Scottish Government Debate: Scotland’s Right to Decide - 22 September 2026

First Minister, apologies to the 30 or so members who are I was unable to take today. The next item of business is a debate on motion 1264 in the name of John Swinny on Scotland's right to decide. Members wishing to speak should press the request to speak buttons now. >> Point of order. Malcolm offer >> Ding officer understanding orders rule 1.1 Scottish Parliament established by the Scotland Act 1998 and schedule 51B of Scotland act 98 states explicitly that the union is a reserved matter. >> So resign officer >> under under rule 7.4 for section five. >> And do you consider it inappropriate to allow this debate on reserve matters? And will you now close this meeting of parliament? >> No. >> 21. You're ready. On the 23rd of November 2022, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously the Scottish Parliament does not have legislative power to hold an independence referendum without consent for Westminster. So again, under rule 7.4 section 5, do you agree the Supreme Court ruling must take precedence and this meeting should be closed? >> Mr. This is a this is a parliament and this is a parliament and parliaments are free to debate whatever subject they wish including this one. When you're ready sir I welcome the opportunity to open this debate today and I move the motion that stands in my name. The right of the people of Scotland to decide the future of their country is a vital question to debate because that principle is fundamental to how we see Scotland, to what Scotland is. And the debate at this moment is ever more vital because for the first time since 2014, we are debating this question with the explicit acknowledgement from the UK prime minister of the principle that Scotland should have a referendum when it is likely that people would vote for independence. That matters. It matters because regardless of members constitutional positions and I recognize that not all will share my view, the prime minister is finally recognizing recognizing how unsustainable the recent Westminster position has been. My hope therefore is that instead of the cursory dismissal of these arguments, we can begin a meaningful discussion about where power lies across these islands. Let me start. Of course, >> I'm curious. When the first minister changed his mind, before the election, he said the S&P would have to have a majority. Now, he says that doesn't matter anymore. So, when is he going to stick to his manifesto commitment that be an SMP majority before you demand another referendum? >> The the the point I was making the election campaign was that in in 2014 the the referendum took place because the SNP had won a majority in that parliament and it was it led to that referendum in 2014. But what we all have to accept today is that at this moment in time there is the largest number of members of the Scottish Parliament elected on a commitment to support independence and to have a referendum on independence. And that issue is fundamental to our debate and should be respected by the United Kingdom government. I'll give way to Mr. Ren. >> Mr. Renie. >> So simply, why did he not say that before the election? >> What I did before the election was provide the the mech the reliable mechanism that would break the log jam. What the people said was we want this parliament to have the largest number of independent supporting MSPs. And that's what they elected on the 7th of May. Let me let me start presiding officer by saying something that I hope we can all agree on. Although this evening's vote will test that premise. Scotland is a nation and its people have the right to decide their future. >> And the UK is a voluntary union which means that its nations can stay part of it or they can choose their independence. These two things were once accepted right across the political spectrum in Scotland. Indeed, they were recognized in the debates that led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament by its first first minister Donald Dur right at the founding of the Scottish Parliament. It was recognized in the Smith Commission in 2014 when it was agreed by all parties that, and I quote, "Nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future, should the people of Scotland so decide, if we are equal partners in this union, something often repeated by the better together parties during the referendum campaign, indeed by the founding partners of this parliament, then Westminster alone does not call the shots. The right of the people of Scotland to decide their future belongs to the people of Scotland, not to any politician or to any party. >> Yeah. >> No, just shouting. >> Just shouting. Okay. And and essentially the views of the people, let's remember what has happened over the years when the people of Scotland are given the chance to choose who represents them in their national parliament. For the fifth election in a row, a party supporting independence has won. For the fourth election in a row, a majority of MSPs support independence. For three elections in a row since the independence referendum, and for two elections in a row since the Brexit referendum, a majority of MSPs elected support independence. And in May, the people of Scotland elected the largest independence supporting majority in the Scottish Parliament's history. Support for independence is growing, moving from 45% in 2014 to now regularly over 50% of people in Scotland. The issue of Scottish independence commands significant levels of public support. It's an issue that must be addressed. The people must choose about independence. I'll give way to Craig Hoy. Craig, >> I thank the first minister for giving way. I know he does not like her name being mentioned in this chamber. What does he say to Nicholas Sturgeon who in 2021 said it was possible to vote for the SNP and not be voting for independence? First Minister, >> what what what I would say what I would say to to Craig Coy in response to his point is that the SNP set out our aspirations for Scotland to be an independent country for that choice to be exercised by the people of Scotland. And I'm now in this parliament leading the debate on behalf of the Scottish government to make that a reality of Scotland deciding on Scotland's own future. People who Will you give away? >> Of course, >> Steven K. >> We all understand it's been John Swinn's obsession since he was a youth to break up the United Kingdom. But will But will he will he accept? Well, I think it is an obsession because he's obsessed about it and he obsesses every time he stands up about it. Well, where are they all exactly? No, I would ask I'd ask John Switty to please be real except when the people of Scotland are asked to give their priorities, their greatest concerns. Right now in Scotland, independence isn't even in the top five, maybe not even in the top 10. Would you not agree that that's the real picture of concern in Scotland about his obsession? >> First Minister, >> when when people in Scotland are asked for the issues that are affecting their lives like the cost of living like the ability to um to secure lower energy bills, for the ability to be able to travel freely in Europe as they used to be, or whether they want to see greater investment in our public services. All of these issues are affected by the question of independence because they're about controlling the resources, the wealthy resources of our country to create a wealthier and a fairer Scotland. That's why people want independence to address the key issues that people face in our society. So that is the argument that responds to Mr. K's point that people the issues that are of relevance and concern to people's lives are addressed by Scotland having the ability to tackle those issues under the powers of our parliament. And if we look at an example, let's take an example of all of this. My central mission in this government is to eradicate child poverty. Mr. Mara's amendment today relates to these questions. And because of the decision making of the ability of this government, we've been able to reduce child poverty in Scotland through measures we've introduced under powers that we have that we acquired since the 1999 establishment of this parliament. That illustrates that with more power here, we can improve the lives of people in Scotland. Independence is about doing that on more issues that affect the people of our country. repres people who support constitutional change in Scotland and who want to see independence look to the situation in the north of Ireland to see that there is the people there have a legally enshrined right to vote on their future in certain circumstances and when voters in England want constitutional change the dominance of their MPs in the House of Commons means that they can get it but people in Scotland and indeed in Wales have no recognized guaranteed way to vote for change. That cannot be right. Clear support for constitutional change in Scotland and across the nations of the United Kingdom has got to mean something. The refusal of the UK government to even engage with this question of our right to decide could not hold. Presiding from my part, I want to do what I can to break this log jam. But I want to do so not just on behalf of those who want independence, but on behalf of all the people of Scotland in including those who are not yet convinced of the case for independence and those perhaps who don't think they ever will be. I recognize the concerns that those opposed to independence have. And I want to hear their views in this debate, too. and I will hear their views because I believe that while we might disagree on where we want our country ultimately to go, we can all agree on the right of the people to decide on the case for democracy. >> Now, we hear a lot in this debate about political division. But what could be more divisive a proposition than saying to half the people of the country that there is no way, no matter how you vote or how often you do it, for you to make a change, for you even to be given the opportunity to make a change. That is the fundamental democratic point that parliament has before it today, which is why I believe the prime minister's words in the House of Commons on the 9th of September are so important. Presiding. It's not just on these seats that there is agreement. There should be a mechanism in place that sets out the terms of having another referendum. In the last parliamentary term, the Constitution Europe External Affairs and Culture Committee conducted an inquiry that concluded and I quote, "It is problematic that no established mechanism exists for ensuring that in appropriate circumstances, the wishes of the people can be expressed." now in the aftermath of the Labour leadership election at the weekend and I take this opportunity to congratulate Michael Mara on his election and to wish him and his family well as they take forward their new roles. I welcome the recognition by Mr. Mara on the right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future and for there to be a means of demonstrating that right. That is an important development in this debate. Other members of the Labour Party have commented on this question. Brian Leechman MP speaks I have no doubt for others in Labor ranks when he says quotes we should lay out the democratic route to having another referendum. Now members will be aware that I wrote to the prime minister inviting him to meet so that we could turn the accepted principle into an agreed legal mechanism for a rep a referendum. He is for the time being unwilling to do so. But that position cannot hold. My party believes it's for the people of Scotland to decide when there is an independence referendum and we welcome the UK prime minister's recognition of that principle. The prime minister has now agreed that Scotland can have a referendum when the people of of Scotland express a clear desire for independence. I take them at that word and I think there are two issues that are relevant in that respect. Firstly, I believe the people of Scotland made clear their desire and I rehearsed this point with Mr. Renie in the interventions, their clear desire to address this question in the election of the largest number of MSPs to this parliament who support Scottish independence and the holding of a referendum on that question. But second, over this parliamentary term, we must demonstrate increasing support for independence, increasing support for the fresh start for our nation that will get us back into the European Union and give us vital control over our energy resources so that we can lower bills. And I hope in the spirit of dialogue and engagement and in terms of the position that the prime minister has adopted that he will respect the fact that we are a sovereign nation with the right to decide our own future and as democratically elected politicians we must ensure Scotland has that choice. I hope that the prime minister will cooperate in this work not only because of what he said at the start of this month but because of what he said in 2022. And again, I quote, "In terms of a referendum, I'm not going to say no, not ever. I'm not going to use that language." It's the end of the quote. I fully intend to hold the prime minister to his word. And I hope that today there'll be some indication around this parliamentary chamber of the recognition and acceptance of the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future. Presiding officer, in 2014, the people of Scotland, in an exercise of their sovereign right to decide their constitutional future, chose to stay part of the UK. But just because >> But just because a right has been exercised once does not mean it can never be exercised again. >> If the people of Scotland themselves want the opportunity to ask the question again, who has the right to stop them? After all, by 2029, it's estimated there will be over a million people in Scotland who did not have the opportunity because of their age to vote in 2014. A million citizens of Scotland. And in 2030, people will start to turn 16 and become eligible to vote in a referendum who were not even born when the independence referendum was held in 2014. That is significant demographic change. But it's not just change in Scotland's population that matters. It is change in what we are voting for. Since the 2014 referendum, we've seen Scotland's place in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom and Scotland's place in the world change beyond recognition. Scotland removed from the European Union against our will. Devolution itself undermined and overridden again and again. Westminster choices that feed division and extremism instead of facing them down. In short, the country that people voted to stay part of in 2014 is no more. Westminster does not work for the people of Scotland. It never has and it never will. And the UK cannot will not give either the security or prosperity we need in this fast changing world. For these 1 million Scots, for all Scots, our fundamental right to decide our nation's future remains. The right to choose the security and prosperity that comes from being a nation state, a member state of the European Union, in control of our vast energy resources, in control of our own destiny. That is a winning combination. That is the fresh start that Scotland will choose and the fresh start that Scotland needs. Mr. Swinny, I'm afraid we missed whether you moved your motion at the start. >> Thank you. >> I call Michael Mara and in doing so welcome him to his position as leader. >> Thank you presiding officer and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you for the kind words and to the first minister for his uh upon my election as Scottish Labor leader and the kind good wishes from across the chamber including the benches of different parties. It's a very personal reminder to me that just because we don't agree on everything it doesn't mean we can't agree on anything. Um as the country looks to this place for solutions to the very significant issues impacting on every place in Scotland on the cost of living on opportunities for young people on secure work, good housing and better public services is incumbent on all of us presiding officer to find that common ground and work together to address these fundamental issues in people's lives and to deliver change now. And this is something we should all consider amidst the heat of a constitutional debate. The first thing I did upon my election on Saturday was to write to the first minister seeking his support in establishing a cross party commission to meet the child poverty targets that this parliament wrote into law. We are set to meet a miss uh we're set to miss those child poverty targets by a mile. And I think this parliament's priority should be getting us back on track to recommmit ourselves today to that commitment and to change the lives of children right across this country. It is disappointing, but not surprising that the S SNP has a different priority. That priority isn't really independence. And frankly, it's not even securing another referendum. This debate, the annual debate, I believe, is about managing the first minister's party, not leading the country. Every single supposed step forward for the independence cause since 2014 has been a step up a hill for supporters who the S&P will briskly march back down again. And honestly, presiding officer, I believe that those people deserve better than that. I know many people who voted yes in 2014. I count them amongst my friends and amongst my family. I believe we can be a fairer and stronger nation without being a separate state. I don't believe we have to risk our currency, our defense, our markets and our budgets to deliver a more equal and just Scotland. We disagree on that and it's okay. Supporting independence is a perfectly honorable political position to hold. So too is believing that Scotland is better placed as part of the UK. But I think of the people I know who support independence and I feel sympathy not for their political choice but for how comprehensively the S&P government has failed them for the last 12 years. In this regard, every 6 months or so, normally when an election or an S&P conference is on the horizon, people are told that independence is just around the corner. All it requires is one more push, one more heave. None of the reasons that independence lost in 2014 have been addressed. Still no answers on currency, on borders, on defense, on public spending. Instead, there are photo ops and fundraising drives. And I believe the people who vote for the SMP deserve better than that. If you read the Herald newspaper today, First Minister, it's entirely apparent that SMP members also agree with me. >> First Minister, >> I'm grateful to Mr. Mara for his for taking the intervention. I wonder how Mr. Mara explains then the choice of the public in the election in May to elect the largest number of independent supporting MSPs to this parliament. What does he say to the to the people who elected a parliament of this character and who wish to take forward the agenda upon which we were elected? >> Michael Mara, I thank the first minister for the intervention and I would refer them to some of what Mr. Renie has said already that you first minister clearly so sorry through the chair the Mr. the first minister clearly set out his position prior to the election that would require a majority of SMP MSPs in order to have a referendum and I don't think we as a parliament should participate in the goalposts being moved again because this leadership always wants to take that easy route rather than doing the hard yards. There has always been a route to another referendum presiding officer. John Swinny knows it. Nicholas Sturgeon knew it. And Humza Ysef knew it. 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, the settled will of the Scottish people and make it overwhelming. That's how the case for devolution was made and was won. Not at the moment, sir. No one can seriously suggest that since 2014 that work has been done by those in positions to do it. And why not? Because it's easier easier and more immediately useful to manufacture grievance than it is to build consensus. And while SMP supporters have been repeatedly let down by this sherad, the whole country has suffered too. I want to see a stronger Scotland and a changing UK. But in the 12 years since the referendum, Scotland has gotten weaker under this S&P government. Our NHS, our education system, our economy, even our parliament itself. And the S&P leader who secured the referendum understood the value of good governance to his party's founding cause. Alex Sammon understood that the S&P was founded with twin aims of independence and to advance Scotland's national interest. None of this is to say, presiding officer, that power is being wielded in the correct places in Scotland. This place hoards too much power, money, and control at the expense of Scotland's communities. I want to see a new generation of devolution deals that redistributes power, wealth, and opportunity out of this place and into Scotland's regions. This parliament was never meant to hold on to power. Donald Dur said it wasn't an end, but a means to greater ends. And those greater ends were social justice. Which brings me back to the letter that I sent to the first minister on Saturday. This parliament can choose to do what it now always seems to do, to divide itself along constitutional lines, to point fingers at each other and get nothing done. And that would further demonstrate to the people of Scotland that parliament is not serious about addressing the real concerns in Scotland. Certainly >> Ross Greer. Uh, I'm grateful to Mr. Mayor for taking the intervention. There's some of what he's saying that I agree with. What he's proposing is a commission to come up with new policies that we can collectively agree to tackle child poverty. Some of us in this parliament have been doing that every year for the last decade through annual budget negotiations. The Liberal Democrats have done it. The Greens have done it. The S&Ps, the party of government have done it. Labor announced they were abstaining on the budget before it was even published. Is Mr. Mara confirming today that the Labor Party will take a significantly different position in these ongoing negotiations going forward because I would certainly welcome that. I think I thank Mr. Greer for his intervention and I've already had a conversation directly with the first minister about the potential we can see to find common ground between the Labor Party and other parts of this uh chamber whether it be on the budget and on other issues and I'm sure the first minister will hold me to those words in the conversations that we have in the months ahead. I would say to him though in terms of the deals that he has struck and other members of the parliament that they haven't worked. We are going to miss those targets by a country mile. So we have to reassert those targets today and commit to a process that's going to get us there. I'm sorry sir I'm running um out of time but I do um apologize. So we can vote together to recommit ourselves to the work to lift children out of poverty and that's the future that I want Scotland to be able to decide upon. My values are for equality, for a stronger Scotland, for the good life for working people. These are Scottish values, and I believe they're Labor values, too. That's what Labour's motion seeks to do today. Not to divide us for the sake of headlines, but to bring us together around the common purpose of freeing Scottish children from chains of want that they might live their fuller fuller life in a better country. I move the motion in my name and encourage the Parliament to support it. For the record, Michael Mara has moved amendment 1264.2. I now call Malcolm offered to speak to and move amendment 1264.3. 10 minutes, please. >> Uh, thank you, deputy presiding officer. Let me begin by congratulating Michael Mara on becoming leader of Scottish Labor. Uh I welcome his call for an all party summit on child poverty and reform will contribute positively to this key initiative. Similarly uh we welcome his proposal on education stats and reform will support his motion when he puts it to this chamber. Deputy office turning to the motion before us today. No Scott would disagree with the statement that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future. But on the union, most Scots say, "We already decided that question in 2014." >> And two million Scots voted to remain 2 million Scots voted to remain in the UK. Let me finish. Versus 1.6 million to leave the UK. That question was settled for a generation. So why are we even debating this today? Perhaps you can answer. >> Thank Malcolm offered for taking intervention. He says that nobody in this chamber would disagree with the principle of the right of the people of Scotland to decide. And yet he made two points of order before the start of this debate to try and stop us from actually talking about having a debate on Scottish independence. >> Mr. >> which proves the point that when this was done in 2014, it was done with consent with Westminster and Hollywood in agreement with all parties agreeing to have that. This is not anything like that in this case. So, deputy presiding officer, my only conclusion is we're having this debate is because the S&P has actually given up on Hollywood and the privilege, the privilege, the privilege to serve Scotland by actually running this country well. That's why there's no focus on our faltering economy, our failing education, or our struggling NHS. Instead, it's back to the same old tactics of distraction and division. Deputy pres presiding officer, is it just a coincidence that independence is back on their agenda just as support for John Swinn's SMP falls to an all-time low? Because in May because in May in May the S SNP recorded an S SNP that recorded it lowest vote total, lowest vote share and lowest MSP tally since 2007. Presiding officer, this debate is not just a farce. >> It's an insult. It's an insult to Scottish electorate who expect their politicians to deal with serious issues in their communities. I'll give way >> Alan Brown. I >> I thank him for taking another intervention on SNP votes here in May. Does he accept we'll have first of all in the parliamentary democracy and that parliamentary democracy the SNP is far and away the biggest party in this place and also has got the biggest gap between the SNP and the second party. I don't ever remember him complaining about parliamentary democracy when he was a lord sworn about Scotland as a Scottish office minister with not a single vote behind him because we are lord presiding officer. This proves the point of how pointless this debate is. The reality the reality 2 million Scots You can laugh. 2 million Scots didn't vote didn't vote in the Hollywood election. That's what they think of this place and less than a million voted for the SMP. >> What what the Scottish electorate require in Hollywood is that politicians deal with serious issues in their communities like the shocking homelessness stats out today and no doubt the record drug deaths to be announced tomorrow. Not to mention the 5 billion black hole in our public finances. Deputy presiding officer, these are the serious matters of government. In contrast, this debate is ill judged, self-s serving and wholly inappropriate and no wonder two million Scots did not vote in the recent Hollywood election. Deputy presiding officer, I asked uh for understanding orders to have this debate ruled ultravirus. As that did not happen, reform won't engage further in these pointless proceedings. We didn't come into this parliament to waste our time on vanity projects and therefore I withdraw my amendment and we will exit from the chamber. Thank you. Thank you. I call I call Ross Greer to move amendment 1264.5. >> 8 minutes please. Mr. Okay. Yeah. >> Members, we need to um move on with the debate. Could I please have Ross Greer Uh would the uh presiding officer be minded to give speakers the time back please? >> We'll manage the debate in the usual way where we have time in hand. Uh can I call Ross Greer 8 minutes please? >> Thank you presiding officers. Uh, I uh I hope the parliament arms across the road. I've got extra staff on this afternoon. Get the impression they might be busy. Um, before I forget, presiding officer, I move the amendment in the name of Jelly Mai, who sends her apologies. She's not able to be here this afternoon. I'm glad that the debate this afternoon is not it's not just about the question of Scottish independence. I'm proud of the Scottish Green's position in favor of putting our country's future in our own hands. And I'll talk about that more in a minute. But today is about a more important principle than that. One that those of us left should be able to unite around. Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future. Concise, to the point, and a principle that every Democrat should surely agree to. It's a principle that all parties agreed to in 2011. It's what led to the referendum in 2014. But it's a position that parties have agreed to for longer than that, much longer. In fact, I'll just read the first line of the 1989 claim of right for Scotland. We gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations, their interests shall be paramount. Presiding officer, our journey of self-determination, our journey of national democracy didn't end in 2014. Democracy isn't a one-off event and it has no fixed end point. Whether we do become an independent nation or not, that is not the end point of Scotland's expression of democratic will. I absolutely respect unionism as a political position, much as Mr. Mara outlined his respect for those of us who believe in Scotland's independence. I'm committed to achieving Scotland's independence, but I recognize the arguments against it. The question today is whether or not we are Democrats. It's as simple as that. The public are not bound by a decision made in 2014 any more than this parliament is bound by its predecessors. We're told that the UK is a voluntary union. Well, surely it's still a voluntary union now post 2014. If the position of political unionism is that the voluntary union ended in 2014 and it's something quite different now, that's a position that they should be honest about. I mean, it's no wonder that people become angry and cynical when they don't get what they voted for when they're told that no matter how many times they vote for it, that's not an option available to them. So, I do welcome the shift in tone from Labor. It's a shift back to a position that they were more consistently taking before 2014. And I offer my congratulations to Michael Mara on his leadership election. I hope this will lead to a more constructive approach. The last time I checked, this parliament is the most left of center of any parliament in Europe. And I hope that we could use that supermajority for the things that we do agree on while we celebrate the issues that we disagree on. Democracy thrives on disagreement. But there is so much that we agree on that most of us at least agree on and that we could use those points of agreement to take this country forward. I would gently suggest to Labor colleagues though if a majority of MSPs in favor of a referendum in favor of independence isn't a mandate that they recognize, they need to set out what their position is. It was painful to watch Michael Mara and Joe Fagan dance around this issue during one of their hustings, the one with Bernard Ponson ahead of the Labor leadership election. And I've heard Michael Mara in this parliament before assert the Labor Party's mandate derived from the 2024 general election, but they consistently rejected the S&P's mandate every time they won a sweeping majority of members of parliament uh for Scottish Westminster seats. Yes. expect that there was more there was a bigger vote share for pro- union parties in this place than there was for pro indie? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> North Korea. >> It's funny that Rachel Hamilton brings that up because in 2021 when more votes were cast for the SMP and the Greens than for the Conservatives, Labor and the Liberal Democrats, they didn't recognize that as a mandate. So, if we're talking about shifting goalposts, it's the Conservatives who shifted the goalposts on this. A majority of members of this parliament were elected on pro-independence manifestos. It is a very simple principle of parliamentary democracy that if you can secure a mandate in parliament, you can deliver on your agenda. Not quite at this point, Mr. Hoy. I'm not entirely surprised, I've got to say, by the liberal and undemocratic position that the Liberal Democrats have taken in this debate. I would suggest to Liberal Democrat colleagues though that if they define their party around simply being a position for anti-SMP tactical voters, surely to God they've lost the reason that they as individuals joined it in the first place. What is liberal or democratic about the position they're adopting in this debate? And I'll say again, presiding officer, I respect the arguments for the union and against independence, but I cannot respect the increasingly desperate ways that some people try to deny this country a choice on its future. So I am glad that some parties on both sides of the independence debate will agree on a point of principle today that it is for the people of this country to decide. As the first minister said earlier, it is not good enough for the hundreds of thousands of younger Scots, the million younger Scots by the time we get to the end of this decade who were not old enough to vote in the last referendum that Scotland's already had its say and they will never have theirs. They deserve their right to decide the future of this country. The Scottish Greens have always believed that independence is the best choice for Scotland, not as an end in and of itself, but as a means to a greater end. We believe it is the route back into the European Union, to undo the incredible damage of Brexit, to regain our European citizenship. With independence, we would have the power to tackle poverty through minimum wage laws, ending the scandal of poverty pay, where taxpayers money is used to subsidize companies unwilling to pay their staff enough to live on. We would have the full fiscal powers that we need to invest in the infrastructure that we need for thriving communities and a successful economy. We would have power over our energy systems so we could switch to one that provides affordable energy to all and in a sustainable manner rather than prioritizing the profits of a handful of companies. The independence movement of 2014 grew support for our cause by focusing on this vision, what we can achieve with the powers of a normal nation. In the 12 years since, to be honest, the yes movement has spent too much time talking about process. And I know much of this is in Westminster's hands. That is profoundly wrong. It's been anti-democratic. But that is the reality. I want the independence movement to focus on what we can change. And first and foremost, that is public opinion. So yes, I am somewhat frustrated by the periods of time where the government has spent so much time focusing on process rather than independence itself. Currently, yes, is marginally in the lead. It's basically 50/50. Today's poll has yes ahead 52 to 48. But the best way to grow support for self-government is to do self-government well. The powers of this parliament are limited, but they are not exhausted. In 2014, growth in support for independence was tied to a sense of hope and optimism, but not a lot of people have that right now. There is deep frustration with our public services. That's true across the UK and beyond. And yes, there's lots to be proud of in Scotland. We're the only nation in the UK where child poverty has fallen, but we are not going to hit the child poverty targets that we set into law. So, I do agree and the Greens do agree with the Labor amendment. That will require a very different approach from the Labor Party, particularly to the budget negotiations that I mentioned earlier if we're to achieve that kind of cross party consensus to make progress on this. But we do also seem to ask ourselves what is possible under devotion. This parliament has a habit of setting very lofty targets. I do not believe we've exhausted the powers uh to get us there. But I think we do need to ask ourselves the question, even if we exhaust those powers, will we be capable of hitting the targets that we have set for ourselves? I don't honestly believe that we can. That's why I believe that we should achieve the full powers of a normal sovereign nation. So, presiding officer, in closing, um there is a majority for independence in this parliament. I hope today there is a super majority for Scotland's right to decide its own future. Our unionist democrat colleagues need to put something forward. A strategy of denial is not credible. But the government needs to be bold with its domestic agenda. We need to make people believe not just that Scotland could be an independent nation. Not just that we could govern ourselves that we but that we should. We can do that with an inspiring vision and by governing boldly by tackling the problems that people face in their day-to-day lives right now. We can govern for people and planet with the powers that we already have as proof of concept that self-determination is the best possible future for the people of Scotland. Thank you. I >> call Russell Finley a generous two minutes. >> Thank you officer. I begin by offering my congratulations to Michael Mara on his election as leader of Scottish Labor. Presiding officer, some people might mock this government debate and just say they're conning their supporters. Some people might engage in silly stunts, but we know that the SNP are deadly serious because John Swinny and the SNP truly only care about one thing, and that's breaking up Britain. Of course, John Swinny doesn't like anything that's British. Apart, of course, from his British Airways business class flights. >> He likes that. >> As a proud Scott, I despair at what they are doing and what they would like to do to our country. mired in scandal, masters of misinformation, sowing petty grievance and division, >> running public services into the ground and hammering taxpayers to bankroll state benefits. And they would knowingly make Scotland poorer and weaker by dismantling the United Kingdom. In today's volatile world, this is no longer just a bad idea, but deeply dangerous and irresponsible. >> John Swinny is even in cahoots with Shinfane, ignoring their justification of IRA mass murder. >> The SNP say that Scotland should decide. We did decide. >> More than 2 million Scots said no. And thank goodness for that. You can't agree to a once in a generation referendum and then have a neverending hissy fit over the result. >> Get over it. Move on. >> If I get the time back. Yes. >> Lloyd Melville. >> I thank Russell Finley for that. Um, can he define a generation for us? >> Russell Finley. Not you. >> Well, I was certainly not 12 years. Scotland has a government more interested in grievance than governing. >> Today, we should be talking about so many of the critical issues facing the people of Scotland. high taxes and benefits, NHS waiting lists, rising crime, drugs deaths, transport chaos, declining school standards, and my colleagues will have much more to say on all of this. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. >> I call David Green. Six minutes, please. >> Thank you, Deputy Besiding Officer. And can I start by welcoming Michael Mara to his role and he's a very able campaigner. I think a consensus builder and I wish him and his family well. I'm also going to start by being honest with the first minister. Um he's upset me this afternoon. Perhaps not as much as he's upset Malcolm offered, but he has certainly upset me this afternoon. I'm sure he's a decent man. He wouldn't want to do that. But I'll tell you why. And it's because by bringing this debate to the chamber this afternoon, you have dragged me away from one of my favorite events of the year. You have dragged me away from the big political moment of the week. I am of course talking about the Liberal Democrat Conference in Brighton. And I can tell the chamber I can tell the chamber that just moments ago my friend and party leader Ed Davyy took to the stage to deliver his keynote speech. But yet I am I'm stuck here. And and who knows what stunts I might have missed. It could have been a bungee jump. It could have been an arrival on a jet ski. But I'm afraid to say I'm here. But it gets worse than that. It does get worse than that. Let me let me finish my point. Let me finish my point. It gets worse than that because not only I missed Ed Davyy, I've also missed Alex Go Hamilton, too. And so, let me deputy presiding officer put on record um how much I love an Alex Go Hamilton speech. I I really really do. I absolutely love an Alex Hamilton speech. In fact, I'd go as far to say that I'm the only person who loves an Alex Hamilton speech more than me is probably Alex Coamilton. Uh, but deputy ding officer, before I upset the press office any further, I'm going to come back to this groundhog day of a debate, and it is a groundhog day because poor Willie Renie here, poor Willie Renie has sat through this thousands of times because this issue is not new. It is no revelation that nationals here in this chamber want to talk about separation. It is a habit that this government can't seem to shake. But I'll remind the first minister as others have that he went to the country seeking a majority in May. A majority in his own words to pursue a second divisive referendum and besid officer he does not have it. I didn't quite hear it from Ross Greer but I did think we might get you a bit of a I told you so. Um, but look, it'll be no surprise to the chamber. It'll be no surprise to the chamber that you will not be convincing Liberal Democrats of your case today. I am clear about the mandate that my constituents gave me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We were sent here with instructions not only to oppose a second referendum, which we do, but to ensure that Parliament focuses on the day job. >> I will take them. him fairly >> and at the risk of offending his attempt at humor right at the start um doesn't the fact that the member would rather be at his conference down in England kind of highlight the fact that the people of Scotland say you think more about England than you do about this place which is the first thing and this and the second the second point is the party is the liberal democratic party this is entirely about democracy and is about the people's right to decide their future regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Surely it is up to the people to make that decision. Not a Westminster government. >> David Green. >> Thank you. I I think the intervention was as good as my attempt at humor, I'm afraid to say. Um I will come to the point about people's right to decide. But incidentally, I was there in 2014. They had that right. And I will set out um our view on the motion. Um Ross Greer also asked, "Well, what the Liberal Democrats for?" Well, we're here to serve the people that sent us here. So let me talk about the people who sent us here. Um because I was sent here by people who cannot get a GP appointment at the first time of asking. By families whose elderly parents are stranded in the hospital because and there isn't a care package to receive them at home. I was sent here by families worried about the cost of their weekly shop getting ever more out of hand. by parents whose children are no longer getting the best start in life because it isn't the people's support teachers that our classrooms need. These issues these issues are the debates worthy of the chamber's time this afternoon. And I'm tired and I think the country is tired too of reminding the S&P that there are more pressing issues on their desk than this. People deserve sewage cleaned from their rivers, roads that are no longer cursed by potholes. a bus that actually turns up and a better chance of seeing a dentist than meeting the tooth fairy. But let me say this gently to the first minister because there is a genuine conversation to be had about who decides our future but it is not the motion that the first minister has brought today for as long >> I yeah I've got time >> I'm listening to what Mr. been saying about um this debate being a waste of parliament's time and I I almost agree because surely we shouldn't have to debate the very basic the most fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy and Scottish democracy that the people of this country have the right to decide their future. Every Liberal Democrat parliamentarian signed the claim of right in 1989. Do they still support the people of Scotland's right to decide their future or did that support end in 2014? >> David Green, >> thanks for the the intervention. I stood on a platform to oppose the second referendum on independence. I do not believe that independence is the best future for our country. So I'm not going to spend I'm not going to spend any any time trying to help the nationalists on these benches to try and deliver it. But look, let me let me make this point. I I'm going to the first minister. I will. >> First minister, >> I'm grateful to Mr. Green for giving way. There's a contradiction in his argument with his response to Mr. Greer. Absolutely. >> Because he just said to Mr. Greer that Mr. Green and I understand this point was elected on a commitment to oppose a referendum. Mr. Greer was elected on directly the opposite proposition and there are 73 of us in this parliament elected that support the position that Mr. Greer and I take. Where is the democracy in that point? Where is the substance of Mr. Green's position? >> Yeah, David Green. I'm hoping I'll get my time back. But I I take the point that the first minister has given we we all come here on different competing mandates, but the first minister you the first minister did go into this election saying that he was in a secure majority for the SMP. That was the course to do it. In fact, the Greens disagreed on that. So I think you need to be clear about that too. Now look, a point made by Michael Mara. I I think this parliament has failed to genuinely push power out of this building and into the rural communities that I serve. We've had a government time and again that demands the right for Scotland to decide its future but refuses trust communities that I res represent to shape their own. And I do genuinely fear when we're talking about consensus and I will come to an end deputy besiding officer that all the auction in the room is going to be taken up by this constitutional wrangling which we all know that we disagree about and will not create the space for us to find the consensus that we need on issues like local government reform. So let me be clear. We will be we will not be supporting the government this evening while we defend the right of people to shape their own lives. >> We will I I will continue. I will continue. But while we defend people's right to shape their own lives and their future, this motion is silent on the issues that I've raised tonight. It is failed to acknowledge that in 2014 people did make their their decision and made it clearly. So we will not support it and instead I move my amendment in my name which puts the day job first and I urge parliament to support it. >> We now move to the open debate and the first speaker is Michelle C. Thank you presiding officer. H at the heart of Scotland's constitutional debate is a simple democratic principle. The people who live here should have the right to decide the future of the country we call home. This is not a demand that every person must support independence. Is a call for something more fundamental. That Scotland's people must never be denied the democratic autonomy to choose our own path. The demand from the people has been demonstrated not only by trusting the S&P government for 19 years, but by voting for a majority pro-independence representation in this parliament today. Those who support the union must confront the constitutional question at the center of this debate. If the union is voluntary, then it cannot depend on denying one of its nations the means to leave. A union that can only be maintained by refusing democratic choice is not strengthened, it is weakened. Supporters of the union are entitled to make their case with confidence, but they should do so by persuasion, not by the dismissal of our democratic right. They must entrust the people of Scotland enough to let them decide. And when we meet those who should deny us that right, we should not answer simply with anger, we should recognize that often denial is born from fear. >> Yeah. >> Fear of a weak union. Fear of the unknown. Fear that Scotland may choose a different future. and in some cases perhaps fear of imagining the real possibility of a progressive Scotland taking its place on the world stage. Outward-looking, confident, compassionate, and fully responsible for the decisions that shape our lives. The decisions that we all debate in here and we discuss the limits of being decided here. the end decision being here and not having to rely on a parliament that does not understand our people making the final decision. But fear cannot be the foundation of a modern democracy. We must face fear with forgiveness and we must meet denial with hope. Forgiveness does not mean accepting democratic obstruction. It means refusing to let our politics be defined by bitterness. It means understanding why some cling so tightly to the status quo while still insisting that status quo cannot override the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. Our task is to keep our focus on hope. hope for a Scotland that does not have to work around the limits of devolution, but can act with the full powers of independence to invest in our people, grow our economy, eradicate poverty, support families, strengthen public services, and build opportunity in every community. Hope for a country able to shape its own domestic agenda in line with our values. Hope for progressive international relationships pursued with dignity and purpose. Hope for a modern approach to national security rooted in peace, cooperation, resilience, and the culture of a nation that wants to contribute positively to the world. How about we actually think about this? Hope to reach out to our own full potential. This debate is not about grievance. It's about democratic respect. It's about whether we believe that the people of Scotland are capable of choosing our own future and whether those who disagree with independence are willing to make that argument honestly, openly and democratically. Let us make the case with generosity. Let us forgive fear but never surrender democracy. Let us invite those who support the union put their faith in the people, not in a Westminster veto. And let us keep our eyes fixed on the hope of what Scotland can become. A country with confidence, the compassion, and the democratic power to build a fairer future for all who live here with Scottish independence. Thank you. I call Craig Hoy to be followed by Alex K. Craig Hoy. >> Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer John Swinny thinks in bringing this debate to Parliament today that he can treat Scots as fools. But the real fools are those who sit behind him cheering on today's distraction from his day job. Because independents would never tackle the SNP government's 5 billion pound budget black hole. It would blow apart the union dividend worth2,720 for each and every Scot. And it would make Scotland more exposed to mounting economic and defense insecurity. Independence would destroy jobs, a fresh assault on those key industries, oil, gas, and defense that John Swinny so woefully uh despises. and it would never reverse this SNP government's cynical but reckless bid to use the benefit system to create economic inactivity and a culture of state dependence for political purposes. But each and every day John Swinny undermines Scotland's financial future with his independence obsession is another day he proves why he is unfit to be Scotland's first minister. Oh, >> speech. >> Is that a speech? I'm not. >> Oh, >> I call Alex K. 5 minutes, please. >> Well, that's fine. I mean, just the intervention I was going to make on Craig Koi um was that, you know, if we're talking about the financial security of Scotland, our economic base, maybe his party dragging us out of the European Union is something he should be reflecting on. And it's one of the key drivers of why people are in favor of independence. Now, frankly, frankly though, this this should be a fairly straightforward debate. At his heart lies two straightforward questions. Do you believe Scotland is a nation? And in the Tory amendment actually you have deleted Scotland as a nation from your amendment. Shameful. And do you believe in democracy? >> Right. That's the two key questions here. I believe Scotland is a nation and that people have the right to choose their own future. And it is clear to me that the people of Scotland believe Scotland is a nation. An article carried by the National today highlights that a poll carried out by Northstat shows 68.2% 2% of Scots believe that a second independence refer referendum should take place in the future. This finding confirms a result of an earlier RPSOS poll published in June which found 66% of Scots believe a referendum should be held in the future. 48% of them within this term quieter over there. That's good. Take in the numbers. The second question, whether or not you believe in democracy is in many ways far more important than the first. If any is going to take interventions, I mean fire in, but all I'm hearing is shouting because to be a democrat, you can disagree on the merits of Scottish independence. That ability to disagree, as Rosa has pointed out, is the beauty of democracy. But if you want to remain a democrat, you cannot deny the people of a nation the right to decide their own future. >> Certainly, I'll give away >> Jamie Mento. I thank Alec Car for taking the intervention. Um I also think it's important to note on that poll that Norstat poll and this is perhaps worrying for the unionist parties that some of their voters actually support independents. 33% of Labor supporters, 30% of reform supporters, 21% of Liberal Democrats, 17% amongst the Conservatives. So does Mr. K agree with me that clearly there are more people that believe in Scotland's right to choose independence. Alex K. >> Yes, Jenny Mento has really dug into those details there. And you know what? Actually, it doesn't surprise me, presiding officer. It doesn't surprise me in the basis that some of the traditional conservatives, not the ones we've got now, actually are really focused on economic growth and financial sustainability and independence gets you back into the European Union and helps grow your economy. So it doesn't surprise me that there's there's a small core of them there. So Scotland chose to elect the most independent supporting MSPs to the Scottish Parliament ever this year. So no matter how you want to spin it, that's a fact. The poll I mentioned earlier from Northstat shows 52% of Scots would vote yes for referendum we're held today. So independence is clearly not off the table for the Scottish people. And if we represent them, why would we reject a motion that simply asks for Scotland's right to decide its own future to be respected? Why be elected to a parliament like this if you don't want to see that parliament grow, develop, and gain greater powers to represent and support its people? How many more years are we going to have to deal with this broken Brexit Britain before we finally address the question of whether the people of Scotland should have the right to decide their own future? A cynic presiding officer might think the reason unionist politicians are increasingly flirting with casting aside any notion that the UK remains a voluntary union by blocking democracy is because they are absolutely terrified of the result of a referendum. >> Certainly, I'm confident if there was a referendum tomorrow, independents would win the day. That however is not my point. Only around 20% of people in both of those earlier mentioned polls believe there should never be a referendum. Those who would seek to deny democracy have no public support for their position. That help that helps explain their disastrous results at the Hollywood election. And again, do you hear it? I can't hear a thing. No interventions. You've gone very quiet now because you are out of sync with the public. And as we have this discussion, I'll take your intervention. Finally, >> Rachel Hamilton, >> would he agree that it was my colleagues, the Scottish Conservatives, the strong blue wall in the south that stopped and your majority, which was a test set by John Sweeney in an election pledge. >> Alex K. It was Rachel Hamilton's party who on 36.9% of the vote in 2015 dragged Scotland out of the European Union against its will despite every single council area voting to remain in the European Union presiding officer. And as we have this discussion, it is important to remember that Scotland's right to decide is bigger than any one political party. It is a movement that brings together people from across civic Scotland like the Scottish Trade Union Congress which is in favor of the right to decide but has no position on independence. People with different backgrounds, different political beliefs and different visions for our country. I'll bring in Mr. Sweeney >> Paul Sweeney I think he made an interesting point about minorities pushing this agenda and Brexit's an interesting example at 36% for the Conservatives as he observed. My understanding is the Scottish National Party got 38% of the vote at the recent election. If you combine the Greens and the S&P was around 41%. Surely when I agree with him in this point, it was a settled majority aka more than 50% around 60% then this the conversation would change. Is that not something he would agree with? >> Alex K. Part of the reason we're having this debate is because consecutive Westminister governments, despite multiple mandates in favor of having a say on our future, not just independence, have been unable to chart a route by which Scotland's voice can find um answer and and that has been Tory governments. It is now Labor governments. It would seem dep if Andy Bernham is serious about this, there has to be a route for Scotland's democracy to be respected. >> Where my name >> seems to love some numbers from the comic, the national uh 17% of Tories are secret separatists. What a load of nonsense that is. Why doesn't he accept the basic point that Paul Sweeney just made that at the election we've just had the vast majority of Scots who voted voted for parties that support Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. >> Unionist party. >> Mr. Karen, you must come to a conclusion. >> You must come to a conclusion. >> I'll come to conclusion. It'd be interesting to work out which one of the 17% behind you in favor of independence. Um, we have a majority of pro-independence MSPs. So last last week, last I really need to come to a close. Last week marked 12 years since Scotland's independence referendum. In those 12 years, we've experienced the cost of living crisis, soaring energy prices, political turmoil, five conservative prime ministers, two Labor prime ministers, and being dragged out of the European Union against their will. Well, the majority of Scots voted to remain to which we see the con consequences constantly. For 12 years, people across Scotland have had to live through constant political division and uncertainty. But there is a generation of young people across Scotland who were too young to vote in the 2014 referendum. Siding officer, for many, and that referendum sparked their introduction to politics. It sparked an interest in how our country is governed and gave them a greater awareness of the political choices that affect their lives. This is something which is personal to a friend of mine. She was 12 at the time of the independence foe. A young person in P7 with no experience or knowledge in politics. a task for the classroom introduced her to the ongoing independence referendum debate and she became an activist and supporter of independence. She is now 24 and while she did not vote that day, she lives with the consequences. Her story is just one example of a referendum that shaped a generation of young people who are living with the consequences of the result today. They deserve a chance to vote for their future presiding officer, deserve a chance to have their voice heard. That's why I'll be supporting this motion today. Thank you for your Thank you. I call Finley Carson to be followed by Kate Campbell. Uh, one minute, please. If the SMP were half as committed to fixing rural Scotland as it is in pursuing independence, our communities would be in a far stronger position today. After nearly 20 years in government, rural Scotland has every reason to be disappointed. Farmers raise face rising costs, reduced support, and constant uncertainty. Fishermen continue to grapple with policies that ignore the realities of the industry. Health services are under pressure. Schools struggle to recruit staff and too many young people are forced to leave in search of opportunities elsewhere. >> The greatest threat to many rural communities is depopulation. Yet, this government has failed and accelerated rather than reversing the trend. The only people I represent, the people I represent are not lying awake worrying about independence. They are worried about seeing a doctor, keeping local schools open, finding good jobs, running farms and fish fishing businesses, and whether their children can build a future in the rural communities they call home. The S&P once claimed to be the voice of rural Scotland. The reality is that after two decades in government, its support in rural Scotland is dwindling because too many rural people feel they've been taken for granted. Rural Scotland's verdict is clear. Stop obsessing about independence and start delivering on the responsibilities you already have. >> Thank you. Um can I remind people who wish to speak in the debate? We still have some people who haven't press the request to speak buttons. Uh and uh we have time for interventions, but we're making up time uh quite quickly. Uh could I ask Kate Campbell to speak for five minutes please? >> Presiding officer, we have before us a very very simple proposition that the parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future. Who could disagree with that basic concept? Well, on Sunday, apparently Michael Mara, the new Scottish Labour leader, congratulations to him, by the way. But when he was asked twice, he couldn't say whether or not he agrees that Scotland is a nation and has the right to decide its own future. However, Russell Finley has been very clear in his amendment and Malcolm offered in his point of order that neither of them believe that Scotland is a country and that we have the right to decide our own future. And I'm glad that now it does look like Michael Mara does recognize that Scotland is a nation and that we do have the right to decide our own future. And yet we have amendments. We have amendments full of caveats to avoid the question. Yes, I'll give way. >> Michael Mara member giveway. I can assure her that I didn't make my mind up about this since Sunday that it's been a long-term position that Scotland is a nation clearly and that we made this decision both in 2014, 1997 and indeed 1979. >> Kate Campbell. >> Well, I thank him for that, but he on Sunday when he was asked was unable to say if he would be supporting um this motion, but I'm glad that he is now supporting the motion. But I'm wondering if the reason that we have um amendments full of caveats to avoid the question is because it's a discomfort with this simple proposition because the logic flows that if Scotland is a nation that can decide its own future I will make progress then there must be an agreed route a process a mechanism by which we can decide ourselves if that vote should be held without the need to ask permission from Westminster. Currently, the legal situation is one where literally every adult in Scotland could vote for a referendum and that referendum could in law be denied by the British prime minister. a British prime minister who in his heart of hearts knows that a fair approach would be for Scotland to have a mechanism just like Northern Ireland where if it appears likely that a majority would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State shall make an order enabling a border pole. And in the House of Commons, he said, I would say that it is exactly the same situation in Scotland. exactly the same. Andy Bernham has of course attempted to backtrack, but that just isn't credible because he knows and his instinctive answer at PMQ's shows that he knows that there simply must be a mechanism by which the people of Scotland can say that they want to leave the United Kingdom if they want to continue to call this a voluntary union. I will take an intervention. Michael, >> I do appreciate the member giving away again. She isn't really given the entirety of the quote from the prime minister. He was very clear that what he said. It was clear that the people in Northern Ireland and the people in Scotland did not want >> yes >> a referendum. That's what he said. >> I will certainly get to that point. I think what he conceded is that there must be a mechanism by which the people of Scotland can express their views and the logical mechanism is the one that he set out at PMQ's exactly the same as the one in Northern Ireland. What's good for the goose presiding officer is good for the gander. And meanwhile, Michael Mara, he's featuring heavily in this speech. And Michael Mara quizzed on Sunday about what would trigger Scotland's right to decide said, "It will become clear." It will become clear. Scotland's modern-day Mystic Meg then followed up with, "My friends aren't asking for a referendum." Well, here's the reality. This year, a majority of polls have shown small but consistent support for independence. An average of published polls put support at 51% this year. A small majority, but a majority nonetheless. Could you argue that independence would definitely be supported in a referendum? No. Could you argue that it appears likely that a majority would express a wish that Scotland should become independent? Absolutely. Absolutely. Burnham accepted the need for Scotland to have a parallel mechanism to the one in place for Northern Ireland. He maybe didn't realize quite how close we are to meeting that criteria, but he accepted it on principle nonetheless. Will Michael Mara in his vote as leader of his first vote as leader of Scottish Labor do the same? When we have a million young people who will become eligible to vote by 2029, a whole generational shift, a quarter of the electorate who will not have had their say. When we've had three Scottish Parliament elections since the referendum, returning a majority of MSPs who support independence, a clear clear mandate. when we have had the historic meeting last week of the first ministers from across these aisles who all want independence from the British state and now sustained support in opinion poll after opinion poll will Michael Mara demonstrate that Scottish Labor really has changed and that they recognize the will of the people must be able to be enacted through a legal mechanism. What I hope will flow from this debate, from this broad consensus that's well mainly broad consensus which is no doubt forming is there must be a clearly defined route laid down by law just like in Northern Ireland to borrow a phrase. It should be exactly the same situation because whatever their views on independence, no one in this chamber could deny that the people of Scotland have the right to decide their own future and instead believe that the final say should rest with a prime minister in another parliament and not the people that they are elected to represent. Presiding officer, Scotland is a nation. Let's make sure that we have the right set out in law to decide our own future. Miles Briggs to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Miles Briggs, only one minute. >> Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In 1999 when the parliament was reconvened, I remember sitting in school and like so many hope the opportunity to see the new MSPs who were elected deliver what was promised, Scottish solutions for Scottish problems. Growing up, all studies labeled Scotland as being the sick man of Europe in all health data and prevalence of health inequalities. Fast forward to today, and the story is still the same, if not worse. From record drug deaths to record male suicide. For 20 years, SMP ministers have had all the powers they need to improve health, but have failed to make any progress, any lasting progress. Today we see demoralized NHS staff facing a top-down reform from SMP ministers they have not been able to shape 20 years of SMP in power only focused on independence has left our nation worse off and poorer health as well. There will not be a referendum over the course of this parliament. Let's be honest. But I my plea today is we make the next five years about fixing our NHS. Let's deliver better community care, not divide our communities. Thank you. >> Stuart McMillan to be followed by Megan Gallagher. Stuart McMillan, 5 minutes. >> Okay. Thank you very much, presiding officer. First of all, I fully support the motion in the name of the first minister because our right to decide our future cannot be contained to one referendum on the 18th of September 2014. Scotland's right to decide still exists today as it did 12 years ago. And the opinion poll that Alex K referenced earlier on, 68.2% of the population want to have another ind independence referendum at some point in the future. And as an English-born Scottish nationalist with an internationalist outlook in life, my desire for independence is just as strong today as it was when I cast my first vote in 1992. and I feel welcome additional powers coming to this parliament coming to Scotland but I do believe that that devolution is very much a stepping stone towards independence and regards to the motion and the amendments in front of us saying also the SNP manifesto was clear page 13 a vote for the SNP is a vote for a referendum on independence now that's that's the first line prior to the amendment that reform now obviously moved that they referenced earlier on but also Also, also in page 12, page 12, a vote for the the SNP, Mr. K, can you please listen? Now, a vote for the SNP on May the 7th is a vote to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands and let Scotland decide. So, >> I'll take the intervention. >> Finley Carson. >> Just wonder if the member would remind the chamber whether the S&P vote went up or down on that pledge. Now, >> Stuart McMillan, >> I'm going to I'm going to Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry. I'm going to come on to some numbers. I'm coming to numbers. >> Right. So, unionist parties unionist parties will decry that the people of Scotland don't want to have another vote. They say that we had our chance in 2014. However, anyone who claims to uphold democracy surely recognizes that people's minds can change. It's why we hold regular elections rather than believing that a person's vote in one election or referendum will forever reflect their position. Uh I I'll take your intervention. >> Steven Carr made this point before, but but you're not listening to generalize because the number of votes for separatist parties went down. The number of votes for parties that believe in Scotland staying in the United Kingdom went up and the vast majority of Scots voted for parties that want to stay in the United Kingdom. >> Chipman, right? >> I I'll just I'll deal with the numbers point now then, Charlotte. Right. I'll just deal with the numbers point now. So, so, so Andy Bernham, the the the new prime minister, he got 24,927 votes in a bi-election and now for some reason he's a prime minister. Is there a mandate for him to be a prime minister only getting 24,927 votes? K Starmer Kier Starmer get 411 Labor MPs on 33.7% of the vote. Boris Johnson in 2010 got 365 MPs on 43.6% of the vote. 2015 it was 36.8 for the Tories and 36.1 in 2010. Is are the Tories genuinely genuinely attempting to say that they did not have a mandate to actually become the prime minister of the relevant parliament. I've taken your intervention. I'm answering your question. Now the point I'm going to highlight to you Mr. and also to everyone else in the chamber. >> Every single party when they when they put their candidates forward in an election, they put their candidates forward under that particular process. And the process that's what happened in Westminster. The process for this Scottish parliament is the fact that there are now 73 MSPs who were elected to this parliament who are pro-independence. Does it matter the percentage of vote? Mr. Care. Mr. care. It doesn't. There are 73 of us in here and there are fewer of you over there. There's only 17 Tories in the chamber now. So, Mr. Care, Mr. Care and your colleagues, the majority in this parliament must be respected. The mandate must be respected and anything less anything less denies democracy. Denies democracy. So presigning officer, the issue of a referendum and independence is still here. We are discussing it today. It has not gone away. It will never go away. And particularly when you see the state of UK politics the way it is now, I cannot foresee it ever going away. In 2029, it's estimated that we will have over 1 million young people eligible to vote who are not old enough to participate in the 2014 referendum. So when I go to the when I go and vote tonight, I'll be interested to see which politician or politicians support them or rejects their right to decide. Thank you >> Megan Gallagher to be followed by Emma Rodic. Megan Gallagher, one minute. >> Thank you, presiding officer. Judge me on my education record. I bet those words haunt the S SNP because after nearly two decades of this government, Scotland's education system is going backwards. The S SNP like to point to the attainment gap. That gap is narrowing because the top is falling, not because the bottom is rising. They are failing our young people, no matter their background. And yet, what is this government's priority? Another referendum. While other countries are focused on raising standards, the SNP is still fighting yesterday's battles. Scotland is in a neverendom situation because this government simply cannot move on. And when it comes to tackling child poverty, we get free laptops, free bikes, never delivered, and now apparently the free school bag. If the school bank is the S SNP's answer to child poverty, we are in trouble. Our young people deserve higher standards, better opportunities, and a government who is focused on their future, not one that's stuck in the past. >> Emma Rodic to be followed by Liam Kerr. Emma Rodick, up to five minutes. I'll I'll start with what would have been my intervention there h on child poverty because I I I think there is some agreement here uh between the tries and and my position. It's a real shame that we do not have all the levers open to us to tackle child poverty. That the Conservatives when they were in power and labor now will not work with us on things like income related benefits and other issues which are pushing children into poverty and keeping them there and that we are limited to devolve powers which to be fair to the Scottish government are having an actual impact on child poverty in this country that we're not seeing in the rest of the UK. But I'll get on to the motion now, presiding officer, because I think it bears repeating that the motion in front of us today is one line that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future. Not that Scotland should be independent or that we demand independence, that we get to make that decision. And don't get me wrong, I'd have been well up for taking part in the debate where the motion had those things in it as well. I'm happy to make those arguments any day. But I'd have thought that what we're actually looking at this afternoon could garner support from those who would be less interested in that debate or on the other side of it. And it turns out that they would rather play linguistic limbo than to say that Scotland is a real place that can make decisions. A fact that is as fascinating to me as it is miserable. In fact, apart from the Greens who've just stuck a wee bit on the end, recognizing that we have a majority of pro-independence MSPs in this chamber, all the other parties have come out with the most convoluted amendments to avoid agreeing that basic principle on its own, which makes me wonder why. Is it because they're anti-democratic? Now, I don't think that's true of most of my colleagues. Is it because they do not think Scotland is a nation? Again, there might be some, but I don't think that is the case for most of them. Is it because they think that agreeing that Scotland should be allowed to decide on independence is tantamount to agreeing that Scotland should become independent? Maybe, which should be very encouraging to those of us on this side of the debate and leads us to the most likely explanation that they believe the people would look at what the UK has done to Scotland on energy, trade, agriculture, and more and choose differently this time. That is understandable and I for one hope that they are right. But it is no excuse for keeping the decision away from their constituents. Before reform did us a favor and walked out. Malcolm offered asked why we're even thinking about this question as in 2014 this was settled for a generation. Familiar words. And you would be forgiven for thinking in these debates that generation actually features in the Scotland Act. Well, I hope that colleagues across the chamber can attest to the fact that I like to be quite helpful. So, ahead of this debate, I checked the Scotland Act and the only mentions of the word or provisions limiting us on what we can do on energy. Putting that to one side, politics does not pay attention to generations. Events happen, things change, and I don't believe there should be restrictions on what we can discuss and when. But I am continuously baffled by the unionist definition of generation. It bears as much resemblance to any definition of generation that I know as Taylor Swift much as I love her and her gaps between album releases bear a resemblance to the definition of era. I will take an intervention. >> David Lindon >> very grateful to Emma Rodic for giving way on this point of generations and how often people can have a vote. which he point out to Steven K who served in the United Kingdom parliament alongside me that in the course of 55 days he voted four times to hold the general election on the same question. So if he can change his mind four times in 55 days perhaps after 12 years people in Scotland should be able to change their mind also. >> He fair point well made. I don't think I've got anything to add there. Um, I was I was one of those given the vote unexpectedly in 2014, which I reflected on and maybe had a bit of an existential crisis about on Friday last week, 12 years from the vote, as I am now pushing 30 with, as my chief whip put it the other day, the cynicism of a much older woman. So, my badge at the counting in 2014 stated generation yes. And I remember some of the party figures that I was campaigning with at the time, including local SMP counselors, the youngest of whom was the age that I am today. Now, nobody then and nobody now would have described us as in the same generation. Even now, I get we messages from him asking me to explain Gen Zed jargon or pop culture references. Now, in the next Scottish Parliament election, which by the way, everybody will be free to vote in to elect a completely different government than they did in May this year, should they wish. Not that they tend to. Many voters will not even have been born when that referendum happened. I'm not their generation. Devolution referendums were held, as I was reminded, by BBC Radio Scotland recently during a Guess the Year segment in 1979 and 1997. Following that precedent, we are arguably due to revisit this question anyway in a few years time. And as somebody born in 97 on the cusp of devolution, I want those born in 2014 to be able to have their voices heard. Devolution is all that I've known and I can't wait to meet those Burns for whom independence is all they know because I can't imagine that once we get there and once they see the benefits anybody is going to look at this so-called union and beg to be let back in. Thank you >> Liam Kr to be followed by Steven Bonner. Liam Kerr one minute. >> Thank you presiding officer. A referendum is not an election. It is not an opinion poll. It is a mechanism for making a decision on a particular proposition. And democracy requires that the people's decision in a properly constituted referendum such as that in 2014 must be accepted and respected. But instead, the first minister advances a fundamentally incoherent position. He invokes the sovereignty of the people whilst refusing to accept what the people decided. >> But presiding officer, he knows that it is incoherent. And he also knows that calling this debate agitating for a neverendum, prosecuting such a weak case is nothing more than a shoddy political distraction from the shocking failures that we've heard about by this government all this afternoon. including in the energy portfolio their failure to publish a coherent evidence-based energy strategy with its presumption against oil and gas which is devating jobs and damaging our energy security and the environment. The ideological opposition to new nuclear at the cost of jobs and firm dispatchable power and the abject failure to deliver and manage transition to renewables. Presiding officer, the people's vote must be respected. We voted no. Now get on with the day job. >> Yeah. >> Steven Bonner to be followed by Tim Eagle. Steven Bonner, 5 minutes. >> Present offer striking to the very core of this debate is a simple question. Who gets to decide Scotland's future? And the answer should be equally simple. The people of Scotland. Not any political party, not any individual politician, not Westminster, and not even this parliament alone. We are told repeatedly, presign officer, that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union. But words have consequences. And if this genuinely is a voluntary union, then Scotland can't simultaneously be told that there is no democratic route by which its people can choose a different future. A union that you are free to support but not free to reconsider is a very strange definition of voluntary. And that's why the government's your right to decide paper matters today because it gets right to the very heart of the issue. A democratic right has to be capable of being exercised. Otherwise, what kind of right is it? Scotland cannot possess some theoretical right to choose its future while somebody else possesses a permanent right to tell us when, whether or how we are allowed to exercise our right. That is not Scotland deciding. That is Scotland being told. Presiding officer, Scotland is not a region. Scotland is a country with our own legal system, our own education system, our own institutions, our own national identity, our own parliament, and most importantly of all, our own democratic voice. And that democratic voice cannot simply be frozen in time because countries change, circumstances change, people change. The United Kingdom itself has changed. And perhaps nowhere is that more clear than in our relationship with Europe. In 2014, 55% of the people voted for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom. Just two years later, 62% of the people in Scotland voted to remain within the European Union. Scotland voted more decisively to remain within the European Union than it did to remain within the United Kingdom. And yet, Scotland was taken out of the European Union anyway. people who voted in 2014 did so in a United Kingdom that was a member of the European Union. That is no longer the constitutional reality. The union that people voted to remain in has fundamentally changed and it is not only the union that has changed. We better hear what Mr. Hoy has to say. >> Thank Mr. Boner for giving the intervention. What he is talking about is Scotland leaving a union where we are a net beneficiary to going back into a union where we'd be expected to be a net contributor. So just for clarity, if Scotland was ever to become independent, how would the the government of whichever political persuasion seek a mandate from the Scot from Scottish people to take them back into the EU? >> Mr. Hoy, we're not discussing that. We're discussing Scotland's right to decide today. That's what we're discussing. Do you agree with Scotland's right to decide? Do you agree that Scotland is a nation? Mr. Hoy, Mr. Hoy, do you agree that Scotland is a nation? >> I thought so. Right, Brazil officer, today nearly 1 million people of voting age in Scotland were too young to vote in 2014. Nearly 1 million people, hundreds of thousands of people have grown up here. They've entered work. They've gone to college or university, started families, paid taxes, contributed to this country, but never had their say. Yeah. >> And what are we to say to them? That somebody else made that decision for them when they were children that their opportunity decide will never come. >> Pres officer, democracy cannot work like that. Democracy is not something that happens once and then expires. Democracy lives. It changes. It responds. And I simply do not accept that the people can be trusted to elect governments and parliaments and to make decisions at every political question affecting their lives. But they cannot be trusted to decide the constitutional future of their own country. They do not need to be protected from democracy. They need their democracy to be protected and respected. Those who believe passionately in the union are perfectly entitled to make the case for it. Those of us who believe in independence, we'll passionately make our case. That is democracy. Argument against argument, vision against vision, and ultimately vote against vote. Presiding officer, I believe in independence. I believe decisions about Scotland are best taken here in Scotland by the people who live here and work here. I believe we should possess the powers to determine the kind of country we want, the kind of economy we want to build, the society we wish to create, and the place we wish to take in the world. Others in this chamber profoundly disagree with me. You can hear them chering from a senator position. So let us put our competing visions to the pe for Scotland's future to the people. >> Absolutely. >> What are you scared of? >> Trust the people to listen. Trust them to question us. Trust the people to challenge us. And ultimately trust the people to decide. >> Absolutely. Because this is bigger than any government and any parliament and any political party party. It comes down to one fundamental question. Where does the sovereignty ultimately lie? For me, it lies with the people of Scotland. And if it is with the people of Scotland through their democratic institutions say that they want the opportunity to determine their future, no government, no parliamentarian, no prime minister should simply be able to say no. Neither side of this debate should fear putting that choice into the hands of the people of Scotland because this country does not belong to governments. It does not belong to parliaments. It does not belong to prime ministers. It belongs to the people of Scotland and the future of this country must belong to them too. It is their right and it's Scotland's right to decide and the future of this country must belong to them. Thank you very much. >> Tim Eagle to be followed by Keith Brown. Tim Eagle. >> Well, this has been an interesting presiding officer. If only the S&P put this much energy and time into running Scotland's public services. We might actually have functional systems because I don't think that Scotland needs another independence argument. In my area, the A9 and the A96, despite years of promises, still are not jeweled. A spade hasn't hit the ground at the A83. Rest and be thankful. And communities in the Southwest are still waiting for action on the A75. The S&P have made a diabolical mess of our ferry network with services that break down far too often, regional airlinks that remain under pressure, and the stateowned Scot Rail that is worse under SMP management. Not to mention a new app that doesn't even work. And across Scotland, people are driving on pothole ridden, crumbling roads while businesses are paying the price. All because the SMP care more about what the Greens think. People don't need more constitutional bickering. They need roads that work. They need feries that they can rely on, the trains that turn up on time, and transport that connects our communities. because that is what the S&P should truly be spending their time on. >> Keith Brown to be followed by James Adams. Keith Brown, up to 5 minutes. >> Thank you, presiding officer. I think of all the absurd arguments for trying to find a way not to vote for Scotland's right to decide, perhaps the best one was the Union dividend. Now, that's the Union dividend that's given us the highest tax burden since the Second World War. That's a union dividend that's given the highest debt over3 trillion pounds racked up by the Tories previously. That's given us record levels of inequality. That's had the UK public services on their knees. That's given us 16 years of austerity budgets. It's also given us Brexit against our will. And don't forget, we were told during the referendum, we were told, "No, the only way you can save Scotland's place in the EU is to vote no." That was a lie. We were also told there was no way that Boris Johnson was going to become prime minister. Well, look what happened there. So, it is a very simple proposition at the basis of today's debate and it is about the fact that it's one very simple democratic principle. Scotland's future, as people have said, must be decided by the people who live here and that should not be a controversial proposition. After the 2014 referendum, the Smith Commission involving all five political parties then represented in this parliament stated as the first minister has said, "Nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose." That's what the Tories are now running away from. They don't agree with that anymore. They've changed the position and it goes to the point that was made earlier on by somebody who said, and to be honest, presiding officer, they've done this right. People in this part of the debate can't hear anything because any of the shouting we've been having from Stephen K and others throughout the whole debate and the reason why they're shouting is they're rigid with fear because they know it's coming. So nothing in this report should stop the beautiful Scotland and you you can hear it now. So the the point would be of course with the Tories that we have here, they're a special breed of Tories. In fact, they're an endangered species of Tories. They went from you'd never believe it from their talk 31 seats down to 12 seats. They've been demolished in the election and yet they can't seem to recognize that they've descended into further irrelevancy as time has gone on because the 2014 decision was a decision made by the people of Scotland at that time. It was not and could not have been a decision to remove the democratic rights of future generations. And the evidence subsequently taken by this parliament's own constitution Europe external affairs and culture committee reinforces that principle. And to quote another Tory, Professor Adam Tommpkins, a former Conservative MSP and hardly somebody approaching this question from an SMP's perspective told the committee that those on all sides of the argument agree that the decision maker is the Scottish people. Professor Alan Renick was equally clear. There is widespread agreement that the union is voluntary and that should the people of Scotland wish it, Scotland's entitled to independence. But Professor Renick also identified the contradiction at the heart of the present arrangements. The electorate whose wishes are supposed to be respected is the Scottish electorate. Yet the power to determine whether Scotland can even be asked, the question rests with the UK government, elected by voters across the whole United Kingdom. The simple fact is if we do agree with everyone but the Tories that Scotland's got the right to self-determination. Self-determination means nobody else can tell you when you exercise that right. You've either got the right or not and you decide when you want to exercise that right, not somebody else. And Professor Nicola Mchuan also said another important point. A referendum ought to be facilitated in the context of the union being a voluntary one. And that brings us directly to the significance of the prime minister's recent comments. And I don't agree with Michael Harris's interpretation of what he said. Speaking about Northern Ireland, he said a referendum must be considered when public opinion has changed to the point of which the call has to be considered. Adding, I would say that's exactly the same situation in Scotland. And those are significant words because if the prime minister accepts that a change in public opinion can reach a point at which the question of another referendum must be considered. And I'm talking about a referendum, not about independence. We're talking about Scottish people getting the right to decide. And that same principle applies to Scotland. Then the obvious question is what is the democratic test? And that's what the Labor Party, one of whom sitting here, actually she's not here just now, but has previously said she's not in favor of independence, but she's in favor of democracy and therefore a referendum. And let's hear more voices from that like that from the Labor Party. So how do the people of Scotland demonstrate that the views have changed? Is it through an election, a majority in the parliament, sustained majority public support for another referendum? There must be a clear and democratic route because otherwise we're left in an extraordinary contradiction. No, the Tories wouldn't take any interventions from me. Scotland could be told it's part of a voluntary union, that it can become independent if its people so choose, and that changing public opinion can justify another referendum. While Westminster nevertheless reserves to itself the power to decide whether the people of Scotland are ever to be permitted to make that choice. Those propositions can't sit comfortably together. And it's a growing recognition now across these islands that constitutional change must rest on democratic consent. Each of our nations has the right to determine its own future through democratic means and in accordance with the wishes of its people. In Scotland, Wales and Ireland are each on different constitutional journeys. But the principle joining us is straightforward. The future of each nation belongs to its people. So the challenge now is to turn the principle of Scotland's right to decide if that's what we agree this afternoon into a clear democratic route through which that right can actually be exercised. Because a voluntary union cannot mean that you are free to leave only when the other party gives you permission to ask and a democratic right that can never be exercised is not much of a democratic right at all. Presiding also those of us in the S SNP believe passionately in independence. We believe that decisions about Scotland are best taken here in Scotland that independence offers the opportunity to build that fairer and more prosperous country that we want to see. But that is an argument that we must make and win with the people of Scotland. Those who support the union are perfectly entitled to make the opposite case. And can I say to David Green, I respect the fact, I know he's not here just now, but I respect the fact that he came to this parliament with a mandate to pose an independent referendum. I came through this parliament with a mandate to secure an independence referendum. My view is equally valid to David Greens and that's what a Democrat would say. And now we hear share the vote. It's never been a problem for UK governments in the past. They can take us out of the Brigs. They can take us out of the EU. They can vote against Scotland. They can change everything. It is never a question for the Scottish government because the Tories that's the only government they're ever going to belong to. What we should do is not be entit we need to do is to be entitled to carry out the exercise of our own right to self-determination. That's the principle at stake. Not whether Scotland chooses independence today, but whether Scotland retains the democratic right to choose its own future tomorrow. And they're still shouting. They are absolutely rigid with fear. You can just smell it coming off them. That right belongs to the people of Scotland. James Adams to be followed by Steven Card. James Adams. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, presiding officer. We sit here in this chamber for yet another independence debate when today it was revealed that more than 10,000 children are trapped in temporary accommodation. Rough sleeping is rising and a record 19,000 households are stuck waiting for a proper home. Instead of focusing on delivering the homes that Scottish people so desperately need, John Swinny and his government is too busy obsessing over independence and his latest push to break up the United Kingdom. This debate won't help her comfort a single person sleeping rough or without somewhere to call a permanent home in Scotland. So this government must drop No, thank you. This government must drop its relentless push to break up the United Kingdom. The member has indicated he's not going to take an intervention. >> Thank you. I'm I'm on my last sentence. >> You should sit down. >> Thank you. This government must drop its relentless push to break up the United Kingdom and finally outline a proper plan to meet Scotland's housing needs. Otherwise, this emergency situation will only continue to spiral. >> Steven Carr. Well, I don't think any of us on these benches need lessons in loving Scotland from anyone on these benches. And the reality is the reality is for many of us, it's heartbreaking to see what nearly 20 years of SNP government has done for our country. And in one area in particular, crime up 7% in the last year. Violent crime at a four-year high. Sexual crime rising again. and John Swinny's priority dragging Scotland out of the United Kingdom and this pointless debate on separatism which the people of Scotland rejected as lately as May. What is John Swinny saying to victims waiting for justice to people frightened in their own neighborhoods to the police officers who are expected to do more >> that John Swinny should be doing. He should instead be focusing on building Scotland into a better place. But instead, he's obsessed about destroying Scotland's place in Britain. We're wasting parliamentary time today. We should be we should be holding ministers responsible for issues like the issues that I and my colleagues are mentioning, not not indulging John Swinny and the SNP in their fantasies. What is the message of the S SNP to the doctors and the nurses and the policemen and the victims? It's wait your turn. We have a referendum to pursue. We have a referendum to debate. The the record of the SNP in respect to their time in government is a story of SNP incompetence. Ministers are failing in the most basic responsibility of government, keeping people safe. So my message and what we should be talking about is how we back the police, how we put criminals behind bars, and how do we give victims the protection they're entitled to expect. We now move on to closing speeches. We do have time in hand so the front bench can take interventions. Duncan Dunlop. Today I will talk about an issue that is uncomfortable to raise and that is the risk of conflict associated with nationalism. Let me be clear at the outset. I do not think anyone in this chamber is going to take up arms but that display by reform might be mocked but it worries me. When parliament divides and stops listening and debating. It is a dangerous signifier of what can come if we only look at what makes us different. Just look at history. And the reason I say this is because I lived and worked across former Yugoslavia for four years in peaceuilding. I count as friends people of every nationality, whether Croat, Bosnjak, Kosovan, Albanian, Montenegro, Macedonian, Jewish or Serb, civilized, educated and generous people who are similar to many of us in this chamber today. They lived through their country spiring spiraling into ethnic violence. The collapse of Yugoslavia began in 1980 when Joseph Tito died. He'd been the leader for 35 years. In his place, nationalist leaders in Mallosvich and Tjman came into power in Serbia and Croatia. Their muscles were increasingly flexed and blamed others for their plight and ended up with the ravaging and splintering of a European nation. On the 1st of May 1991, my friends were Yugoslavs who believed in brotherhood and unity. By my midJune that year, the same year, it was their surname and ethnic identity that mattered. In simple terms, Catholics were branded Croat. Orthodox Christians as Serbs and Bosnjaks as Muslim. And with wicked speed, by July war had arrived, turning previously mixed and trusted neighborhoods into places where fear was cultivated and living together became dangerous. To give one horrific example of which I have many, in Sansky Mosque, after I finished my example in Sanski Mosque. Oh god, fit. To your intervention, Hannah Mary. >> Hannah Mary Goodlad. >> I have also visited Bosnia and sat and broken bread with the mothers of Shrebonitzka. Had conversations about their grief and about their compassion for forgiveness in the force and the sights of utter devastation. And I take great umbrage at that being used as a comparison to the outwardlooking civic nationalism that we are trying to create here with a Scotland that is outwardlooking to the world. I also ask the member where has the where has the ghost of Joe Grim gone? Because he was a great Democrat within your ranks. Does his ghost still exist somewhere? Duncan Dunlop. >> My point is not where Scotland is today, but where it can go. We must be really cognizant of this debate that we are having. In Sanski Mosque, a town in northwest Bosnia. You need to hear this in this debate because you never hear it in the debates around independence. In Sanski was a town in northwest Bosnia. A young woman, Yelina, from a Serbian Orthodox family, fell in love with Amir, a Bosnjak Muslim. Their parents did not oppose their marriage out of hatred. But they warned them that a mixed marriage would be hard and that raising children in it would be harder. Yelina and Amir listened, but then they decided to marry in 1992, just before the war broke out. Six months later, Yelena's own brother came to their home and murdered them both in the name of nationalism. No army did this and no stranger. Across Yugoslavia, atrocities were repeatedly committed by people who'd been former friends, neighbors, and colleagues. And I know many of us have been to Bosnia beyond Chevron. I lived there for four years. And those experiences scare me. And it's in my heart. I can tell you this. whenever we roll the dice for nationalism and independence in Scotland. For the record, I reiterate I don't doubt the provenence of the S&P and Green members who sit in this chamber or doubt the integrity or intent of John Swinny as a peaceable leader. But I reflect in Yugoslavia because after having listened to many debates and how socially progressive independence will be, what I rarely hear is the small but everpresent risk of what we are also gambling with, which is the risk and peace of our nation. I give way >> Patrick Harvey. >> I'm grateful to the member for giving way and I'm I'm willing to accept that he's making the points he's making in good faith about that context which is not our context. I ask him if he agrees with two points. First of all, that the points he's making reinforce the need for there to be a democratic route for a country like Scotland. And secondly, and secondly that we should strongly criticize those who have challenged the first minister for working with leaders in other places including Northern Ireland where a peace process long fought for long hard one peace process has meant that Shinpane is a legitimate political party able to occupy the post of first minister. Does he agree with those two points? Duncan Dunlop. >> The one point I would take within that is we had civil war in our nation that was in Northern Ireland. This is not distant from us. Do not think that we have Scottish exceptionalism. We are naive if we do not believe that instability and violence should not be in the risk assessment of any independence movement. It is not you but what your movement can be warped to represent that concerns me. After the independence referendum, I drove down the A1 to cross the border near Beric. And the flags in either side of that road did not feel welcoming to me. Instead, they were more like Northern Ireland in 1990s. I'm coming to nearing an end, so I won't take another intervention. And I've knocked enough doors, I'm afraid to say, in Scotland to know there are extreme fringes to nationalism here, too. My appeal, yes, I'm worried about what's going on. I'm really worried about our narrative and our politics. But my appeal in these times when politics is getting more and more extreme and volatile in Europe and in the UK is for us to stop giving it oxygen here in Scotland. Let us stop inviting the tiger in fatigue. Instead, focus your energies on unleashing the positivity that can come from trusting communities by giving them real power via your devolution agenda. And if you want to claim more powers from Westminster, our door has always been open to pursue federalism and you'll have allies here. My most basic purpose in life is to make sure my family never have to choose between the Scottish dad or the English mom like so many friends my Bosian friends had to. Please stop continuously gambling with our safety and security and park your motion. >> Rachel Hamilton. >> Thank you for signing officer. We can't deny that this afternoon's debate has been passionate. But let me be clear. The Scottish Conservatives oppose a second independence referendum and we presiding officer were the party who denied the S&P majority in May. Let me make some progress. I believe presiding officer that the S&P are frozen in time. They've got a confused approach about their next move. We unionists have been accused of being anti-democratic. That is absolute nonsense. Voters had a historic opportunity to make one of the biggest choices of their lives in 2014, a democratic vote which showed on that point >> which saw the SMP lose their bid to break up Britain. I'll take an intervention from Alex Co. >> Thank you. >> Alex Kr the Scottish Conservative Amendment that deletes Scotland as a nation. So I've got two questions. If you could help me answer them, that would be really helpful. So why did the Conservatives delete that from the amendment and do you believe Scotland is a nation? Thank you >> Rachel Hamilton. >> While Alex Kerr debates about words and his he he we will deny this party a second independence referendum. For those of us who have sat through exactly this debate on a doom loop time and time again every single year brought fire brought forward by the SNP. They know that this debate is meaningless. They know that trying to make gotcha interventions about words is meaningless. They've spent years presiding officer trying to take Scotland out of the UK. And first minister after first minister has failed to persuade the nation, >> the nation, the public, they failed to in their bid to persuade the nation of their arguments. And every we and every whim has been a gimmick. John Swinny has failed on his own election promise. They took a case to the Supreme Court to try to convince the Supreme Court that they had the constitutional right to bring forward an independence. They that cost in that cost taxpayers £250,000. And they've had white paper after white paper. I think we've had nine white papers in this parliament in the time that I have represented Roxboro and Bericure. And that would have been money that could have been used to improve numeracy and literacy attainment for young people. They are so desperate. But the elephant in the room of course is the independence fundraising campaign. Money swiped from the S&P members by the first minister's husband, the top man in the SMP. hardly a convincing pitch for for how SMP members should how these people who are in government should manage the finances of this country. >> Yes, >> David to Miss Hamilton for giving way. She talks about wasting taxpayers money and when her party was in government until 2024, it was spending hundreds of thousands of pounds polling the Scottish people on the question of Scottish independence. How does she reconcile that with the argument she's just made in this chamber? >> Rachel Hamilton, >> I I don't need to take any lectures from the an SNP member about wasting money. The Scottish public can see how much money they have wasted. They've wasted money on so many gimmick projects. They have had a disastrous tenure in government. And let me remind these benches, the Scottish economy is stuck on a doom loop. Scotland's numeracy and literacy uh uh attainment is tanking and that's putting our young people at a competitive disadvantage. And if Lloyd Melville can tell me uh anything that's been successful in the S&P, then feel free. >> Lloyd Melville, >> this rather gently to Rachel Hamilton. If the public considered the SNP to be a failure in government, they would not, her party, have been occupying the same opposition benches in this place for the last 20 years. This party in government is delivering success for Scotland and we want to go even further with independence. Why doesn't she recognize that the people have a right to decide? >> By what measurement? Rachel Hamilton, who has been generous in taking interventions and can obviously respond, but then must start to bring her remarks. >> Melville is on another planet. We've got the highest drug deaths in Scotland. We've got fairies that don't fail. We've we've got um an opposition to oil and gas exploration in the Northeast. The Northeast are on its knees. They're losing jobs. It's not it's it's do you know it it it is incredible because the backbenches have been so blind to um what they what is really happening out there. The only people holding Scotland back are the S&P >> Patrick Harvey. Thank you, presiding officer. And I I hesitate to follow such oretry, but support support for the the motion uh in any rational world ought to be unanimous uh even from those who would choose not to prioritize this issue. There ought to be a continuation of the longstanding principle uh of uh that's been on both sides of the independence debate uh for the point that's made in the motion. As uh as Ross Greer said, this goes back a long way. Not just the claim of right, but the devolution referendum, the independence referendum, the civil uh commission. Uh and the past, as Ross Grier reminded us, cannot bind the future. So in any rational world, we would all agree with the terms of the government motion uh and move on. Uh I'll say something about the various amendments that have been brought. First of all, with the the Labor Amendment and first of all uh can I add to the welcome uh and congratulations to Michael Mara on his result. I I I feel the need to say uh not many people remember this, but before I took on a leadership role in my party. I was 6'2 with a full head of hair. So I look look at what it's done to me. So I I hope uh he understands what he's what he's got himself into. Um in terms Oh, I I hear Ross Gri's got a full head of hair. Ross Greer is is floating on the the enthusiasm generated by a successful election result and uh uh that that's perhaps not the case on the other benches. Um in terms of the the Labor amendment though, I can't see anything in it to disagree with and I will vote for it. I can't help reflecting though that it doesn't address the very real fact that UK decisions also impact hugely on poverty, on employment, on social security, and on so much more. I entirely recognize that opposition to independence is a legitimate possession. But I also hope that Labor can acknowledge that for many of us the purpose of independence is to be able to do more than we already have on the issues that they raise and on more besides the reform uh amendment uh so much for the far right attempting to pose as the defenders of free speech. According to their amendment, we need their agreement that we have a mandate even to discuss the issue of independence. Well, to be absolutely clear in even in their absence, we need no such thing. Uh, as for the uh the Liberal Democrat amendment, I I do strongly share uh David Green's enthusiasm for Brighton. I I share that much with him. I had to say it has different attractions for me than it does for him. Uh perhaps an an Alex Cole Hamilton speech is the one thing that might be guaranteed to keep me away. Um but few people could object to the part of the Liberal Democrat amendment which covers the cost of living or public services. But it all comes with the very heavy implication that we can't do both. that we can't care about those issues and act on them while also making the case for Scotland's right to decide its own future and setting out why independence would help us to take such action. Uh, as for the Conservative Amendment, well, from me perhaps the least said the better. I doubt they care very much whether I can find any saving grace in their amendment, so I won't try. I will just reflect that a a conservative uh a conservative adoption of micro speeches and a reform boycott of the chamber are innovations that I warmly welcome uh across the chamber to address to address some to address some of the themes which have been brought out in the debate at least by the uh the serious contributions. There is a long-standing refusal of anti-independence parties to say what constitutes a mandate. Even if they do agree that Scotland's right to decide exists in principle, they'll never say how Scotland can exercise that right in practice. Now, during the election, the SNP didn't just ask voters to elect a pro-independence majority. They asked voters to give their own party a majority on its own and the voters in their wisdom decided otherwise. They did leave the SNP with fewer seats but the pro-independence block bigger than ever. And I very much welcome uh their judgment in making that decision. But an election isn't a referendum and the basic principles of parliamentary democracy apply. a parliamentary majority should enable the government to pursue a program. Now, there is a paradox at the heart of the debate. It seems to me that those who are most keen to remind the SNP that they didn't win that one party majority are the same people holding so desperately to the idea that we have to accept John Swinn's definition of what a mandate was from before the election. Even though at that very same time before the election, senior figures in most anti-independence parties were quite clear that they wouldn't accept it as a mandate anyway. They wouldn't accept anything as a mandate. So what we have is Schrodinger's mandate. Whatever threshold those who support independence propose it both is and is not a mandate at the same time and only once we open the ballot box does it finally become one thing or the other. If the threshold is met, then it was never a mandate at all and we must all move on. And if the threshold isn't met, then it was a mandate and the failure to meet it is supposed to kill off the argument. Now, I I can't entirely blame the U pro-UK parties for exploiting the uh the the the paradox here. John Swenny himself handed them that opportunity uh by adopting that position of a single party majority in the first place. My party always said it was wrong. Wrong not just as a strategic error, but wrong in principle. Presiding officer, this is a government that has no majority on any policy at all. It must come to this chamber and seek support. So its policy of a single party mandate, if that ever was its policy, has to be set aside precisely because it has no single party mandate. Regardless of the number of SNP members elected here, nobody has the authority to deny a majority in this parliament. And the Greens set out in our amendment that in 26, the Scottish people returned the biggest ever pro-independence majority in Parliament. And I'm proud that the Greens have played the biggest ever part in delivering that majority. I say that should be respected by all Democrats. But I also say it should be a lesson for the First Minister. The case for independence can never be tied to the electoral fortunes of one political party. To succeed, the case for independence must be pluralistic because independence itself is not just one thing. It's neither a land of milk and honey nor a road to disaster. It contains within it all the possibilities before us. The opportunity and the responsibility for all the choices we might make as a country. It is large. It contains multitudes. It does not belong to one political party and it never will. It belongs as the motion says to the nation of Scotland. Neil Beet. >> Thank you, presiding officer. I have to say that during the passage of this afternoon's debate, it's become clear and beyond doubt that this debate in motion is not quite the significant moment that John Swinny has been claiming. I highly doubt that the 22nd of September 2026 will go be have volumes dedicated to it in the history books. No, rather this is as others have said a bit of a gimmick. the latest slight of hand in the S SNP's constitutional contract, the annual pre-conference performance from the first minister to give independent supporters, the ones who haven't caughten on yet, the impression that the SNP have a plan to deliver independence when they simply do not. They have done nothing to prepare Scotland for a referendum, let alone succession. And as Michael Mara said, that is on them. They're not trying to build Scotland the brave. They prefer to manufacture Scotland the offended. In this, John Swinny isn't addressing Scotland's needs. He's addressing his needs with his SNP membership. He's trying to pull off the same contract that Nicholas Sturgeon did for years, telling SMP members the referendum is just over the hill. The latest date apparently is 2031. presiding officer. Of course, we have the right to determine our own future. Scottish Labor believes that, as Michael Mara said earlier, I'm sure we all do. We all should. After all, we are here in the Scottish Parliament. We're not in an SNP conference fringe event. Uh we're not in a university, or dare I say it, primary school debating society. Although if that sounds offensive, I do apologize to all the university debating societies and school debating societies up and down the country. We are here because the people of Scotland elected us to be here. The people of Scotland have expressed their opinion and that was not to have another referendum. Now, the S&P won the election and my party the S&P won the election. I do concede that and regrettably my party did not. But unlike John Swinny and the SMP benches, I fully accept the verdict of the people. Unlike John Swinny, I also like other members have a good memory. I remember him clearly stating before the election that a referendum would only be achieved if the SNP won a majority. They did not. And what has he done since the election? >> Not just now. Thank you. Not just now. Thank you. And what has he done since the election? >> Not even Giani Infantino would attempt to move the goalposts as much as John Swinny is doing now. Perhaps Mr. Swinny is feeling under more pressure than Mr. Infantino is from his members. When he and the Scottish Greens now site and assert an overwhelming pro-independence majority, they ignore the inconvenient truth for them that is that the 73 SNP and Green MSPs here were elected on a minority of the vote. In fact, as Paul Sweeney said earlier, those 57% of MSPs we keep hearing about were elected on just 40 to 41% of the vote. Yes, I will take an I will take an intervention on that point. >> Thank you very much. >> Who would you wish to take an intervention from, Mr. Bby? There was two members indicating they wish to take an intervention. >> I'll take um I'll take Mrs. GIBSON, >> Patricia Gibson, >> I thank him for taking intervention. Now, Mr. Bby has stood up and he's talked about how um there is no support for another referendum and although he respects the right of the Scottish people, there is no support for Scottish referendum. Um and of course he believes in in the right of the Scottish people to choose because he's sitting in this parliament and the Scottish people have chosen the composition of this parliament. He will recall some very famous words um that devolution was supposed to kill the argument for independence stone dead. Is that the position he is now maintaining or does he understand that the desire for independence has not waned one iota despite the roadblocks that his party tries to put in its way? >> It's perfectly legitimate to support independence. Um I would point out that we're not independent. Um, but if you want us to be independent, then build the case for it and build support for it. That's how you achieve independence. If Mr. Adam wants me to take an intervention from him, I think he was offended that I didn't. I'll take Mr. Adam. >> Thank the member for taking the intervention. Look, Mr. Baby was talking about elections and of course he's got experience of accepting defeats because that's been three with me and Paisley. But the question would be, does he like when he accepted being defeated by myself and Paisley again? except once again that the people of Scotland have spoken and there are now the largest majority of MSPs supporting independence here in these benches in this parliament and surely that is a just a matter of democracy >> so here we go Mr. Mr. Swinny is moving the goal post and so is Mr. Adam, you're ignoring the fact that 50% of the MSPs here were elected in 40 to 41% of the vote. That is an undeniable fact and an inconvenient truth for you. And that's before you get to the other undeniable facts that the people of Scotland rightly determined I'm going to make some progress, please. Thank you. That the people of Scotland rightly determined our own future in September 2014 and did so again in July 2024 and we will do so again. Now I can see the first minister and the S&P benches do not like uh those facts but I'm merely telling the truth. Democracy has not been denied. The only thing that has been denied is the outcome of democracy by the SMP time and time again. We of course have to recognize there are clear differences of opinion on the constitutional question and we just should respect that. But we also need to recognize how divisive referendums can be. I believe they should only be held when there's either a sense that both sides of the debate that the question needs to be put or used to confirm the apparent settled will of the people with a clear decisive result. We are not in either of those positions today. Until that changes, this debate is a smokeokc screen. It is clear that the S&P would rather focus on and the Greens would rather focus on the process of getting a referendum rather than doing the difficult work of actually building support for in independence and answering questions over currency, defense, and the 25.3 billion pound deficit to name but free. Years, no not just now. Thank you. Years of civil servants time, hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers cash, far more than even Peter Mel spent on haird dryers, were wasted on the government's white papers in the last session of parliament. They did not answer these vital questions and that did not move the dial. That again is on the SNP government. And like no, no, no, I'll give away a moment. Like other members, I also remember earlier this year John Swinny telling the nation that he had a secret plan. >> If he was reelected >> and wasn't given a referendum, >> where is the secret plan? I'm happy to give away to Mr. Swinny if he can tell us now. Is this the secret plan? >> He's the architect of secrets. >> Well, to be fair, to be fair, Mr. Swinny, to be fair, Mr. Swinny, I'm not even that interested in your secret plan, but I think your own supporters, your own supporters that you promised deserve to know what your secret plan is because they shouldn't be continually conned. And it looks like they're going to still have to wait for an answer on that. It's little wonder given the lack of serious work being done by the SMP that even many independent supporters don't want a referendum right now. but is also a reflection that the people of Scotland, including independent supporters, have more pressing priorities. As Michael Mara has said, we should be focusing on the people's real priorities. We should be having a summit on meeting our child poverty targets rather than having a pretendy separatist summit. Times are tough for people in Scotland right now. And when the going gets tough, what does the first minister do? he gets going to Cardiff to meet plague Camry and Shinfane a meeting even the T-shock who wants Irish unification said was unhelpful the Scottish government should instead be taking up Andy Burnham's offer to work cooperative across the UK because that is in Scotland's interest and what an independent Scotland would do. The people of Scotland have the right to decide their own future. Yes, we do. The only person who appears who doesn't like it when we do appears to be the first minister. But what about other rights? I'm going to No, I'm going to I'm going to make some progress. What about the other rights? What about the other rights? Let's talk about some of the other rights that people have. What about the right to help people with additional support needs? Oh, that's right. We'll quietly drop the learning disabilities and neurodyiverency bill and hope nobody notices. Well, we've noticed and so too have families across Scotland. What about the right of people to see a doctor or get an ambulance when we need it? Oh, that's right. The treatment team guarantee has been broken 900,000 times since its introduction. What about the right to walk down the street safely? Oh, yeah, that's right. Violent crime and sexual crime is on the rise. As Steven K pointed out, the public want action on crime, not warm words on the Constitution. What about the right to home? We have a housing emergency and today it was announced that a record 10,715 children are living in temporary accommodation. That's up 5% in a year. Let's have a summit on that. What about a right to a decent education? Let's have a summit on that. We can and should should work together on these the people's priorities. Presiding officer, I'll tell you what Scotland has a right to. has the right to a world-class education system, a world-class health service, the chance to make a decent living. But the rights of all those things are not denied by Westminster. They are denied by a first minister who, like his predecessors, looks after himself, not his nation, and puts his party before his country. Thank you. I call on Jenny Gor Ruth to respond to the debate on behalf of the Scottish government. Presiding officer, I am grateful for colleagues from across the chamber this afternoon for their spirited contributions. As Patricia Gibson rightly observed, it was in 1995 that Lord George Robertson infamously remarked that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. After nearly 20 years of SMP governments, Lord Robertson's prediction now rings somewhat hollow. Now, people like me in their 40s and younger can barely remember a Scotland without this place. This parliament belongs to our people. The school groups in the public gallery, the figures in the glass behind you, presiding officer, the poetry inscribed in our very foundations. It is in that spirit that the government has tabled today's debates because the people's parliament should have no limit on her ambition to improve the lives of our constituents. >> First, give >> Yes, I will. >> The deputy first minister makes reference to the gallery that this is a significant moment. I count five people. Is this the significant moment she seeks? >> Cabinet Secretary, presiding officer, I don't think Mr. many sneering about attendance in the public gallery is helping his case. He and his party have come today he and his party have come to the chamber today to lock Scotland into a union to provide us with no democratic route out as a liberal democrat. That is an unsustainable position. He must surely recognize that. Now we know presiding officer on these benches that an independent Scotland has got what it takes to flourish. We know we have what it takes to match the success of uh and living standards of nations like Ireland, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. And perhaps more than most, I know that not all of us agree on independence for Scotland. But regardless of views in favor or against, today's debate is about something far more fundamental. That is about people's right to choose their own future. So I want to turn to some of the contributions made today. Now, it would be remiss of me not to comment on uh the absence of reform from the chamber and following their walker earlier on today. Reform, of course, who, as I understand it, didn't oppose the business motion on today's debate, who um through their antics, of course, h have shown to the people who voted for them that they're not prepared to do a full day's work. Part-time, performative, pathetic presiding officer. Now, I do want to welcome Michael Maro to his new role. I I'm sure we'll work well together, and I'd be welcome to hearing Labour's h proposals in relation to the government's upcoming budget. The government of course as we've discussed will support the Labor Party motion at decision time. I think what Mr. Mara has said today about further devolution in our communities is really timely given our publication of on local government reform proposals uh yesterday. But of course in a union of equals tackling child poverty should arguably be a joint endeavor. So I hope that he will support my calls on the UK chancellor to take action to at source to help alleviate child poverty in Scotland. for example, by ending the freeze on local housing allowance rates, by ending the bedroom tax, and also by ending the benefits cap. That support would be sincerely welcome from the Scottish government. Now, as Rosview has noted, democracy is not a one-off event. This point was made by colleagues across the chamber throughout this afternoon, and a majority of course of people in this place were elected from independent supporting parties. We all accept that, we should accept rather h the premise today, which is it should be for the people of Scotland to decide on our future. Now, Russell Finley tells us today presiding officer that Scotland has had her tea. It was a one-off event and that should be that. Now, if we follow Mr. Finley's analysis, then the Scottish Conservatives should remain as the fifth political party in this place on just 12 seats because we don't revisit democratic decisions adhering to that logic. But maybe, just maybe, it's time for some self-awareness from the Scottish Conservatives. Now, David Green, presiding officer, his love for Alex Hamson's speeches is admirable. But similar to Russell Finley, he adheres to a view that tells us independence is off limits. The Liberal Democrats appear unable or unwilling to align themselves with a basic principle being tested by today's debate. That is really regrettable. I do agree though that some of the wording around about decentralizing decision-m for example, we would support. And of course, that's exactly why the government set out a range of measures yesterday that are designed to reform local government. And I hope the local the Liberal Democrats will be able to work with us on those proposals. But of course, the ultimate decentralization of power would be independence for Scotland. Now, presiding officer, I did enjoy Alex K's contribution um and of course his uh evident classroom management skills in quietening the Conservative benches. He made an interesting point about fear, which I think was echoed by Michelle Campbell and by Keith Brown. And of course it is the case there was a an exchange between I think Mr. K both Mr. Kes at one point around about conservative supporting members for h independence and of course back in 1993 it was Margaret Thatcher who said that the people of Scotland have an undoubted right to national self-determination. Thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way. So I presume then that the Scottish tries now disagree with that sentiment. Now in Kate Campbell's contribution first take >> yes I'm happy to do so. >> So twice George Robbertson has been mentioned in this chamber today talking about uh devolution would kill independent stone dead. Margaret Thatcher disputed that fact by saying if the the the SNP could deliver a majority to Westminster or Scottish MPs that would trigger the right to Scotland to decide. The Labour Party have made numerous assertions today that they believe in the right to decide and yet it was the Labour Party who inserted schedule 51B in the Scotland Act which reserved constitutional affairs to Westminster. So is it true that we actually have Margaret Thatch who agrees in their democracy and the Labour Party don't. >> Cabinet Secretary >> it sounds from Mr. Fairley's um explanation that that is exactly the case in which we find ourselves today. deeply undemocratic and unsustainable we would view in the S&P. Now in Kate Campbell's contribution uh Michael Mara interjected and rightly spoke actually to the point that Mr. Fairley just made about votes in 1979 and 1997 to establish this place. But following that logic there was not enough support in 1979 according to the rules afforded at that time to establish a Scottish parliament. But that didn't stop Labor from pushing for a referendum in 1997. Why was it acceptable for Labor to push for devolution then and not for the SMP to do so? Now, >> now Kate Campbell rightly calls happy to do so. >> Well, I thank the deputy first minister for giving way. I think it's entirely reasonable because what we did over the space of the 1980s and the 1990s when you and I deputy first minister were both children uh was the Labor Party generated a settled well and the Scottish people to create the demand that was overwhelming to make devolution and create this parliament. That's the job that sits in front of you. I would recommend you get on with it. >> Deputy First Minister, >> I'm grateful to Mr. Mara for a lecture on my role in this place, but ultimately today's debate has been about the role of the people of Scotland in having the democratic opportunity to exercise their views on the country's future. This party was reelected to government for a fifth successive time, and I do invite Mr. Mara and his colleagues to take some self-reflection on why that might be the case. Now, Kate Campbell rightly calls for a clearly defined mechanism to allow the rights for the people of Scotland to choose their own future. That ultimately, as we've discussed, presiding officer, is what today's debate is about. It is about that inherent democratic deficit within our current constitutional arrangements. Now, Stuart McMillan, of course, quoted from the S&P's manifesto, and we've had various opposition members quote from the S&P's manifesto, but the S&P's manifesto was very clear that a vote for the SMP is a vote for a referendum on independence. And of course, Stuart McMillan also calls for respect for from the Tory benches on the election result from May. The Conservative Party, as we heard, I think from Keith Brown, were obliterated in the elections, not four months ago. And um I think it is important to reflect on the reasons why the Conservatives went from just 31 seats in here to 12 in the space of 5 years. It's not a mandate to block independence that they have. The people have rejected the Scottish Conservatives and maybe they should should reflect on why that is the case. Now Liam Ker when he talked to some of the recent results is right in some regards. The people's vote must be respected and then we need to respect of course the outcome of the last Scottish parliamentary election which reelected the SMP to this place. Presiding officer, I am mindful of time and of course in closing um I want to reflect again on the purpose of today's motion that the parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future. It is a simple statement and one which I hope we can all agree on. Continuing to just say no or asserting that independence is off the table is simply unsustainable. Andy Burnham knows this. Indeed, the new prime minister has said as much himself. Westminster isn't working. We on these benches agree something's got to give. And we all know that the clock is ticking on the future of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland have elected independent supporting first ministers. Election results are pulling at the very constitutional fabric of these islands. Presiding officer, just because a right has been exercised once doesn't mean that it should never people should never have the opportunity to exercise it again. Not if that is what the people wish. The prime minister's comments on the 9th of September appear to accept this basic principle. The prime minister knows that our current arrangements don't work for the UK. It is exactly why he has established number 10 north. It is therefore now time for the prime minister to meet with our first minister to agree the mechanism required for a second independence referendum to give the people of our country a say on their future. Scotland's future must be in Scotland's hands. I move the motion. Presiding officer thank you deputy first minister. That concludes the debate on Scotland's right to decide. There are five questions put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment 1264.2 to the name of Michael Mara which seeks to amend motion 126 name of John Swinny on Scotland's right to decide to be agreed. Are we all agreed? >> We we no we are not agreed. Speak up folks. We are not agreed. Um therefore we'll move to a vote to be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.