Indeed, and that is what we have already done. The amendments have been tabled in committee. I am grateful for the support of Labour members on that committee. I will be happy to forward copies of the amendments to Sarah Boyack. I believe that the suggested changes have also been published prior to their consideration at the committee stage in the House of Commons, but I will be happy to share them. I put it on record that different parties have been supporting those amendments. I should say—and underline—that, throughout the process, we have been in a close working relationship with our colleagues in the Labour-led Welsh Government.

I go back to my point about the solution to the deteriorating state of devolution being more dialogue, with the UK Government requiring to listen to the devolved Governments. I sincerely hope that Mr Shapps chooses to listen, which would be a departure from normal practice.

I finish by returning to the significance of the bill as an example of an ideology that Scotland wants no part of. Scotland is committed to maintaining alignment with the European Union, because we wish to benefit from the high standards that we gained as a member state. Alignment is, of course, a point of principle and conviction. Scotland’s attachment to the European Union has been demonstrated at the ballot box time and again, and, if the latest polls are to be believed, that desire to remain close to Europe is doing nothing other than increasing.

With UK legislation such as the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, the people of Scotland can see what is at stake and can understand the devastating effect that Brexit is having on our country. To reject the bill is to reject a race to the bottom on standards, to reject a reckless approach to policy making and scrutiny, and to reject an approach that ignores and undermines the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill threatens vital standards and protections built up over 47 years of EU membership and undermines devolution, and should, therefore, be scrapped by the UK Government.

Perhaps surprisingly, I am going to quote Margaret Thatcher in answer to my colleague, because it was Margaret Thatcher who said:

“As a nation”

the Scots

“have an undoubted right to national self-determination.”

She also said:

“Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician”

should

“stand in their way”.

It was John Major who said of Scotland:

“No nation could be held irrevocably in a union against its will.”

As part of the cross-party Smith commission, after the 2014 independence referendum, all parties said:

“Nothing in this report”,

which we all agreed on,

“prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

They have chosen to have a choice, but the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are working hand in glove to deny the people their say. We need democracy in this country, and today we have seen the end of the voluntary union as we know it. We will not give up on democracy, and the people will have their say.

I would prefer to get rid of unelected Tory Governments in Scotland for ever—[Interruption.]—for ever, but what Sarah Boyack suggests would not deliver that. I am quite taken by a quote that I have here from a colleague of Sarah Boyack’s—I think that she knows him—Anas Sarwar. He said:

“it should be the people of Scotland that decide when the next referendum is.”

That issue was debated last year in the Scottish Parliament election, and it was the defining issue of the election. Look around the chamber and see who is here—the parties that stood on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum won the election. The party that opposed referendums lost the election. What a bizarre situation it is for Opposition parties to tell the governing parties that they should not do what they were elected to do. That is not a normal functioning democracy, and it is a very sad day to see the Labour Party—a party that was, in its day, a very strong supporter of home rule—joining the Tories in blocking Scottish democracy.

I say gently that it is neither liberal nor democratic to stand in the way of democracy and people being able to make a yes-or-no choice. No doubt, we differ on whether we support independence. I know that Alex Cole-Hamilton does not want to hear that he represents a party with only four members and the worst election result in its history. That loss was secured on the back of opposition to an independence referendum. Maybe he should listen to the electorate, because the electorate—[Interruption.] Indeed, members may point at these benches. Parties that were elected with a manifesto commitment to deliver a referendum have the majority in the Parliament. I am sorry that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are being neither liberal nor democratic, nor standing up for democracy in Scotland.

Indeed, they will.

As democrats, it behoves all of us to embrace every democratic opportunity to secure democratic change. However, in a democracy it also behoves other political parties that have different views to uphold the basic tenets of democracy. Overlooking and disregarding election results where one can clearly see—because of the numbers on the Opposition benches being less than the majority of the Parliament—that it is the Opposition parties that are opposing the democratic mandate that sent us all here.

The question does not need to rest on the next UK general election, because the UK Government could meet with the Scottish Government and do what it did in the run-up to the 2014 referendum by saying, “We disagree on the principal question of independence—yes or no—but, as democrats, we agree that the people should have their say.”

It is time for the people of Scotland to have their say. They decided, they elected us to do this, and nobody—nobody—should stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament and the views of the Scottish people.

As the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, it is entirely appropriate for me to answer questions about the constitution today. First Minister’s question time is tomorrow; I will wait to see whether Douglas Ross has any better questions then.

To answer the substantive question that is before us, the Supreme Court has decided that, under the devolution settlement, a referendum on the question

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

is a matter that is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. That means that, without an agreement between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments and the Scottish and UK Parliaments, a section 30 order or a UK act to change the Scottish Parliament’s powers, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass the laws that are required to hold a referendum to give effect to the mandate that people in Scotland gave it and to give us a choice about our future.

The Scottish Government accepts and respects that judgment. The Supreme Court was not asked to decide, and cannot decide, whether the Scottish Parliament should have the power to hold an independence referendum. Its job is to set out what the law is—in this case, the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act 1998—and that is what it has done.

The judgment makes it clear how the UK constitution gives the UK Government a veto over the right of people in Scotland to choose. The Supreme Court said in paragraph 81 of its judgment:

“A clear outcome, whichever way the question was answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.”

This is what the constitutional arrangements deny us:

“a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.”

Why does that matter? The Supreme Court tells us that the question is

“whether Scotland should cease to be subject to the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.

So, the reason why the Scottish electorate does not get its chance to offer “a democratic expression” is because it would impinge on Westminster sovereignty if its views were known. That tells us what is truly left of promises that were made that the UK would operate as “a partnership of equals” and that we lived in

“a voluntary union of nations”.

No matter how the people of Scotland vote or how often they elect Parliaments that support a referendum or support independence, they cannot be told “No” by the UK Prime Minister. That cannot be right, and there are few stronger or more powerful arguments for independence than that. In a voluntary union, one part does not have to rely on the agreement of another before it is allowed to even think about leaving.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The position of the Scottish Government remains the same as what the First Minister announced to Parliament on 28 June. Nothing has changed in that respect. We would prefer the UK and Scottish Governments to agree to a section 30 order under the Scotland Act 1998 to allow a legal and constitutional referendum to go ahead. That is what the people have voted for. It is for the Scottish Conservatives to explain why they are blocking and denying democracy.

The inconvenient truth for Douglas Ross is that last year’s Scottish Parliament election decided the principle and the electorate decided the mandate—[Interruption.]—which was for parties that are in favour of an independence referendum. The SNP and the Greens won the election; the Scottish Conservatives lost the election—[Interruption.]

To be honest, it is difficult to understand why a UK Government, having established the principle of respecting that a referendum should take place when a majority in favour of it is elected to the Scottish Parliament—which is exactly what happened after the 2011 Scottish Parliament election—should now depart from that precedent. I can come to only one conclusion, which is that it is scared—scared of losing the referendum. All the excuses for why democracy should be blocked now are factually inaccurate. They are a fiction, and they are democracy denial. It is not a good look, in a democracy, for political parties to block democracy, but the Tories have had form on that for decades.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that my memory is long enough for me to remember that it was the Conservative Party that blocked Scottish democracy and devolution after the yes vote of 1979. It is long enough for me to remember that it was the Conservative Party that opposed devolution in the 1997 referendum. Perhaps it is unsurprising that the Conservative Party is not keen on Scottish democracy now. Blocking and denying democracy is a serious charge, and it is unfortunate that Douglas Ross and the Tories are leading the charge on it.