to get that judgment from the Supreme Court to put the lawfulness of a referendum beyond any doubt. I cannot imagine how anybody in this chamber could find anything in that aspect of my statement to disagree with in any way she performed. Does the First Minister agree with me that I cite him the fact that it is our sovereign right as Scottish citizens to determine the democratic path our nation will take, that the current cost of living crisis where the most vulnerable in society are consistently being failed by the UK Government and recognising that the Scottish Government is doing more than any other UK administration to tackle poverty and support hard-pressed households? Does the First Minister think that all of this serves to highlight just how important it is for the Scottish citizens to exercise their democratic right to decide which Government they can trust to address this urgent crisis and a recovery from the pandemic via a referendum on independence? First Minister, that is the nub of the matter. In my view, the right to self-determination is absolute. Scotland has a right to self-determination and the minute another Government tries to dictate when or how often that right can be exercised, it ceases to be a right to self-determination. But this is not just abstract. Independence is about addressing better the key challenges we face as a country and being able to better fulfil our full potential as a country. Others will argue, as they have done today, that this somehow distracts from those challenges and the priorities that many of us share. On the contrary, independence is about giving us the wherewithal to better meet those challenges. On the cost of living, as I have said already, much of the world is facing a cost of living crisis, but in the UK it is being deeply exacerbated by a Brexit imposed on Scotland against our will. That is the price of not being in charge of our own destiny, that is the price of not being independent and people across this country are paying that price right now. Independence is about enabling us to fulfil our full potential. It is exactly about the priorities of people across this country. First Minister, even SNP voters do not want a referendum on your timescale. They want action on the cost of living crisis and they need action now, not division, deflection or excuses from your Government, which actually has the powers to deliver the support and change they need, so they do not have to choose between heating and eating, fuel poverty, predates Brexit and the pandemic. First Minister, how does a referendum in just under 16 months help those people who cannot afford their bills now? Never mind this autumn or never mind winter and when will your Government take responsibility and use the powers you already have to the max? First Minister, well of course we are using these powers. Let me set out how we are using the powers just in this particular regard right now. Benefits that Social Security Scotland is in control of are increasing by 6 per cent rather than 3 per cent, so we are putting more money into people's pockets. Many of these benefits of course do not exist anywhere else in the UK. They have been established just in Scotland because we are using the power that we have, most importantly the Scottish child payment. A child payment of that type does not exist in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It exists in Scotland because we are using our powers. But what are the root causes of the cost of living crisis when it comes to energy? It is fuel prices, it is the energy market, all of that is reserved to Westminster Governments. In direct answer to Sarah Boyack's question, what difference does it make? By being able to exercise these powers ourselves, we can do more than just mitigate, we can address some of the root causes of the problems people are facing. That is what independence is about. It is empowering this Parliament and this country to take the real action that people want on these priorities. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Of course, for the opposition, the time is never right. Will they use every opportunity to deny our democratic mandate for an independence referendum? Can the First Minister confirm that building a new Scotland will ensure that the national conversation heard of the referendum will be of the high standard, informed an example of open democracy in action? We will again invite opposition members to drop their empty posturing against the referendum's mandate and instead join the debate. The building a new Scotland series of papers will continue. It will set out the positive case for independence. It will take on and answer the tougher questions and challenges that people want to see answered. It will all be about the substance of the choice that we are asking people to make. It is perfectly legitimate in this chamber, in the democracy that we live in, that people have different views and that people will want to make the opposite case, and therefore my challenge to the opposition. The issues of process will now be determined, I hope, through the Supreme Court. Let's have the debate on substance. I and my colleagues will make the case for independence. Why do they not come and make the substantive case for Scotland continuing to be part of the union? I suspect that I know the answer to that question, Presiding Officer, but let's have that debate on substance, and then let's do the democratic thing. Let the people decide. This statement proves beyond doubt that the Scottish Government is committed to delivering on its democratic mandate and giving the people of Scotland the opportunity to build a fairer, greener, independent nation. The very same Conservative party that has been rejected here time and again is now trying to stop that democratic exercise aided by a Labour party, which seems equal intent on obstructing Scottish democracy. Does the First Minister agree that pro-independence parties winning more seats and more votes than our opponents is the gold standard of democratic mandates for putting Scotland's future in Scotland's hands through a referendum on our independence? The mandate for an independent referendum, Ruskellry, is absolutely right to point this out, that exists in this Parliament, is stronger than any mandate for Brexit that ever existed in the UK Parliament. The mandate is undeniable. The only question is whether opposition parties and the UK Government are prepared to respect Scottish democracy. So far they haven't, which is why I have set out the path today. Scotland has the right to choose. I want that to be in a legal constitutional referendum, that is the path that I have set in train today. But come what may, Scotland must have the right to choose independence, because that is the right of self-determination. Michelle Thomson, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Scotland should believe that she is hopeless, helpless, worthless, voiceless. This is the ambition that the unionists have for Scotland. Their belief that they can prevent the Scottish people from having a vote in Scottish independence is based on the fundamentally undemocratic idea of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament and the denial of the principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Does the First Minister agree that attempts to block this right to self-determination and the sovereignty of the people of Scotland cannot be sustained, while simultaneously attempting to claim that democracy matters? I absolutely agree with that and it won't be sustained. The UK is either what we have always been told it is, which is a voluntary union of equals or it is not. It is a structure where Scotland has no legal democratic right to decide a different path from. That cannot be sustainable. That is about the right to self-determination, but more than that it is about the willingness of politicians who disagree legitimately to let the people decide and to respect that democratic process and that democratic outcome. I heard some unionist politician, I can't remember which one they all begin to sound the same after a little while, in recent days say that the thing is that they'd worked it out that I didn't really want a referendum and I didn't think that we would win one if we got one. Do you know what? I suspect if any of the unionist parties actually thought either of those things were the case they'd be rushing to call my bluff. So there's an invitation today to all of them, Presiding Officer. Come on, call my bluff. I call Rachel Hamilton to be followed by Jim Currie. Thank you Presiding Officer. General Sir Patrick Sanders, in his address to the Royal United Services Institute think tank, says his singular focus is mobilising the British army to help prevent the spread of war in Europe by being ready to fight and win alongside our NATO allies and partners. Presiding Officer, these are serious times. Putin continues to invade Ukraine. We have a cost of living crisis due to a global inflation and public services are trying to recover from the pandemic. Now has been the time every year for you, First Minister, but why is it that your constitutional obsession is more important than global peace, security and recovery? First Minister, that is utterly shameful and I think people across the country will see it as that. All of us stand united behind the people of Ukraine and none of us should seek to use their plight and the horror they are living through for our own political ends. I tell you this, Presiding Officer. We do live in very, very serious times, which is why I want to see Scotland and independent Scotland being truly internationalist, rejoining the European family of nations and playing our full part, albeit as a relatively small country and trying to build a better world for today and for future generations. I really do not believe that the response to what is happening across Europe right now and the gravity of that moment is in our own country to try to block democracy. Quite the reverse is the way to respond to that. I congratulate the First Minister and the Cabinet for delivering the voice of the people first, because Westminster is clearly intent on destroying the idea of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations. A Tory UK Government with only six MPs from Scotland supporting this issue by Labour is seeking to deny the democratic right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future. The First Minister shares my concern and anger that the total disdain for the democratic will of the people of Scotland. Why is the people of Scotland so afraid of respecting the right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future? The refraids have allowed people to choose their own future in Scotland because they are afraid and they suspect that when people get that opportunity they will choose to be independent, because in the years since 2014, of course, we have seen all the things that were promised by the no-campaign turn to dust. We have seen many of the things that the no-campaign said would happen if Scotland voted yes. It happened because Scotland didn't vote yes, chief amongst those, of course, being taken out of the European Union against our will. More and more, they say that the best way to build the Scotland that we want to see is by being in charge of our own destiny and not having that governed by politicians like Boris Johnson, that nobody even in this Parliament thinks is fit to be Prime Minister. That is why the Opposition wants to block Scotland's right to choose, because they think that Scotland will make a choice that they do not like, but that is not democratic. How can the First Minister give serious attention to addressing the fact that sexual crimes have increased by 15 per cent the highest since 1971? Initially, I know that she cares deeply about resolving the crisis in legal aid and the fact that the Morall Police Scotland is so low that we are losing hundreds of police officers. If most of her government's attention is going to be focused on preparing the arguments for independence, does that mean that you expect to put these issues on hold for the next 16 months? I think that the people of Scotland have the right to know. First Minister, no, of course it doesn't. If that is the best the Opposition can do, then clearly they are going to struggle to sustain a position in this debate. After the years of my party being in government, we have crime rates that are at their lowest level since 1974. This Government, with the support of Parliament, has passed legislation on domestic abuse to make it more possible for people to get justice before the courts. We are supporting our justice system into and through recovery from Covid, but I come back to the central issue. We are going to be better able to build public services that we want to see to support the recovery of our public services if we are in charge of the resources that we have to do it. Rather than being in the position that we are in right now, where we are having budgets cut and constrained by a Westminster Government that we did not elect, the case for independence and the priorities that I am sure Pauline McNeill and I agree a great deal on. Those are two sides of the same coin. It is about equipping this Parliament and this country to better meet those challenges that we face. We have several Members who would still wish to put a question. I will try to get to the end of this list, but I would be grateful for more concise questions and responses. I call Sandesh Gulhane to be followed by Joe Fitzpatrick. Presiding Officer, one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. This morning, new stats reveal cancer waiting times are the worst on record. But what are we talking about this afternoon? Another divisive referendum. First Minister, someone waited 277 days for treatment. In Glasgow, someone waited 210 days. First Minister, when will you realise that a referendum is the wrong priority? When will you shift the focus away from division and grievance and on to real issues such as addressing these dire waiting times and preventing the resultants and totally unnecessary deaths? First Minister, this Government is focused on supporting our NHS, supporting our public services, supporting the country through the remainder of Covid and, of course, through the recovery from Covid. Every single day, we focus on these priorities in common with Governments elsewhere. Health services in countries across the world are dealing with these challenges. I come back to this central point. A Government, a Parliament, a country that has the full powers and resources of independence is always going to be better able to meet these challenges than one that has one hand tied behind its back. My apologies. I now call Jenny Minto, who will be followed by Joe Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As MSP for Ireland Bute, I am regularly reminded of the valuable contributions that EU nationals make to our communities. I am also very aware that the tourism and hospitality industries that have relied on EU nationals coming to our Ireland Bute for work have struggled to fill job vacancies post Brexit. So could the First Minister advise us to the Scottish Government's plans to rejoin the European family of nations on our independence? The Government wants to see Scotland rejoin the European Union and the European family of nations. That is one of the key benefits of independence. Indeed, independence is now the only possible route for Scotland to do that. We know that there will be processes and independent Scotland requires to go through to achieve that. Indeed, one of the papers that we will publish in the series that I have already referred to will set out the route to that in more detail. However, the key point that is understood across Scotland is that without independence there is no route back to the European Union, because not only are the Tories against that. We now disgracefully have the position where neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats want to take Scotland back into the European Union or even the single market. They are now happy to allow the damage caused by the Tories to continue. That demonstrates that the only route for Scotland back into Europe is by becoming an independent country. Joe FitzPatrick to be followed by Daniel Johnson. The First Minister has already mentioned the Scottish child payment, which has been delivered by Social Security Scotland from its headquarters in the yes city of Dundee. Can the First Minister say more about how the powers of independence would enable this Parliament to go much further to deliver a fairer, more equal society, and to improve people's lives, like we see in so many compatible countries in Europe and beyond? I think that that is one of the biggest arguments for independence, has been in charge of our own resources so that we can dedicate all of our efforts to tackling poverty and in particular lifting children out of poverty. We can illustrate that, the fact that we have only partial power over Social Security, we can illustrate how that does hold us back. This Parliament, using its limited devolved powers, has established the Scottish child payment and of course now decided to double and then extend it further. That is lifting thousands upon thousands of children out of poverty, but at the stroke of the Chancellor's pen, £20 a week was taken away from families on universal credit, pushing children back into poverty. We need all of the powers of a Social Security system to make sure that everything that we do is lifting children out of poverty, rather than the situation that we have now, that everything that we do is undermined by a Government pulling in the wrong direction. Daniel Johnson, to be followed by Siobhan Brown. Could the First Minister clarify a point of process lying behind this statement? Did the Lord Advocate refuse to certify the referendum bill as being legally competent, and is that why the Lord Advocate is taking it to court, rather than being brought before Parliament today? First Minister, I am not going to breach the ministerial code by getting into legal advice, but what I have said out today—I think that members should listen to this point, because this point is really important. I asked the Lord Advocate to consider exercising the power that she has under schedule 6 of the Scotland Act to refer this matter to the Supreme Court. The reason I did that is that I know that the power of this Parliament is contested. If the ministerial code was otherwise, even if I was to bring forward and publish a dozen legal opinions on competence, the Opposition would say, ah, but that is only an opinion. The referendum is going to be illegal, and they would undermine the process. I think that it is better to ask the Supreme Court for its judgment on the lawful basis of the referendum, and then nobody can gain say that, because it is no longer a matter of opinion, it is a matter of legal fact. Siobhan Brown, to be followed by Oliver Mundell. As MSPs, we are all acutely aware that Scotland currently faces a workforce crisis throughout every industry and sector. With an ageing population, it is impossible for us to magic up people to fill all these roles. Does the First Minister agree with me that only is Scotland becoming independent with normal powers such as immigration, employment law, energy and borrowing powers, just to name a few, that we can start to recover from the Covid crisis and also really start to address the cost of living crisis? If I do regularly to individuals, to people in public services, to businesses across the country, one common theme will emerge. That is a shortage of labour, making it more difficult to tackle the backlog in our national health service, making it more difficult for businesses to recover. That has been caused and exacerbated by the ending of freedom of movement, which has come from us being taken out of Europe against our will, and it comes from a highly restrictive and, in many cases, deeply inhumane immigration policy. Scotland needs to be able to determine our population, and we need to be able to determine who can come to the country so that we can grow that population, because that is in the interests of our economy and our public services and society more generally. The only way to do that is becoming independent with the powers that independence brings in that regard. That is another key argument for taking those powers out of the hands of Westminster and putting them into the hands of this Parliament. Oliver Mundell, to be followed by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Did Westminster have the final say on 18 September 2014? First Minister. Westminster and, in fact, all of the better-together parties in this chamber ahead of the referendum in 2014, of course, said that if Scotland voted yes, we would be taken out of the European Union. Then, of course, we were taken out of the European Union, because we did not... That is an important point. Oliver Mundell probably did not mean to be helpful in that question, but he has been. I will come back to that in a second. The UK that existed in 2014 does not exist now, because we are out of the European Union. One of the many reasons why people in Scotland should have the choice is that, in the lead-up to 2014, the then Westminster Government did respect democracy and agree a process with the Scottish Government that had us accept that we disagreed, but nevertheless agree a process that would allow the Scottish people to decide. If this Westminster Government had any respect for democracy, that is exactly what it would be doing. I think that Oliver Mundell has put his finger on the deeply undemocratic nature of the Westminster Government in office right now. Christine Grahame. Does the First Minister agree with me that Unionist opposition in here has got nothing to do with a mandate and it has actually got nothing to do with now is not the right time? It is actually never. Defending a permanent veto by one partner nation to prevent another partner nation from simply exercising its right to choose its constitutional future and, in those circumstances, does the First Minister agree with me that opposition parties in here should be ashamed of themselves? The First Minister. On so many matters, Presiding Officer, I agree with that. On this matter, yes, it is entirely legitimate for us to disagree on the merits and the substance of independence. That is the stuff of democracy. What it is never acceptable to do is to try to block democracy because you fear the outcome of the democratic choice people will make. That is what the Conservatives are doing. Shamefully, it is what Labour and the rather misnamed Liberal Democrats are doing. But the right of people of Scotland to self-determination is there and it will be exercised. Point of order, Jackie Baillie. It is clear to me that the Lord Advocate has been unable to sign the referendum bill, which is why it has not been introduced to Parliament. The important issue is that the First Minister was in the position of answering questions on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Given that the referral to the Supreme Court is an independent process, free from the influence of the First Minister, then surely the Lord Advocate should make a statement to this chamber and answer questions about that process. Would the Presiding Officer, as a matter of urgency, consider that alongside the bureau? Thank Ms Baillie for her point of order. I have no doubt that the bureau will consider that in due course. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 timetable.