Category Archives: Uncategorized



The Scottish Tories are in trouble. Lumbered with a Prime Minister they never wanted and with their influence amongst the UK party at a new all time low. Their laughable plans to have Ruth Davidson inaugurated as First Minister now seem in tatters as tensions rise across her party and across Parliaments. ‘Civil war’ is a term readily traded in Scottish politics but we might see a bona fide example of the genre as the Scottish Tories prepare to split in to rival camps. 

At the heart of this is the new Prime MInister’s stricture that those who serve him sign up to a ‘do or die’ Brexit, including the now likely prospect of leaving with no deal. Already the career minded amongst the miserable troop of Scottish Conservative MPs have been careful not be be seen to be on the wrong side of this dictum. Only one of their number is apparently prepared to defy. 

The replacement of David Mundell by a little known, old school landed gentry Tory, notable only for his hard views on Brexit has shocked the Scottish Tories to the core. Ruth Davidson did everything possible to retain her old friend in post and fully expected Boris to acquiesce to her demand. The fact that he didn’t care a hoot about her representations smacks of a former adversary enjoying his revenge served particularly well chilled. Boris cares so little about her difficulties that he even bypassed all the Scottish MPs and appointed an English MP in the Scotland Office confirming the utter humiliation of Ruth. 

Next, there will be demands for ‘loyalty’ from the Scottish Conservatives to retain unity across the UK in the name of the ‘precious union’. The newly crowned ‘Minister of the Union’ will expect Ruth Davidson to perform another one of her now famous ‘flip-flops’ and sign the Boris ‘do or die’ Brexit pledge. If she does not it would be entirely reasonable for Boris to seek to secure a more loyal Scottish Lieutenant to do his Brexit bidding.

The Scottish Conservatives have only got themselves to blame for this embarrassing humbling. If they had made it clear to Boris that they would not countenance their authority being undermined then their bargaining power would at least have been worth a role of the dice. Threatening, then withdrawing, repeated resignation threats rendered them ridiculous and Boris rightly concluded that they did not have the bottle for the fight. Instead the only real defiance deployed was having Ruth back every defeated Boris opponent in the leadership contest until there was none left. How Boris must have been quaking in his boots at such ‘opposition’. 

The one thing that Ruth did get right is her assessment that the Scots will never take to our new Prime Minister. Apparently solid opinion polling evidence told the Scottish Tories that the blustering, Eton public schoolboy buffoonery jarred with the Scottish public. Soft Tory voters impressed with an illusory Ruth ‘detoxification’ and a media manufactured leadership myth are appalled at his previous unacceptable racist and misogynistic comments. Tory remain voters are terrified of his plans for a no deal Brexit and his general pitch for the Farage vote. His ‘Cabinet of all the horrors’ also reminds Scots of the worst excesses of high Thatcherism. Already there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the Tories will be heading into electoral free fall with 53% of Scots saying they will now vote for independence with Boris as Prime Minister. 


Knowing the electoral liability the Scots Tories were therefore right to throw every resource into the indelicately named ‘Operation Arse’ to stop him. The fact that they made such a total ‘arse’ of it just shows how ill prepared for anything approaching Government they really are. Pursuing this childishly monikered mission so ineptly has infuriated the Boris-ites and this Dad’s Army type defiance was never going to go unpunished. 

Ruth therefore will have to sign up to the ‘buffoon Brexit’ or do what that great Conservative visionary, Murdo Fraser, suggested a long time ago during her leadership contest, and strike out on her own. Declaring Scots Tory ‘independence’ might now be the only option but the window for that is closing quickly. MP colleagues with careers to protect are quickly being enticed into project Boris and then there’s the question as to what on earth do Scottish Conservatives do in another snap General Election? There’s also the obvious little question of ‘if independence is good enough for the Scots Toris then why, etc…..’?

How Ruth must long for Yesterday when all she had to do was ride a buffalo or blow the bagpipes to secure screeds and screeds of fulsome praise and attention. The tired record of ‘Opposing a second referendum’ won’t work anymore and the policy cupboard has been bare for years.

Whatever there was in the way of a ‘Conservative revival’ is all but but sunk in blond ambition. For the Scottish Tories it wasn’t even fun while it lasted




The drugs death capital of Europe, with 1% of the population heroin addicts. Half the prison population on drug-related charges. Sound familiar? This isn’t Scotland in 2019, this is Portugal in the early 1990s, a nation which experienced a drugs epidemic on an even bigger scale than what we are currently observing in Scotland. In the early 90s every Portuguese family either had someone caught in heroin’s grip or knew a family affected by its scourge. 

What they did about it was something remarkable. 

As a nation they collectively decided that this could not go on and initiated a national debate assembling a Government led commission to address the crisis. The result was almost as bold as it was pioneering. They decided that a criminal justice approach simply didn’t work and that the response to problem drug use had to be exclusively health based. 

They decriminalised all drugs for personal use. But they didn’t just leave it at that… they assembled what they now call a ‘dissuasion commission’ to address all drug users brought to the attention of the authorities. Here their drug use was to be addressed, assistance offered, or if necessary sanctions applied. Money saved in criminal justice interventions have been reinvested into drug treatments and services. Twenty eight years later Portugal has just about the lowest rates of drugs deaths and problem drug use in Europe. 

I was in Portugal with members of the Scottish Affairs committee and Westminster’s Health and Social Care Committee last week and we listened in amazement to how this traditional small c Conservative nation addressed their drugs emergency. Where there was the usual resistance to embarking on such a radical approach there in now a national political consensus around this policy. Problem drug users secure support without the societal stigma that treats drug users as outcasts and criminals. Today they are discussing the next steps forward with proposals such as full legalisation of certain drugs and making the treatment of problematic drug use not just a health issue but a human right. 


Before we got to Lisbon we stopped in at Frankfurt, another fascinating international example. Roughly at the same time as Portugal was experiencing its difficulties Frankfurt had an unusual and disturbing heroin emergency. The financial sector in the city centre was almost besieged with problem drug users who were shooting up in public, dealing and even dying in the streets through overdose. Hundreds of heroin users turned the Gallusanlage into the biggest collection of problem drug users in Europe. From this crisis the ‘Frankfurt Way’ was born. An approach that put harm reduction at its centre by putting in place measures exclusively against the dealing of illegal drugs.

Central to its approach was getting problem drug users better or stabilised. This involved taking the problem off the streets and into safe spaces where treatment could be offered. Drug Consumption Rooms were opened and addicts encouraged to seek help. We visited three of Frankfurt’s 4 consumption rooms and could not believe what was on offer. I know that for some these facilities are still seen as ‘shooting galleries’ but nothing could be further from the truth. One DRC offered sheltered accommodation to addicts and had workshops on site to encourage problem drug users back into the world of work. All of them had wrap around services such as counselling, medical support and treatment options. Frankfurts drugs deaths have since fallen from 147 in 1992 to 22 last year. The Galluslanage has been re-dug to get rid of the discarded needles and debris. There remains a plaque to the many who died in the park due to their addictions.

Could any or all of this work in Scotland? What we probably need more than anything else is ‘the Scottish way’. We need our own approach to address out particular issues and recognise our own cultural values and national debate. What we most definitely need to do is to asses the international examples and be exclusively evidence based. Things can not be ruled out because of a personal ideology or even a deeply held political conviction. The evidence we have received in the Scottish Affairs inquiry has been fascinating, instructive and profound. We will now factor in what we have found in Europe into our inquiry.

What seems to be happening in Scotland now is a refusal to accept our appalling current drug deaths figures. We also probably now find a public ahead of the Government in being able to consider the big levers of change and more prepared to consider the radical and creative solutions. Scotland now has the worst record in Europe for drug deaths and we must look beyond our shores and learn how other nations have dealt with their emergencies. 



IF you want to see a proper grown-up relationship between a “sub-national” government and a central administration you could look no further than Quebec within the Canadian Federation. Quebec proudly guards its special status within Canada and asserts its rights as a “nation within a nation” without question or compromise. It is an arrangement that seems all of the whole 3000 miles away from Scotland within the UK.

I was in Canada chairing a Scottish Affairs Committee visit last week and was part of the highest-level conversations about how Canada’s federal arrangements work across this huge nation, with its 10 provincial governments and three territories. We were there to discuss inter-governmental relations as we conclude our inquiry marking 20 years of devolution.

We also wanted to examine other features of provincial powers such as immigration and the role of sub-national governments in negotiating bilateral trade deals. It was fascinating and revealing stuff. This is my personal account of some of the issues in our visit.

The first obvious feature to observe is that Canada is a federation. Its constitutional arrangements are therefore designed entirely differently from the centralised UK state, with its strange version of asymmetric devolution. Canada claims to be the most decentralised nation in the developed world, and looking at its constitution, this is an assertion it would be difficult to take issue with. Where there are the obvious tensions over finance and powers (as the number of constitutional cases taken to their Supreme Court testify) there seems to mainly be a negotiated way through based on goodwill and mutual respect.

Talking of tensions immediately brings us back to Quebec. In order to secure the relative peace between Quebec and federal Canada, two independence referendums were required with the last settled by a few thousand votes and less than 1% of the huge 93.5 % turnout.

That was in 1995, and almost 25 years later the independence movement remains diminished – with the party of independence, the Parti Quebecois, languishing with 9 out of the available 125 members of the Quebec provincial government. They are currently selecting a new leader and uncertain whether they are a party of the left or right. Young Quebecers now increasingly identify themselves as pan-Canadian and PQ’s support seems to be dependent on the 1990s sovereignist generation.

The spectacular fall of the Party Quebecios, and its federal equivalent the Bloc Quebecois, is a salutary lesson to those who believe that a second referendum defeat would be consequence-free here.

Quebec is not Scotland, though. The Quebec independence movement is primarily fired by its francophone cultural agenda and differs significantly from the “civic nationalism” that underpins Scotland’s independence ambitions. Canada is also not the UK. In narrowly winning the referendum, Canada went out of its way to ensure that Quebec’s agenda was properly addressed and that its special status was properly acknowledged.

Contrast that to the UK who after promising a similar “near federalism” immediately set about the task of emasculating Scottish MPs with EVEL (English votes for English laws), before repatriating powers that should have ordinarily come to Scotland whilst examining how it can assert itself over a recalcitrant nation.

Back to 2019. Canada and the skyline of Montreal is practically covered in cranes building the new infrastructure required to support the unprecedented economic growth that is currently being experienced in Quebec. They now have powers over immigration bringing in the people and skills required to support a booming economy and address demographic issues on a par with the perilous situation we face in Scotland.

International students attracted to Quebec’s universities aren’t given immediate notice to leave following their studies but instead encouraged to stay and contribute to the growing economy. Their Department of Immigration told us that 60% of responsibilities over immigration now reside at Quebec provincial level. In discussing the CETA and Nafta trade talks Quebec and other provincial governments were in the next room asserting their provincial interests and ensuring that trade arrangements meet the requirements of all the provinces.

Believe it or not, Quebec also has the power to decide if it wants to hold another independence referendum! Responsibility over its own democracy more than anything else demonstrates the respect Quebec is now shown from federal Canada. Where Canada reached out to Quebec the UK almost seems to enjoy an approach which could only be described as passive provocation.

What about securing the federation enjoyed in Canada? Well, where the debate about federalism regularly crops up in Scotland its proponents don’t seem to properly understand what real federalism is or suggest a way how it could be applied across a United Kingdom of four nations where England provides about 90% of the population.

What is absolutely certain is that Quebec has an arrangement that is way beyond anything enjoyed by the “most powerful devolved parliament in the world”.

Where Quebec provides an intriguing example of another nation engaged in a conversation about its independence, the differences are all too real. The UK could never make the accommodations that have been offered to Quebec and it could never progress to a state of federation like that enjoyed across Canada.

The one real lesson that we can take away from Quebec is that we simply cannot lose another referendum. Looking at the condition of the independence movement in Quebec, there seems no clear way forward or real hope of resurrecting that spark after 25 years. Looking at the reasons behind its collapse there is no reason to suspect that a second referendum defeat would not be similarly near-fatal to the independence movement here in Scotland.

Scotland has only one more chance of becoming anything like Quebec and that is to end its current constitutional arrangements with the UK by becoming a self-governing independent nation.

For us there is no other way and that possible one last chance simply can not be lost.



I’VE been really flattered by the interest in my announcement to stand for Speaker of the Commons. I only hope it doesn’t come as a crushing blow to Sunday National readers that Ladbrokes has given me the rather cruel odds of 50/1.

Nonetheless, even long shots can come in, so I have crafted a manifesto with several key reforms to bring Westminster into the 21st century. Mainly, they are designed to demonstrate the farcical and absurd way that Westminster operates and to contrast that with how things are done at Holyrood.

I have no idea when a contest will be called, but the Westminster expectation is that it is imminent. That means that SNP MPs participate in choosing the next Speaker and that choice should not be restricted to Tory or Labour candidates.

I will offer an entirely different option to fundamentally question the ways of Westminster.

It should come as no surprise that number one of my top 10 proposals is to introduce electronic voting. I have probably spent several weeks of my life just voting in the House of Commons and wasting time in cramped, packed and, at times, dangerous division lobbies. The way we vote is more reminiscent of a medieval assembly. Worse than that, because time taken up with this nonsense, several key decisions may not be considered.

The other issue that I know irks many people is that SNP MPs contribute at the end of debates with speaking time curtailed.

This is because MPs are called to speak based on seniority and a crude arithmetical assessment of party strength. With nearly all SNP MPs being relatively new and from a group of 35 out of 650, we inevitably lose out. What I propose is to overhaul how MPs are selected to speak based on equality. I would end “seniority” and have members with a long-standing interest in the debate – regardless of party – called early with a ballot system designed to then select the rest of the speakers on an equitable basis. I would also put in place a list of when members would be expected to speak prior to the start of a debate and have this made available to the House.


And I want to address the many nonsensical ways in which the House conducts itself during debates. I remember the response when SNP MPs were rebuked simply for clapping. Legislatures round the world seem to manage perfectly well by allowing this and in the absence of clapping, strange and exotic sounds have emerged in the Commons.

We must also address how we refer to each other. I know that many would take issue with the prefix of “Honourable” to the Gentleman/Lady or Friend that we currently use.

We all have names and if they are good enough for us in all other day to day discourse they should be good enough for the chamber of the House of Commons. There is also the absurd notion that the Speaker should dictate how MPs dress in the chamber. As Speaker, I would end these pointless conventions.

I would also want to democratise the management of the Commons by creating an “Executive of the House” to include staff members and the wider Parliamentary community.

I have also suggested extending proxy voting to those with illness or caring responsibilities and I have proposed taking the debates we have in Westminster Hall around the UK.

Lastly, I would seek to address our historic commitment to reform the House of Lords because it is an undemocratic anachronism unreflective of our communities.

I would lead a cross-party convention of Parliament involving the devolved legislatures to progress our democracy and make both the “Houses” of Parliament more accountable and representative.

Is my programme likely to secure widespread Parliamentary support? Is my tongue firmly in cheek as I propose this almost revolutionary agenda?

I will leave that for you to decide. Scotland will be leaving Westminster soon so I will be in a hurry to conclude this agenda. I would like to maybe think that this could be our parting gift – from us to them.



Today I announce my intention to run for the position of Speaker of the House of Commons when (and if) that position becomes available. 

It is time for a Speaker to come from beyond the big two parties to demonstrate that Parliament represents all shades of political opinion and all parts of the UK.

I will offer a clear reforming agenda that will fully respect Members of Parliament and treat every one of them equally and fairly. I will offer a new transparent and open process in how Members of Parliament are selected to make contributions and I will seek to end the practice of selecting Members of Parliament to speak based on seniority. 

My mission as Speaker will be to lead from the front the efforts to reform Parliament and make the House look and feel like a proper 21st century institution.

I am the longest serving Member of Parliament from Scotland, a former Chief Whip and business manager. I currently serve as a Shadow Leader of the House and am about to become a member of the House of Commons Commission. I also chair the Scottish Affairs Committee, the first member of the Scottish National Party to chair a select committee. I have a deep insight and knowledge of Parliamentary procedure and in my 18 years in the House I have had experience in practically every front bench responsibility. 

I will be a Speaker for the back benches and will ensure that the House will always comes first.

If elected your Speaker these are the main 10 points I would work to see achieved. 

1. I will work to end the massive waste of time in how we vote in the House.

Each current head count vote we undertake in the House of Commons takes a         minimum of twenty minutes to conduct. When there are multiple votes on debates such as at report stage of bills several hours can be wasted just in the simple process of the House expressing an opinion. Members of Parliament are forced into constrained, packed (and when particularly busy) potentially dangerous voting lobbies to queue in designated lines to be counted by a whip at the lobby door. It is a practice more reminiscent of a medieval Parliamentary assembly than a modern Parliament.

Because of the time taken to vote some important questions are not put to the House and the constraints placed on time available for voting means that the House can not express an opinion on several key questions. This must come to an end. 

As Speaker I would lead the campaign to reform voting in the House. I believe that electronic voting must be put in place as quickly as practically possible to end this massive waste of time and allow busy MPs to use their time much more constructively.

2. I will end the process of Members being selected to speak based on seniority.

Speaking in the House of Commons is the first and most basic responsibility that we perform as elected representatives in our day to day business in Parliament. It is the most obvious way to speak up on our constituents behalf and to represent their interests. All members must be therefore treated equally and all offered the same opportunities to speak across the House. The current situation proffers speaking ‘privileges’ to senior members who are called earlier to speak than newer members of the House. Why should the constituents of Rushcliffe have privileged representation in the speaking rights of their MP compared to the constituents of recently elected Members of Parliament who will invariably find their representative at the tail end of the debate with speaking time curtailed? 

All Members of Parliament should be considered equal and have the same entitlements as all others. I will end the practice of Members of Parliament being called to speak by seniority.

3. I will make the selection of speakers open and transparent. 

I will put in place an open and available list of when Members would be expected to speak prior to the start of a debate. This will be made available before any debate is due to start and issued to all who have indicated a desire to speak and to the wider House.

I would intend to have members with a long standing interest in the debate to be called early following opening speeches with a ballot system designed to select the rest of the speakers on an equitable basis. 

The opportunity to speak in the House must be made equal and fair to all. 

4. I will end the practice of referring to fellow members by constituency or by the title of Honourable friend or Honourable member. 

We all have names, and if they are good enough for us in all other day to day discourse they should be good enough for the chamber of the House of Commons. All debates should continue to be made through the chair but we must start to speak to each other like ordinary human beings and address each other sensibly. 

5. I will end any ‘dress code’. 

The suggestion that the Speaker of the House of Commons should state what Members of Parliament should or should not wear is almost absurd. There was the recent ‘innovation’ that male members did not need to wear a tie but we need to go much further. Members of Parliament are grown ups and it should be exclusively up to them what they should or should not wear to work. 

I would ensure that there are no rules or observed ‘conventions’ as to what Members of Parliament choose wear to come to work. 


6. Reform of the management of the House.

The House of Commons commission must be reformed or replaced with a proper ‘Executive of the House’ involving all members of the House of Commons community including staff representatives. The running of Parliament should not be a matter exclusive to MPs and I will design, in consultation with political parties, an inclusive ‘Executive of the House’ involving the whole Parliamentary community.

7. An extension to proxy voting to Members of Parliament and those experiencing health difficulties or in need of extra support.

I was a big supporter and advocate of proxy voting for Members on baby leave having given evidence to the procedure committee on the issue. The success of this must now mean that it is extended to support other Members of Parliament suffering from illness or otherwise indisposed through caring duties or other demonstrable priorities. 

8. Members will not be rebuked for showing their approval in the House by clapping in approval of speeches or contributions of which they approve. 

Legislatures round the world seem to manage perfectly well by allowing the use of clapping to show support or appreciation of a speech. In the absence of clapping strange and exotic sounds have  emerged which accounts for ‘approval’ in the House of Commons – which equally baffles and amuses our constituents. We should be able to show our appreciation as Members of Parliament in the same way as everybody else does in the communities we represent.

9. Reform of Parliament.

The House of Commons must become a proper 21st century institution with working hours that are representative of the rest of the country we serve. I will lead attempts for the next phase of modernisation looking at when we sit and how the House should look and feel.

Where there is no locus for the Speaker on House of Lords reform it is incumbent on the Speaker to lead the calls for a review of Parliament. The House of Lords is an undemocratic anachronism unreflective of our communities and host to unelected appointees, aristocrats and Bishops. As Speaker I will  lead a cross party convention of the House involving both Houses and the devolved Parliaments to see how we can progress our democracy and make both the ‘Houses’ of Parliament more accountable and representative of the nation we serve.

10. Outreach across the UK.

Parliament must demonstrate its commitment to all parts of the UK. 

As Speaker I will seek to take institutions of Parliament round the UK and allow the maximum opportunity of access to the people we represent. There is no good reason why some debates, for example some that currently take place within Westminster Hall, could not take place in other parts of the UK and I will lead efforts to make Parliament available to all communities we serve. 

My pledge to you is as your Speaker is to make Parliament look and feel like an institution that belongs to its age. I will put in place reforms so that all Members of Parliament are treated equally and I will do everything to make Parliament relevant to all members of our community and all parts of the United Kingdom.



I am really pleased that a renewed debate about the possibility of a ‘University of the City of Perth’ is taking place and I encourage everyone interested in Higher and Further Education in Perthshire to get involved. 

Perth College is a remarkable institution with deep roots in the city. It has travelled far in the many decades it has served Perth and Perthshire. Just look at how it has grown since it first began offering courses in building trades in its old Rose Terrace site. Perth College now has over 2,800 students enrolled this year, served by an incredible and talented staff team. It also has acquired an international reputation. It is a centre of excellence in aircraft engineering. It also now offers degree courses in everything from music to social sciences.

The major transformative moment for Perth College was when it became incorporated into the University of the Highland and Islands. The degree courses started to arrive and Perth College became part of a proper paid up higher education institution. As one of the campuses of UHI, Perth College has been put clearly on the map and it has been transformed in the process.

But like every institution it must consider its future and take into account the risks presented by current conditions and structures. Perth College remains as just one of the 13 campuses of the UHI and is therefore constrained in what it can do to develop its future and reach. It also remains vulnerable to any institutional changes within the UHI, as we saw from experience last year.

As such I agree with Perth and Kinross Council and other politicians from across the political spectrum that now is the time to look seriously at Perth securing its own university, and the college becoming the University of the City of Perth.

A University of the City of Perth would have far reaching benefits to the rest of the city and county. University cities attract incredible economic benefits and investments – we only need to look to Dundee with its two universities to see what a dedicated university can do for the local economy. It would also be fantastic to hold on to the many school leavers who currently leave Perth to pursue their university studies elsewhere. It is such a depressing feature of our city that we lose so many of our talented young people to city competitors, some never to return. Perth lost out to Stirling when Scotland got its first new build university since medieval times in 1967. We can not lose out again.

Then there is the risks of doing nothing. Last year there was the attempt to integrate the colleges of the UHI into the head executive office in what would have been nothing more than an amalgamation. Had this gone ahead it would have compromised the current UHI model with potentially disastrous consequences for students and staff in Perth. Where this was rightly seen off  there will be other such attempts in the future and the UHI model remains vulnerable and open to further ‘restructuring’. Most recently UHI withdrew rurality funding to Perth College precipitating the disastrous closures of the Learning Centres in Blairgowrie, Crieff and Kinross with staff being made redundant and students losing out.

And the thing is we’re almost there. As part of the UHI we already have degree courses, we have an excellent site within the city environs and we have a dedicated and committed staff group. All it needs is the ambition to take this forward and grasp the opportunity to go out on our own. I encourage everybody to think about this seriously and to consider the benefits a stand alone university would bring to our city. With our renewed city status and our growing population now could be the time for the University of the City of Perth. 

My Brexit update – April 2019

Over the past few months MPs inboxes have been overflowing with emails about Brexit. Over the course of the next few days, I will be writing out to those constituents who have contacted me offering their views with an update as to how I voted and the thoughts behind my choices.

A copy of this email is here on the public record –

Thank you for your communication. I am writing to you with an update on the Brexit process to set out the recent decisions I have made and the reasons why. 

Can I first of all say that the interests of the people of Perth and North Perthshire will always come first for me, and I will be guided by the wishes of the majority in my constituency who voted to remain in the EU. I have, though, been prepared to compromise and work with others in Parliament in order to try and secure a majority in the House for a deal being progressed.

Let me try and run through the decisions that have been made and my position. First of all I have voted against any measure that would take the UK out of the EU with no deal reverting to World Trade Organisation arrangements. This is simply the worst Brexit option and the impact on Scotland’s economy and trading arrangements would be significantly detrimentally impacted. Because of votes in the House this threat has diminished but still exists. I will continue to vote against any measure that brings that back. 

On compromise motions I voted to reject any proposal that did not ensure a customs union combined with membership of the single market. Both of these aspects are required to ensure that our vital economic interests are protected. It is as a member of the single market that freedom of movement can be maintained. Our population growth in Scotland is almost entirely predicated on freedom of movement and our demographic issues would be raised to unacceptable levels if vital sectors did not have access to the pool of labour provided by freedom of movement. 

I have also led the call and provided the first amendments in the House of Commons to simply revoke Article 50. This would stop the process of leaving the EU at all and fall into line with the position of my constituents and nation of Scotland. I have supported all measures that have proposed this. 

I have been unable, thus far, to support the motion that proposes that a deal is put to the British people in a confirmatory vote. Supporting this motion would mean that the Prime Minister’s deal (or some undefined version of Brexit) would be allowed to pass in return for some sort of unspecified confirmatory public vote. It is a measure in which we would be asked to allow a Brexit deal to proceed through Parliament with the hope that those throughout the rest of the UK would then reject it. It greatly concerns me that it does not contain a commitment to have a remain option on any future confirmatory vote ballot paper. It also concerns me that we have not secured any guarantees for Scotland’s position for our unconditional support for this confirmatory vote. However, if this emerges as the only chance to stop Brexit I am prepared to consider it. 

Lastly I supported the bill to secure an extension to the departure date. This is now imperative to stop the risk of leaving with no deal and provide a space for alternatives.

It remains the case that in spite of our best efforts and arguments we may not be able to save the UK from itself. If Brexit does come to pass the people of Scotland will need to consider carefully what options we have open to us to protect our interests and move on to a more positive destination.