I am sorry, but as an additional point, I think that it is helpful for viewers to be aware that the current Scottish Government is operating in a minority parliamentary situation. To get a budget through, it will require a majority of MSPs to vote for it. That is why this is not just a question of commitments by the Government. I have given the Government’s commitments; I have underscored those commitments; and I reiterate them. What I wish to communicate to colleagues is that, if we are agreed that the scale of the challenge is such as it is, and if we are agreed that we require to deliver additional resources of the scale that the Government has committed to wanting to deliver, we need to vote for that.

I totally refute—

The Scottish Government fully values both the importance of the music industry to Scotland’s culture and the role that venues play in the talent pipeline. I met the Music Venue Trust in May to discuss the difficulties that the industry faces at grass-roots level and the proposal for a ticket levy to alleviate those and to help build a sustainable live music ecosystem. The Scottish Government is keen to continue to engage with the industry to support sector-led initiatives.

Questions regarding day-to-day operational matters for Historic Environment Scotland, including queries relating to the management of Holyrood park, are best answered directly by Historic Environment Scotland, so I will ask HES to write to the member with a full reply to her question.

The additional £15.8 million in culture funding this financial year is the first stage in our commitment to £100 million more per year for culture funding by 2028-29. The additional funding this financial year includes £13.2 million for Creative Scotland, which is being used to support its network of regularly funded organisations, including the Scottish Music Industry Association, as well as providing additional funding towards the Creative Scotland open fund for individuals and additional support to Screen Scotland.

I agree with Patrick Harvie about the importance of agreeing to support venues. I raised that issue with my culture secretary opposite number in the previous United Kingdom Government, and I will raise it with Lisa Nandy of the new UK Government.

Patrick Harvie will appreciate that the proposal involves significant reserved powers. I am keen to better understand its deliverability, which is part of a dialogue that I look forward to continuing to have with the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Yesterday, I met the new chief executive of Historic Environment Scotland, Katerina Brown, and I am pleased to say that we have a shared ambition for Historic Environment Scotland. I am sure that she and her colleagues have been listening closely to what Lorna Slater has asked. Given her supplementary question, I will raise those issues with officials and will revert to her in writing.

I have already acknowledged that, if I were a supporter of the union, I would rather not have to debate all this again and I would rather not have another vote. However, my question about what mechanism people who oppose independence agree, as democrats, should be able to trigger an important vote has still not been answered. We already have such a mechanism in a part of the UK, incidentally—such a mechanism exists in Northern Ireland. As part of the Good Friday agreement, there is the ability to hold a border poll, and that should be able to happen every seven years. There is a mechanism for Northern Ireland, but there is no mechanism for Scotland or Wales. There is, of course, a mechanism for England, because only a majority of parliamentarians in England need to vote in favour of a referendum and then it would happen if people wished it to. [Interruption.] I am sure that I am going to run into difficulty with time, so I will try to make some progress. I will be happy to speak to colleagues after the debate, of course.

As is noted in the motion, the referendum was an important democratic event. Wherever we sit in the chamber, we can all agree that we witnessed democracy in action. It was overwhelmingly positive. I am looking at Edward Mountain, because I know about his family case, and it grieves me. I am sure that it will make some people on the other side of this argument uncomfortable to reread quotes from a former member of the Westminster Parliament who talked about bayoneting the supporters of independence. I am sure that the former MP in question was speaking metaphorically, but that kind of language did not contribute to a universally positive experience in relation to the referendum.

Having said that, I agree—and I have no doubt that the history books will bear me out on this—that the referendum was an amazingly inclusive event. It energised generations of people who had a belief that a different future was possible. I hope, too, that it energised some supporters of the union to make sure that the union might improve, although I observe that I have read not a single column by a single commentator who opposed Scottish independence drawing attention to the amazing progress that we have been able to see since 2014 on the basis of all the promises that were made by the no side.

The debate was, of course, lively. For many—indeed, for most—it was about hope and optimism. For months and years preceding the vote, it encouraged discussion and debate as vibrant and diverse as Scotland itself.

This year, we also marked the 25th anniversary of devolution—of self-government—in this Parliament. Scotland voted overwhelmingly—74 per cent of Scots did so—to reconvene the Scottish Parliament to address a democratic deficit. That followed decades of Westminster Governments imposing unwelcome and damaging policies on Scotland. The positive impact of devolution is indisputable. Decisions that were made in the chamber have made Scotland a better and fairer place. For example, there is free university tuition, minimum unit pricing for alcohol, a ban on smoking in public places, equal marriage, land reform, personal care for older people, 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare, and the child payment.

Of course, people will always be able to say, “Why not more of this?”, or “Why not less of that?” That is the stuff of politics—that is why we are here. We have to raise the votes—of course we do—to do it as well as we can. None of that is an argument against being able to make decisions closer to home. The benefits of 25 years of devolution have been delivered due to the strength of this Parliament and members across it in different parties, even those who opposed devolution in the first place.

We can agree, surely, that decisions about Scotland’s future are best determined by the people who live here. Devolution has evolved since 1999, with substantial changes being made to the powers of the Parliament in the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Act 2016. Since 2014, the Parliament has used those powers to set taxes on income, to reform the tax on house sales and to create the Scottish National Investment Bank. Members across the chamber have worked hard to respond to the best interests of Scotland and to major challenges, including the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit.

Devolution can function only if UK Governments respect the decisions that have been reached by the devolved legislature and the safeguards that have been created to protect it, such as the Sewel convention. I very much hope that the UK Government is seized of that and that we are able to ensure that devolution works as it was supposed to, without it being undermined.

The turnout in 2014 was the highest recorded of any Scotland-wide poll since the advent of universal suffrage. Grass-roots campaigns for both sides emerged to discuss the challenges and opportunities. From 2007, this Government encouraged a national conversation and provided people with the information needed to make an informed decision on behalf of themselves, their families and their communities. That work has continued through a “Building a new Scotland” prospectus series that has updated the case for independence in the light of Brexit.

My concern is that the people have given the Government a clear mandate for a referendum on independence—there is a majority in the chamber for there to be one—and if that is not the best mechanism, I do not know what is—[Interruption.]

I am still waiting for others to tell me what mechanism there should be—a clear and legal route—to be able to hold a referendum. The people should have the opportunity to determine their constitutional future again.

The Government has always sought a principled and pragmatic approach to engagement with the UK Government. There is a substantial opportunity to achieve better outcomes for the people of Scotland when we work together. We want to build relationships based on trust and understanding, which must include respect by the UK Government for the Scottish Parliament devolution settlement.

Since 2014, there has been much change and Scotland has faced its challenges, but there is much to be proud of, as I have highlighted. When it comes to Scotland’s future, much more work needs to be done if we are to create the modern, diverse and dynamic Scotland that we all want to see. As the First Minister made clear in this afternoon’s debate, we could make a greater impact with all the levers of powers of an independent nation. As we have seen since 2014, decisions about Scotland’s future are best determined by the people who live here in Scotland.

It really does take a brass neck to do that, and no matter how much one shouts on the issue, it does not get us beyond the fact that it was the UK Conservative Party that implemented austerity. The impact on public spending has been felt the length and breadth of the UK, including Scotland, so I encourage Alexander Stewart to recant on the austerity that his party has been responsible for and to, at least, acknowledge that that might have some impact on the level of public funding in the UK—not least in England, where, under his party’s responsibility, cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been vast.