►
Description
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
That's
no
good
good
morning
and
welcome
to
the
21st
meeting
of
the
committee
in
2018
I'd
like
to
welcome
members
back
to
the
committee
after
the
summer
recess
and
I'd
also
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
congratulate
former
members,
Mary
gooze,
John
and
Richard
Lockett
on
the
ministerial
appointments
and
thank
them
for
the
contribution
that
they
have
made
to
the
work
of
the
committee.
Our
first
item
of
business
today
is
a
decision
on
taking
agenda
item
four
in
private.
Our
members
agreed
our
second
item
of
business.
A
Today
is
an
evidence
session
with
the
cabinet
secretary
for
government
business
and
constitutional
relations,
Michael
Russell
MSP
and
Ian
Mitchell
deputy
director
for
EU
Strategy
and
migration
in
the
Scottish
Government
and
can
I
can
catch
the
cat.
Congratulate
the
cabinet
secretary
on
you
new
rule
cabinet
secretary
I,
understand
that
you
wish
to
make
an
opening
statement.
Thank.
B
But
let
me
just
comment
briefly
on
the
issue
of
No
Deal,
which
I
think
will
detain
us
for
some
time.
This
morning.
In
recent
weeks,
the
UK
government's
technical
notices
have
laid
bare
the
risks
facing
Scottish
business,
the
economy
and
public
services,
and
they
add
to
the
uncertainty
and
indeed
chaos
surrounding
brexit.
The
Scottish
Government
will
continue
to
make
responsible
preparations
for
EU
withdrawal.
B
However
regrettable
these
are
including
drafting
and
presenting
necessary
legislative
measures,
but
the
UK
government
should
rule
out
a
disastrous,
No
Deal
and
focus
instead
on
securing
the
best
outcome
for
all
of
us,
which
short
of
staying
in
EU
is
remaining
part
of
the
single
market
and
the
customs
union.
It's
no
secret.
We've
been
frustrated
by
the
quality
of
engagement
that
has
been
with
the
UK
government
on
negotiations.
The
UK
government
needs
to
engage
with
the
devolved
administration's
meaningfully
to
agree
the
detail
of
negotiating
positions,
sure
that
Scotland's
interests
are
protected
in
workable
proposals.
B
Brexit
continues
to
present
significant
implications
for
the
UK's
constitutional
arrangements,
a
matter
we
predicted
in
Scotland's
place
in
Europe
almost
two
years
ago.
The
UK
government
sought
this
Parliament's
consent
and
it
was
refused
if
the
UK
government
believes
it
can
proceed,
then
a
Sewell
Convention
is
of
very
little
value
in
protecting
its
Parliament
and
the
wider
interests
of
Scotland.
So
it's
time
to
look
again
at
how
we
can
embed
the
requirement
that
the
Scottish
government's
consent
in
law
and
to
strengthen
intergovernmental
processes.
B
I
said
yesterday
at
the
finance
and
constitution
committee
and
I
repeat
again
today
that
brexit
has
turned
out
to
be
too
heavy
for
devolution
to
bear.
There
require
now
to
be
substantial
changes
and
those
are
ideas
that
we
are
bringing
to
the
table
along
with
others,
including
the
world's
government
I'm
happy
to
discuss
those
issues
and
many
others
with
you
today.
Thank.
B
Happy
to
talk
you
through
that
we
had
a
discussion
at
the
first
meeting
of
the
ministerial
forum
in
May,
which
was
held
in
Edinburgh
on
the
contents
of
the
white
paper,
and
that
was
a
useful
discussion
and
we
were
pleased
with
that
engagement.
We
were
shown
a
list
of
content
who
didn't
turn
out
in
the
end
to
be
the
final
list
of
contents,
but
we
were
shown
a
list
of
contents
and
we
discussed
that
in
outline.
The
engagement
then
went
downhill
considerably.
B
We
were
eventually
shown
I
think
two,
possibly
three
groups
of
chapters,
five
chapters
in
all
the
procedure
for
us
seeing
of
those
was
torturous
they
required
to
be
sent
to
the
permanent
secretary,
and
then
we
were
allowed
to
look
at
the
ministers
were
allowed
to
look
at
them.
One
of
those
in
I
did
not
see
until
the
day
that
essentially
the
white
paper
was
published.
B
Two
of
them
were
mentioned
at
a
ministerial
forum
the
week
before
the
white
paper,
but
we
were
not
allowed
to
see
any
paper
on
them.
What
happened-
and
this
sounds
scarcely
credible,
but
I
will
just
tell
you
what
happened
is
that
the
Minister
Robin
Walker
read
a
preci
of
the
per
chapters
to
us
in
the
meeting.
It
was
like
really,
you
know
eating
in
a
medieval
monastery.
Somebody
read
something
to
you.
While
you
just
sat
at
the
table,
we
both
version
ourselves
objected
very
strongly
to
this.
B
To
be
fair,
I,
don't
think
the
minister's
present
of
that
meeting
had
seen
the
chapters
themselves.
There
was
no
other
engagement
and
we
didn't
see
a
final
draft
until
the
following
week,
just
before
it
was
published,
I
think,
just
the
day
before
it
was
published,
we
saw
the
final
paper.
So
that's
the
process.
B
Did
not
ask
and
they
did
not
tear,
but
my
view
would
be
at
my
expectation
for
what
I've
seen
over
the
last
two
years.
So
they
also
would
not
have
seen
a
full
version.
I
did
know
before
the
checkers
meeting
that
there
would
be
the
papers
presented
would
include
a
draft
of
the
white
paper
and
would
also
include
apparently
a
very
scary
paper
about
No
Deal,
but
we
never
saw
those
papers
before
they
were
presented.
B
We
are
asked
if
the
material
is
legally
and
factually
correct,
we're
not
engaged
in
the
process
of
drafting
that
material.
They
say
if
I
can
use
two
examples
which
perhaps
illustrate
it
in
the
last
24
hours
yesterday
at
137
officials
were
sent
30
slides
on
a
subject
which
is
to
be
discussed
with
EU,
thus
more.
Our
officials
are
meant
to
comment
factually
on
those
slides.
That's
not
consultation,
that's
fact-checking,
and
today
the
announcement
on
the
seasonal
worker
scheme
we
read
about
on
the
BBC
website.
A
B
If
we
don't
see
the
papers
by
definition,
that
doesn't
happen,
I
think
the
role
of
Drake
would
not
have
performed,
and
now
it's
performed
in
a
ministerial
forum
is
to
stake
out
the
areas
where
we
believe
we
have
an
interest
to
see
what
that
interest
is
and
to
us
for
that
to
be
considered
and
included.
Uk
government
will
say
that
we
have
influenced
a
range
of
decisions.
I
get
quoted
to
me
things
that
I've
said
on
a
variety
of
issues.
I,
don't
feel
that
that's
the
case.
B
We
certainly
don't
believe
that
they,
what
we
could
call
the
upstream
engagement,
which
is
what
we
think
we
need
to
have
and
indeed
is
in
the
written
terms
of
reference
of
the
JMC,
has
actually
been
observed,
described
yes,
there's
a
tick
box
exercise.
There
is
a
feeling
to
that.
I
did
raise
strong
objections
to
an
item
at
the
ministerial
forum
in
Cardiff,
the
item
which,
in
my
view,
in
a
deck
of
slides
for
the
negotiations
misrepresented.
B
The
situation
in
Scotland
and
I
did
receive
an
apology
and
an
assurance
that
that
had
been
corrected
and
corrected
with
the
task
force
as
well.
So
there
are
occasions
on
which
we
were
able
to
say
sorry.
This
is
not
correct,
but
in
terms
of
active
participation,
putting
points
of
view
it's
very
hard
to
do.
We.
B
Hope
we
always
hope
there
can
be
improvement.
The
first
meeting
and
the
meeting
at
which
we
could
discuss
the
contents.
The
white
paper
was
a
positive
meeting.
The
two
since
then
have
been
more
difficult.
One
was
spent
documents
being
read
to
us
which
was
complete
for
us,
the
second
one,
the
last
one
in
Cardiff
I,
think
we
did
engage
on
a
number
of
issues.
The
next
one,
which
will
be
held
in
ten
days.
Time
is
looking
at
agriculture
and
agri-food
one
or
two
issues.
B
We've
agreed
at
the
ministerial
forum
should
involve
ministers
from
the
Scottish
government,
as
well
as
the
Welsh
government
and
the
UK
government.
So
there
will
be
at
that
other
Scottish,
Ministers
I,
think
suing
will
be
attending
that
and
it's
being
held
in
the
same
day
as
a
different
ministers
meeting,
which
is
helpful,
and
we
would
hope
that
that
would
influence
a
discussion
at
that
stage
on
the
negotiations
on
agricultural
issues,
and
remember,
of
course,
that
you
know
we
are
in
a
double
process
that
the
processor
at
the
moment
is
the
exit
process.
B
Then
there's
a
future
relationship
process.
So
you
know
we
would
hope
that
the
influence
would
would
build.
So
in
the
future
relationship
process,
we
were
representing
what
they
devolved
administration's
were
responsible
for
in
the
widest
sense
and
how
those
were
dealt
with,
but
we
have
no
guarantees.
B
Can
understand
what
the
checkers
agreement
is
trying
to
achieve?
I
mean
you
know.
According
to
reports
we
read
yesterday
and
today
it
is
not
going
to
achieve
that,
and
the
view
of
monsieur
brogni
appears
to
be
that
it
is
essentially
dead
in
its
present
form.
We've
always
felt
that
the
distinction
being
drawn
between
services
and
goods
is
an
inaccurate
one
and
one
that's
difficult
to
essentially
to
police
and
to
justify.
B
If
I
can
give
you
one
example
which
I
think
illustrates
it
particularly
well,
it's
in
my
own
constituency
see
I
opened
a
small
Hydra
scheme
in
the
village
of
de
la
vie
in
May
in
the
spring,
which
is
a
village
Forester
village.
Next,
to
lock
or
they've,
been
working
for
years
to
have
a
their
own
hydro
scheme.
The
turbine
is
made
in
the
Czech
Republic
and
it's
supplied
by
a
company
in
the
Czech
Republic,
but
it's
not
supplied
just
as
a
turbine
and
put
that
in
and
forget
about
it.
B
It's
applied
with
maintenance
and
it's
also
monitored
on
a
24-hour
basis
from
the
Czech
Republic.
You
know
so
that's
goods
and
services
and
they're
indivisible,
as
is,
for
example,
the
contract
to
install
an
MRI
scanner.
You
know
they
are
often
made
Siemens
makes
them
the
bulk
of
them
they're
not
put
in,
and
then
somebody
else
maintains
them.
That
is
a
goods
and
services
contract.
So
trying
to
distinguish
between
goods
and
services
is
a
difficult
matter
and
I
don't
think
it's
likely
to
succeed.
B
I
mean
I
think
the
I
think
to
be
entirely
fair,
I
think
our
position
is
sometimes
known
because
we
publicize
our
position.
We
write
about
our
position,
we
publish
where
we
are,
so
you
know
we
don't
have
to
spend
all
our
time
sticking
it
out.
We
say
this
is
our
position
as
we've
written
on
it
and
I
think
they
would
be
aware
that
we
were
very
skeptical
about
the
checkers
proposals.
B
We
I
the
last
ministerial
forum
made.
The
point
I
think
was
agreed
that
in
order
for
it
to
be
successful
in
any
way
it
has
to
be
an
evolutionary
position.
It's
not
a
final
position,
but
the
Prime
Minister
is
presenting
it
as
a
final
position,
but
in
actual
fact
the
language
is
also
selling,
it
is
as
say,
will
evolve
and
change.
It
can't
be
both.
C
B
We've
done
both
of
those
we
have
contributed
in
the
sense
that
we
fact-checked
and
legally
checked
it
sometimes
in
a
short
timescale.
The
notes
I
think
all
have
been
published.
So
far,
did
we
see
them
all?
There
was
some.
We
didn't
see
something
those
that
we've
seen
we
fact
checked
and
made
suggestions
on.
We
are
sort
of
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
on
this
and
I
think
we
have
to
recognize
that
we
do
not
want
a
no
deal.
B
We
think
a
no
deal
is
ridiculous
and
disastrous,
and
it's
an
indictment
of
the
UK
government
we're
in
that
position,
but
equally
we
have
a
duty
to
protect
Scotland
from
the
consequences
that
might
arise,
so
we
have
not,
along
with
the
publication,
we
have
made
our
views
known
on
it.
We
will
take
the
legislative
steps
we
need
to
take
and
I
made
that
clear
thinking
what
I
said
in
the
programme
for
government
debate
on
Tuesday
and
I'll
make
a
statement
next
week
on
that
in
the
chamber
of
how
we'll
take
that
forward.
B
It's
a
considerable
burden,
legislative
burden
and
we'll
have
to
take
that
forward
on
specific
issues
such
as
medicines
and
stockpiling
medicine,
the
series
and
interaction
between
Jean
Freeman's
department
and
the
UK
Department
of
Health,
and
that
will
be
true
in
other
departments
where
there's
preparation,
preparations
to
be
made,
and
quite
clearly
we
continue
to
look
at
any
issues,
will
be
scottish
specific.
For
example,
if
there
were
to
be
no
new
trading
arrangements
in
place,
what
would
be
the
implications
for
grange
maths?
What
would
be
the
implications
for
loren
and
strim
our
route?
B
What
would
take
place
and
we
have
to
work
on
those
and
we
are
working
on
those.
So
a
great
deal
of
work
is
being
done
on
the
No
Deal
scenario.
That's
the
responsible
thing
to
do.
Will
it
be
far
better
if
there
was
an
acknowledgement?
That
simply
could
not
happen,
and
there
is
there's
a
ready-made
solution
that
takes
us
beyond
that,
which
is
a
single
market
and
a
customs
union
position
and
I
I
was
very
supportive
of
seeing
last
night
pierced
armor
saying
they
wouldn't
support
the
free
trade
option.
B
You
know,
which
is
not
nearly
as
good
as
a
single
a
customs
union
option,
so
I
think
there
is
a
I,
wouldn't
say
an
identity,
but
I
think
there's
a
glue.
It
growing
recognition
across
the
sphere,
with
the
exception
of
the
Conservatives
that
there
are,
there
is
no
many
alternatives
to
a
No
Deal
and
that
does
need
to
be
taken.
I'm.
C
Probably
agree
with
much
of
that,
the
Conservative
government
handed
negotiations
and
they
are
still
the
option.
The
possibility
for
no
deal
is
still
on
the
table
and
the
papers
that
were
they
were
published
by
the
UK
government.
The
24
notes
were
partly
intended
to
give
advice
to
the
sectors
and
to
businesses
with
the
Scottish
Government
intend
to
publish
any
and
he
said,
did
his
work
underway,
but
is
their
intention
to
publish
any
materials
for
businesses
within
those
sectors
and
as
their
discussions
ongoing
was
those
particular
businesses
immense.
B
Wouldn't
be
our
intention
to
supplement
those
papers
unless
we
felt
there
was
a
material
deficiency
in
terms
of
Scotland.
Now
we
haven't
identified
that
if
we
found
a
material
error
that
they
couldn't
they
wouldn't
change.
We
would
undoubtedly
correct
that
publicly,
but
the
present
moment
we
haven't
got
that
thought.
We
also
have
to
guard
against
two
other
things.
One
is
saying
that
we
can
do
everything
everything
to
avert
the
dangers
of
a
no
deal
that
we
can
cope
with
a
no
deal.
This
is
the
Prime
Minister's
language.
B
You
know
it's
not
the
end
of
the
world
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
We
don't
know
by
definition
what
a
no
deal
would
look
like,
so
it's
very
difficult
to
plan
absolutely
for
it.
The
other
thing
we
can't
do
is
avoid
the
momentum
to
no
deal
I've
heard,
for
example,
in
the
European
Parliament,
so
many
distinguished
voices
saying
that
one
of
the
dangers
of
this
is
once
people
like
the
financial
sector
start
to
prepare
for
a
no
deal.
B
Then
there's
a
momentum
towards
the
No
Deal
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
contribute
towards
that.
So
there's
a
there's.
A
there's,
a
careful
approach
needs
to
be
taken,
but
for
this
Parliament
the
biggest
issue
will
be
to
make
sure
that
we
have
in
place
the
legislative
framework.
That
means
that
we
are
correcting
the
deficiencies
now
that
will
require
us
also
to
accept
some
UK
statutory
instruments.
Now
you
know
we
have
a
position
on
brexit
legislation
in
terms
of
Sue,
but
there
is.
B
D
You
I
didn't
want
to
leave
the
European
Union
either
if
mr.
Russell,
but
we're
going
to
and
simile
or
no
deal
to
follow
clear
bakers,
very
fair
line
of
questioning
I
think
we've
got
to
do
all
we
have
to.
We
can
to
prepare
for
it.
So
I
don't
follow
the
logic.
I
mean
I,
understand
politics
of
why
you
say
what
you
say,
but
I
don't
think
a
business,
the
skipper,
the
serene
that
I
was
on
and
Larrick
Harbor
on
on
Monday
afternoon.
D
We
thank
me
or
you
for
not
being
ready
in
every
possible
way,
just
in
case.
That's
what
happens
so
to
continue
clear,
Baker's
line
of
questioning.
Isn't
it
the
government's
responsibility
to
absolutely
publish
any
analysis
and
their
best
well
their
best
analysis
of
how
our
business
is
going
to
cope
if
we
Lee,
if
we
fall
off
that
cliff
edge,
because
there's
got
to
be
a
fair
chance
that
now
happens.
B
That's
why
we
are
taking
a
pragmatic
view
and
working
with
the
UK
government
on
no
deal
on
the
on
the
politics
side.
In
the
constitutional
side,
we
are
against
the
legislation,
but
you
know
on.
We
are
making
a
distinction
between
No,
Deal
and
other
matters.
I
mean
that
is
that
it's
not
only
clear
what
I'm
saying
now
it
will
be
even
clearer.
Next
week
we
are
putting
in
place
all
the
arrangements
we
can.
B
We
are
doing
all
the
work
that
we
can,
but
equally
it
would
be
utterly
irresponsible
of
me
not
to
say
that
the
consequences
of
a
No
Deal
are
in
many
regards
unknown,
because
it
has
never
happened
before
and
in
these
circumstances
it
is
not
possible
to
say,
as
the
Prime
Minister
is
saying,
okay:
well,
it's
not
the
end
of
the
world,
we'll
just
get
through
it.
We
don't
know
what
will
happen
now.
My
own
view
is
you
know
when
again
you
know
we
made
this
agree
on
this,
but
I
hope
not
I.
B
Think
respect
for
No
Deal
has
been
deliberately
talked
up.
You
know
that
a
frightened,
the
brexit
ears
away
from
it
and
it's
now
got
a
momentum
of
its
own
and
therefore
we
should
try
and
work
against
that
momentum,
because
I
do
think.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
New
Deal
actually
means
lots
of
small
deals.
There
are
some
things
which
would
have
to
be
cobbled
together
at
the
end
of
at
the
end
of
March,
simply
because
it's
impossible
for
things
to
continue
without
it.
B
D
I,
don't
dissent
from
any
of
that,
but
I'm
trying
to
divorce
what
I
could
I
can
enter
into
the
flights
of
rhetoric
and
all
the
politics
of
it
as
well,
by
trying
to
divorce
that,
from
the
practicalities
of
being
a
fishing
skip,
monomeric
or
or
in
your
York
acidity
as
well.
Fish
processing
business
that
tried
to
get
will
be
trying
to
export
to
bow
line
on.
E
D
1St
of
April
next
year
etc
exactly
except
I'm,
the
only
bit
on
the
scholarship
I
looked
at
the
Scottish
Government's
itright.
Now
the
only
thing
I
can
find
in
relation
to
your
answer
to
Clare
Baker
a
moment
or
so
ago
is
a
letter
that
was
written
to
health
boards
on
health
products
on
the
23rd
of
August.
That's
the
only
thing
on
I
mean
I
may
not
be
able
to
navigate
your
website
correctly,
but
the
only
thing
I
can
find
it
is
practically
there
about.
What
would
happen
then.
B
There
are
three
treasures
of
UK
documents
on
No
Deal,
the
first
of
which
has
been
published.
There
are
two
more
to
come.
We
have
cooperated
in
their
publication.
We
have
fact
checked
them
and
legally
checked
them
where
we
have
been
asked
to
do
so,
and
we
have
made
it
clear
that
these
are
available,
and
these
are
the
UK
government's
guides
right,
we're
not
adding
to
those
unnecessarily.
You
know
some
of
them.
We
disagree
with,
but
we've
not
published
an
analysis
of
each
of
them,
which
I
could
do
you
know
I.
B
Think
the
trading
one
frankly
is
irresponsible,
because
what
it
says
is
we'll
just
carry
on
as
things
are
now
I.
Don't
think
that
will
happen,
but
that's
what
we've
done
where
there
are
areas
which
we
have
to
take
additional
steps.
As
in
health,
we
will
take
those
steps
as
time
goes
on.
We
will
look
at
those
and
see
if
we
can
provide
more.
But
let's,
let's
boil
this
down
absolutely
to
individuals.
Let's
go
you
go
to
Shetland,
you
know
to
low
wait.
Let
me
go
to
Tarbert
unlock
fine
and
there
are
people
exporting
live
languages.
B
You
know,
and
they
do
not,
they
are
not
live
if
they
sit
on
the
m20
for
five
days
now
I
do
not.
I
have
no
solution
to
that.
There
is
no
solution.
The
Scottish
Government
can
offer
because
the
UK
government
doesn't
offer
a
solution
to
that.
You
know
if
that
problem
occurs.
There
is
nothing
that
we
can
say
or
do
that
will
make
those
langoustines
get
through
those
circumstances.
I
was
in
Grangemouth
last
week,
talking
mélange
our
trade
paper
and
I
talked
to
two
people
at
the
port.
B
You
know
they
have
no
idea
what
will
happen
on
the
1st
of
April
30th
of
March
next
year,
none
whatsoever
at
the
present
moment
now.
My
job
also
is
within
the
negotiating
structure.
To
try
and
get
that
information
you
know
and
to
find
the
person
who
has
it
if
there
is
one
and
I
think
that
is
the
issue,
but
at
the
present
moment,
six
months
away,
they
don't
know.
What's
going
to
happen,
is
there
going
to
be
a
massive
new
customs
operation?
We
just
don't
know
and
I
can't
tell
people.
D
No
I
entirely,
except
for
that,
but
you
make
a
fair
point
about
language
teens
from
from
Tarbert
in
the
Financial
Times.
Today,
the
ports
and
the
northeast
of
England
are
investing
money
in
new
port
facilities
and
lorry
parks
to
try
and
get
round
came
to
becoming
a
lawyer,
but
in
other
words
their
scenario
planning.
For
what
may
happen
in
the
context
of
treat?
Do
you
not
think
it
would
be
fair
for
government
here
in
Scotland
to
be
part
of
that
scenario,
planning
and
seeing
that
we
want
to
avoid
I
totally
agree
with
you.
D
B
Course-
and
there
are,
for
example,
plans,
you
know,
there's
a
Northern
Irish
route,
that's
being
talked
about
and
how
that
will
take
place
and
we
will
we
do
support
those
I
speak
to
businesses
on
almost
a
daily
basis.
So
do
my
colleagues,
it
would
be
wrong
to
say
that
we
are
not
doing
that.
But
are
you
clear
on
to
say
there
are?
There
is
some
easy
solution
to
this.
C
D
Solution
so
I'm
not
suggesting
and
I
doesn't
anyone.
This
committee
was
just
as
easy,
but
I
think
we're
all
I'm,
certainly
arguing
that
the
scenario
planning
rather
than
saying
we
can't
do
anything
because
we
don't
know
anything
I,
think
we
need
to
scenario,
plan
and
I'm
suggesting,
and
you
make
a
very
good
example
of
the
seafood
industry.
It's
probably
the
best
example
of
real
time
product
that
needs
to
be
exported
on
the
1st
of
it.
And
can
we
not
be
planning
well.
B
Of
course,
if
there
were
ways
to
do
so,
and
we
could
finally
do
so
well,
there
may
not
be
ways
to
do
so,
but
there
may
not
be
ways
to
do
so,
and
particularly
now,
I
mean
one
of
the
issues.
Also,
this
is
preparedness,
you
know,
I,
look
constantly
a
businesses
and
their
preparedness
and
taunt
them
I
did
an
event
on
Tuesday
night
in
a
sectors.
B
It's
where
a
number
of
businesses
we're
only
just
saying
what
do
you
think
we're
going
to
do
in
six
months
time
now:
I'm,
not
criticizing
them,
but
that
is
also
an
issue
and
what
actually
has
focused
people
and
a
lot
of
this
work
is
now
going
on.
Is
the
issue
of
No
Deal
people
have
suddenly
become
focused
upon
them
and
that's
feel
profoundly
disturbing,
like
we
will
do
and
continue
to
do
everything
we
can
to
help,
and
we
will
go
on
doing
that.
So
we
have
made
that
crucial
distinction.
B
You
know
I
I,
think
Adam
Tompkins
was
saying
in
the
program
for
government
debate
last
week
that
people
were
saying
and
they
just
want
the
Scottish
government
to
carry
on
and
work
with
the
UK
government
on
brexit.
Well,
the
UK
government
hasn't
got
a
plan
on
brexit
half
a
dozen
plans,
none
of
which
will
work,
but
we
make
an
absolute
clear
distinction
between
that
chaos
and
what
we
are
trying
to
do
to
protect
Scotland.
That's
our
job
and.
B
F
You
just
to
drill
down
drill
down
on
this.
A
little
bit
more
cabinet
secretary,
I,
completely
understand
what
you're
saying
about
the
impossibility
of
knowing
what
no
deal
would
look
like
and,
as
you
say,
even
a
No
Deal
would
have
a
range
of
small
individual
crisis
deals
insider,
but
I
was
tired
of
Scott
and
Corbett.
F
Here
made
the
point
scenario:
planning
can
be
done
and
accept
what
you
said
about
not
wanting
to
replicate
the
UK
government's
papers,
but
again
there's
a
distinction
between
trying
to
assess
what
the
impact
may
be
and
the
second
stage
of
that,
which
is
how
to
mitigate
that
impact,
how
to
cope
with
it.
Has
the
Scottish
Government
completed
scenario
planning
as
their
existing
scenario
planning
documentation
and
these
various
areas
that
you
are
responsible
for.
B
Each
other
is
working
on
a
range
of
possibilities
and
options,
and
my
responsibility
is
to
meet
with
them
on
occasion
from
time
to
time,
discuss
those
and
to
make
sure
that
preparations
are
in
place.
Those
are
primarily
legislative
at
the
moment,
because
the
most
important
thing
we
have
to
do
at
this
particular
moment
is
make
sure
that
there
is
no
legislative
cliff
edge
there.
There
is,
for
example,
a
structure
that
can
continue
to
pay
agricultural
subsidy.
B
So
that
is
also
a
position
of
Scottish
enterprise,
but
you
know
we
have
to
say
that
that
is
an
uncertain
process,
because
we
don't
know
many
of
the
things
we
don't
know.
For
example,
at
the
moment
we've
seen
a
third
of
the
papers
from
the
UK
government,
so
we
don't
know
what
their
proposals
are
on
all
those
particular
areas.
So
we
we
continue
to
do
everything
we
can
do
and
we
will
go
on
doing
so.
I.
F
Accept
that
your
work
is
ongoing,
that
I
suppose
what
we
are
trying
to
assess
here
is
what
you
intend
to
release
into
the
public
domain,
tell
others
to
prepare
or
to
at
least
understand
what
the
impacts
may
be.
So
this
work
is
ongoing
with
then,
presumably
every
government
department.
What
are
your
intentions
for
publication
of
your
scenario?
It.
B
Is
not
our
intention
to
publish
anything
in
addition
to
the
notices
that
the
UK
government
has
unless
we
believe
those
are
required
right?
So
at
the
present
moment
we
look
at
the
papers
as
we
get
them
and
we
say:
is
there
anything
to
add
to
these?
You
know
we
could
subtract
from
them
and
say
you
know.
Frankly,
we
don't
think
any
of
this
will
work,
but
we
are
not
going
to
publish
anything
unnecessary
if
there
are
areas
where
we
need
to
do
it
then
we'll
do
it
like.
F
That
comes
back
to
the
distinction
between
much
of
what
is
in
the
UK
government's
papers
is
about
how
to
how
to
deal
with
the
situation.
It's
as,
as
I
just
said
that
second
step
how
to
mitigate
for
the
impact
of
no
deal.
What
I'm
asking
you
about
is
assessments
the
governments
of
made
of
the
impact
of
No
Deal.
So
accepting
you
don't
want
to
replicate
their
proposals
for
how
we
deal
with
it,
even
just
laying
out
publishing
a
projection
of
what
that
we've.
B
B
F
B
Ends,
that
is
why
the
Health
Service
has
specifically
referred
to
is
in
discussion
over
the
issue
of
stockpiling
medicines.
That's
why,
for
example,
I
have
raised
this
week
the
issue
of
veterinary
medicines,
which
has
not
yet
been
tackled
and
said.
We
need
to
look
at
that
and
make
sure
that
we
have
a
plan
in
place
for
this,
but
you
know
there
is
a
level
in
which
the
whole
effort
of
the
government
might
then
become
focused
on
No
Deal
planning
to
the
expense
of
everything
else.
B
Now,
as
Travis
Scott
has
indicated,
it
is
one
option
amongst
many,
and
you
know
we
have
to
also
have
a
sense
of
balance
and
proportion
on
this.
You
know
the
the
three
options
that
are
presently
on
the
table,
short
of
staying
in
the
EU
and
I
understand.
I,
do
not
rule
that
out
as
an
option.
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
should
ever
rule
that
out
as
an
option.
B
Our
single
market,
customs,
union
membership,
a
free
trade
deal
of
some
sort
and
the
the
No
Deal
scenario-
and
you
know
we
have
to
be
prepared
for
all
of
those,
but
we
should
also
spend
a
considerable
time
arguing
for
the
one
that
we
believe
is
least
damaging
and
working
on
that
and
that
is
single
mark
and
custom
to
new
membership.
I
agree.
B
Add
to
a
sense
of
uncertainty
and
and
and
panic
in
this,
but
I
will
consider
your
request,
but
I
just
think
that
that
would
be
focusing
us
where
you
know
we
have
enough
to
do
in
the
legislature.
Side,
for
example,
there's
an
unlimited
ability
to
do
things.
We
will
try
and
do
so
I've
been
prepared
to
cooperate
with
UK
government
on
this
I
would've
thought
that
would've
been
welcomed
in
terms
of
supporting
the
publication
of
the
notices
but
I'm
just
reluctant
to
carry
on
adding
to
this
okay.
A
G
You
I
mean
just
following
this
conversation,
so
if
I
take
you
correctly,
you're
saying
your
cabinet
colleagues
across
their
respective
portfolios,
are
doing
comprehensive
planning
of
all
scenarios,
but
you're
not
willing
to
publish
any
of
that.
Any
of
those
findings,
because
if
I
read
you
correctly,
what's
already
been
given
by
the
UK
government,
is
perfectly
adequate.
No.
B
You
do
read
me
incorrectly
and
I'm
not
going
to
be
misrepresented.
If
you
don't
mind
mr.
green
on
these
matters
you
my
take
on
this
is
very
simple.
The
UK
government
has
made
a
complete
Horlicks
of
this
situation.
You
know
we
are
faced
with
unprecedented
chaos.
Even
before
me,
even
the
former
government,
governor
of
the.
B
The
and
even
the
former
governor
of
the
Bank
of
England
has
pointed
to
its
incompetence.
We
are
endeavoring
to
ensure,
first
of
all,
that
we
do
everything
to
protect
Scotland.
In
these
circumstances,
we
are
endeavoring
to
show
that
the
information
of
the
UK
government
is
putting
out
on
this
is
put
out
and
it
is
accurate
and
that's
what
we.
B
B
Disingenuous
to
actually
argue
that
the
difficulty
here
is
with
the
Scottish
Government.
The
difficulty
here
is
with
the
UK
government
and
the
massive
is
made
of
this.
The
Scottish
government
is
working
very
hard
to
make
sure
there's
preparation
and
there
is
information,
okay,
and
to
divert
that
into
some
sort
of
attack
upon
the
Scottish
government,
who
will
not
assist
okay.
G
The
minister
can
save
your
perfect
arts,
your
own
political
views
on
what
you
think
the
UK
government
is
or
isn't
doing,
and
that's
fine
and
those
are
on
record
what
we
are
asking
I
think,
even
collectively,
notwithstanding
our
political
differences
on
the
committee
is,
how
do
we
know
the
Scottish
government
is
prepared
for
every
possibility
and
why
want
to
give
the
Scottish
public
and
businesses
any
sight
of
those?
Well.
B
B
A
No
Deal
is
an
appalling
prospect,
which
we
are
saying
should
not
happen
and
we're
putting
enormous
effort
in
politically
into
saying
it
must
not
happen,
and
we
are
also
King
hard
to
make
sure
that
to
the
best
of
our
ability,
Scotland
is
protected,
but
the
responsibility
for
getting
us
here
is
that
of
your
UK
government,
and
the
work
that
we
are
doing
is
trying
to
protect
Scotland
against
that
work
of
the
UK
government.
Ok,.
G
Moving
on
and
can
I
ask
a
question:
we're
talking
about
March
next
year,
and
nobody
knows
what
will
happen
the
day
after
we
leave
the
EU.
What
is
your
understanding
of
the
transition
period
and
whether
that's
likely
to
proceed,
because
my
understanding
is
that
that
period
would
give
an
interim
period
for
to
continue
these
quite
complex
trade
negotiations
with
the
EU
and.
B
That
is
what
we
hope
will
take
place.
Undoubtedly,
we
hope
that
there
will
be
a
transition
period.
That
is
what
the
expectation
of
the
EU
is,
but
there
has
been
a
upping
of
the
rhetoric
on
the
issue
of
a
No
Deal
from
the
UK
government
in
the
last
few
months,
I
think
originally
designed
to
frighten
the
brexit
ears,
and
that
has
caused
this
situation.
A
transition
period,
I've
argued
for
from
the
beginning.
The
UK
govern,
if
you
remember,
was
against
it
to
start
with
and
didn't
want
a
transition
period.
It
is
essentially
it
takes
place.
B
G
And
my
final
question
is
around:
obviously
you
you're
saying
that
the
official
Scottish
composition
is
that
your
preference
is
for
single
market
access
and
a
customs
union
with
the
EU.
What
discussions
have
the
Scottish
government
had
with
the
EU
on
what
the
terms
of
that
membership
may
be,
because
it
appears
that
the
rhetoric
coming
from
the
years
that
you
can't
have
single
market
access
and
filled
customs
union
without
being
a
feel.you
member?
What
is
your
understanding
of.
B
You
observe
the
four
freedoms,
and
that
is
a
always
designed
as
a
way
in
and
has
actually
become
a
sort
of
holding
pen
for
those
people
who
know
they're
in
or
out,
but
you
know,
Scotland's.
The
ambition
of
the
Scottish
Government
has
is
to
is,
first
of
all,
to
remain
in
EU,
which
of
course
was
the
vote
of
the
Scottish
people.
But
if
we
are
out
is
to
re-enter
and
of
course,
in
those
circumstances
the
entry
would
be
negotiated.
B
I
could
point
you
to
John
Kerr,
a
bigger
expert
on
Europe
than
you
are
I,
who
regards
to
there's
the
easiest
accession
on
record.
That's
what
he
thinks
it
will
be,
but
of
course
there
will
be
work
to
be
done
on
that
work,
which
is
created
by
the
the
fact
that
the
UK
government
is
ignoring
the
will
as
a
Scottish.
People
decided
to
stay
so.
G
G
B
Cannot
say
it
is
not
going
to
happen,
you
can
say
is
in
your
opinion.
It
shouldn't
happen.
In
my
opinion,
we
could
stay.
That
is
still
a
possibility
that
chaos
of
the
UK
government
may
lead
to
its
collapse.
There
is
circumstances
in
which,
even
if
we
leave
in
March
then
in
the
transitionary
period,
the
single
market
customs
union
often
is
on
the
table.
Bonnie
has
said
that
there's
a
way
to
do
that
and
there
after
the
process
of
reentry,
that
is
the
best
option
for
Scotland's
future.
B
A
H
You
can
you
give
her
a
good
morning,
cabinet
secretary,
if
I
saw
mr.
Gradin
doesn't
suit
for
any
mentions
of
all
today
collectively
Illinois,
but
this
Parliament
yesterday
had
from
the
UK
Trade
Minister
on
an
issue
of
consultation
and
dialogue,
but
we
had
once
again
this
morning
from
yourself,
but
we've
got
the
record
of
of
the
the
lack
of
consultation
and
dialogue
from
the
UK
government
to
the
Scottish
government.
So
in
terms
of
going
forward,
certainly,
first
of
all
of
the
trade
potential
trade
agreement.
H
B
I
don't
want
to
personalize
this
I
simply
think
that
the
relationship,
the
trust
between
the
two
governments
have
said
this
publicly,
of
course,
is
its
lowest
ebb
ever
and
it
requires
to
that
trust
requires
to
be
rebuilt.
It
can
only
be
rebuilt
by
having
a
framework,
a
structure
that
allows
us
to
build
it
on
the
t-shirt
says
something
very
interesting
earlier
this
year,
when
he
was
talking
about
trust
within
the
EU.
You
said
your
Trust
doesn't
come
something
because
you
want
it
to
come.
B
It
comes
because
there
is
a
legal
structure
and
the
framework
on
which
you
can
build,
and
there
is
you
know
in
the
JMC
process
structure.
There
needs
to
be
a
renewal
of
these
structures
in
a
way,
that's
meaningful,
a
native
statutory
authority,
and
then,
if
we
can
build
on
them
in
that
way,
then
there
might
be
an
improvement
that
would
require
the
commitments
made
to
be
honored
and
the
commitments
made
an
honored,
and
you
know
there
may
be
many
reasons
of
them.
We
now
know,
for
example,
that
the
staff
turnover
index
ooh
is
that
50%.
B
You
know,
there's
a
huge
inexperience
in
that
department
and
there's
also
a
huge
pressure
in
that
department
and
quite
clearly.
Civil
servants
are
also
nervous
about
what
their
ministers
want
to
share
and
don't
share,
and
that's
an
issue
as
well,
but
it
could
be
rebuilt
and
I.
Do
try
very
hard
to
keep
open,
constructive
channels
of
engagement
and
discussion
and
that's
what
we
should
do.
H
Thanks
for
that,
I
mean
what
you
just
said:
that
I
wasn't
planning
to,
can
I
get
another
Seder,
but
we
just
said
there
was
really
interesting
that
a
50%
turnover
does
that
then
indicate
or
highlight
that
the
perimeter
wouldn't
on
new
people
who
came
in
it
makes
the
job
of
the
Scottish
government
officials
heart
of
to
actually
get
the
message
over
and
and
also
potentially
even
explain
what
devolution
ashlars
never
mind
the
present-day
situation.
Well,.
B
I'm
sure
the
committee
will
have
read
the
pack
act
report
and
and
will
have
reflected
upon
it,
and
you
know
what
that
indicates
is
that
there
is
a
severe
lack
of
knowledge
of
devolution
within
the
UK
government
within
you
know
those
who
are
operating
that's
part
of
the
UK
government,
that's
that's
the
reality.
I
gave
evidence
to
the
pack,
I
can
quietly
and
I.
B
Think
you
summed
it
up
pretty
well,
there
is
David
Cameron,
said
I,
think
after
the
2014
referendum
that
the
UK
had
devolved
and
forgot,
and
and
that
has
happened
but
they've
forgotten
what
devolution
is
and
how
it
operates
very
largely.
There
is
no
hierarchy
of
governments
and
devolution.
It's
really
important
that
people
understand
that
there
is
a
hierarchy
of
Parliament's
and
devolution,
but
governments
deal
with
different
issues,
and
it
is
that
respect
for
the
dealing
with
different
issues
that
I
think
is
lacking
or
understanding
where
that
is
the
situation.
B
There
also
needs
to
be
an
understanding
that
devolution,
you
know,
was
an
issue
that
arose
while
it's
been
around
for
a
long
time,
but
essentially
it
was
70s,
80s
and
90s.
You
know
there's
now
a
very
heavy
weight
on
it
from
brexit
and
devolution
will
have
to
change.
Now
we
proceed
this
in
Scotland's
place
in
European
in
2000,
2016,
December,
2016,
chapter
four
was
headed
further
devolution
and
the
consequent
the
constitutional
consequences
of
brexit.
B
You
know
that
chapter
is
worth
looking
at
again,
because
we
pointed
out
that
there
were
areas
now,
which
we
expected
brexit
would
would
create
issues
for
the
constitutional
settlement.
We
need
to
change
3
in
particular,
one
of
which
was
the
key
rights,
the
issue
of
rights,
and
we
outlined
employment
law,
equalities
health
and
safety
at
work
and
consumer
protections
areas
where
there
needed
to
be
additional
devolution.
B
Another
one
was
the
whole
issue
of
freedom
of
the
four
freedoms
and
how
we
reacted
to
those
and
we
outlined
areas
of
involvement,
including
trade
areas,
and
the
final
was
an
international
engagement
and
we
raised
the
issue
of
separate
distinct
legal
personality
so
that
we
could
take
part
in
international
engagement.
Now.
Those
issues
which
we
laid
out
in
2016
now
need
discussion
and
we're
not
alone
in
the
Welsh.
GovernmentÃs
is
saying
the
same
thing.
B
The
last
government
published
a
paper
last
year
on
the
operation
of
devolution,
so
you
know,
first
of
all,
whatever
happens
mustn't
undermine
the
current
settlement,
but
then
we
should
be
saying
and
I
much
rather
have
independence,
but
we
should
be
saying
at
the
present
moment.
We
need
also,
along
with
the
Welsh,
along
with
the
Northern
Irish,
to
look
at
devolution
and
it
evolution
rather
than
stand
still
because
brexit
has
changed
next.
H
It's
clear
that
the
intergovernmental
relations
has
been
a
problem
and
for
some
time,
and
certainly
in
the
previous
session,
the
devolution
for
the
Pels
Committee,
which
I
will
score
tonight,
be
able
members
over
the
time
we
published
the
report
and
October
2015
on
the
issue
of
the
IGR.
Do
you
see
any
improvement
in
whole,
entire
governmental
relations
mechanisms
or
machinery
in
any
way
shape
or
form
to
actually
provide
some
some
hope
for
the
future?
When,
when
you
key,
if
it
does
moment.
B
I
think
there
are
ideas
on
the
table.
I've
indicated
those
ones
there,
Walsh
ideas
on
the
table
and,
of
course,
the
JMC
plenary
agreed
in
earlier
this
year
that
there
would
be
a
review
of
the
relationships
and
the
JMC
mechanism
and
of
course
we
have.
We
have
proposed
a
review
of
the
sewell
mechanism
and
will
bring
forward
some
ideas
on
that
shortly.
So
there
are,
there,
are
there
is
activity
in
it,
but
there
has
to
be
a
commitment
to
that.
B
H
B
There
are
individuals
who
recognize
that
things
have
to
change.
It's
a
very
centralized
government
but
I'm,
not
sure
the
Prime
Minister
thinks
things
have
to
change,
but
I
think
there
are
individuals
who
realise
that
things
have
to
change,
and
things
have
to
you
know
it
can't
go
on
like
this,
but
whether
they
will
prevail
or
not.
I
don't
know,
I
think
there
are
also
individuals
who
are
deeply
hostile
to
devolution,
and
you
know
some
of
those
might
assume
power
at
some
stage.
That
would
be
thank.
B
B
F
I
I
A
E
You
kind
of
secretary
we've
had
a
lot
of
good
discussion
already
this
morning
and
to
some
of
the
questions.
I
want
to
ask
a
video
being
covered,
but
you
talked
about
the
chaos
and
I.
Think
that's
what
you
used
the
potential
chaos
that
with
that
we
face
in
the
scenario
or
over
no
deal,
but
you
also
talk
about
the
chaos
and
the
scenario
where
we
maybe
do
have
a
deal
that
still
doesn't
give
individuals
organizations
that
the
confidence
to
manage
the
process
you've,
given
a
very
strong
picture
of
what's
happening
in
Scotland.
E
B
Not
given
any
we
don't
have,
any
risk
assessment
is
shared
with
us,
so
we
haven't
seen
those
things
we
do
hear
of
meetings
taking
place.
We
talk
to
stakeholders
who
meet
arson.
They
also
meet
the
UK
government.
They
quite
often
come
back
with
a
sense
of
frustration
that
they
don't
know
anymore
than
when
they
went,
and
that
seems
to
be
the
general
picture.
You
know,
I
I
think
this.
This
issue
of
chaos
is
pretty
generally
held.
Now
as
being
what
is
driving
things,
people
would
like
certainty.
B
You
know,
I
I
would
like
certainty
because
you
know
I
don't
enjoy
not
knowing
what's
gonna
tomorrow.
Businesses
require
certainty,
and
even
the
New
Deal
papers
don't
give
any
additional
certainty
to
people
so
I
think
that's
in
a
sense.
I
would
welcome
the
announcement
tomorrow
this
morning
on
the
seasonal
workers
scheme.
It
is
a
very
small
step,
I
think
it.
The
numbers
are
too
low.
I
think
inherently.
It
admits
that
freedom
of
movement
is
important.
You
know
and
I
think
that
should
be
understood.
B
You
know
and
and
I
think
the
third
issue
in
here
and
doubtedly
is
that
there
will
require
to
be
more
because
it's
not
enough
and
it
does
stress
a
sector
approach
which
I
think
is
the
wrong
approach.
But
you
know
that
is
the
first
movement
there
has
been
now.
You
know.
I
was
on
a
visit
to
one
of
the
fruit
farms
in
Angus
in
early
May
2017,
and
then
people
were
saying
to
me.
B
There
has
to
be
something
soon,
because
we're
due
to
order
bushes,
which
you
know,
there's
massive
orders,
go
to
Holland
that
we
are
due
to
have.
You
know
the
next
tranche
of
workers
arriving.
So
it's
been
very
long
delayed.
Now
it
may
precede
the
publication
of
the
Mack
paper.
You
know
which
we
believe
is
now
with
government
now
that
would
indicate
that
the
mat
paper
this
is
the
migration
of
Weiser
committee-
is
going
to
take
a
sectoral
approach.
You
know
we
have
advised
very
strongly
against
that.
B
There
needs
to
be
a
whole
economy
approach
in
Scotland.
If
it
is
a
sectoral
approach,
it
will
not
be
helpful
in
Scotland.
It
will
actually
weaken
the
situation,
but
you
know
we
might
then
be
able
to
say
these
are
the
wrong
things,
but
at
least
we
would
know
what
was
happening.
There's
also
no
white
paper
on
migration,
and
that
also
affects
it.
I
mean.
E
E
So
so
these
these
are
the
scenarios
that
you
have
put
in
place,
and
these
are
the
scenarios
that
you
are
prepared
to
discuss
and
have
dialogue
on,
so
that
you
you
mean,
as
I
said,
we've
talked
about,
you
know
the
whole
United
Kingdom
being,
but
but
in
the
past,
you've
said
maybe
that
Scotland
could
lead
on
some
areas
of
this
whole
process.
To
give
advice
and
give
support,
I
mean.
Is
that
the
case
that
you
would
be
prepared
to
do
that
and
and
put
the
scenario
out
there
to
see
that's
what
should
be
followed.
E
B
The
a
really
interesting
contribution,
if
I
might
say
so
because
I
think
it
uses
the
word
scenario
in
an
accurate
way.
You
know
we
do
a
great
deal
of
work
and
have
done
a
great
deal
of
work,
but
to
put
it
into
a
box
and
say
these
are
the
scenarios
you
know
this
is
actually
work,
that's
done
to
say
what
we
would
like
to
happen
and
how
could
it
happen?
So,
if
you're
looking
at
about
migration,
we
publish
comprehensive
work
on
our
submission
to
the
migration
Advisory
Committee.
B
We
indicated
what
would
work
for
Scotland,
and
that
is
a
scenario
you
know
and
therefore
that
stuff
is
already
in
the
public
domain
and
we
believed
and
still
believe,
that
there
is
a
way
to
approach
migration
in
Scotland,
which
would
be
productive.
It
is
actually
freedom
of
movement,
because
that
is
very
helpful
to
us.
B
You
know,
but
we
don't
know,
we
know
that's
going
to
stop,
but
up
until
today,
we've
had
no
idea
of
any
other
scheme
now
to
go
back
to
a
seasoned
agricultural
worker
scheme
which
has
existed
before
and
it's
a
very
bureaucratic
response.
It's
not
the
way.
We
think
we
should
go,
but
we
do
have
our
own
projections
and
proposals
of
how
it
should
go,
and
that
is
a
scenario.
So
you
know
if
we
can
revisit
the
issue
of
scenarios,
then
I
Suz
what
we
are
getting
slightly
closer
to,
and
it's
helpful
at
mr.
B
Stewart's
taking
us
there.
What
we
are
talking
about
is
a
range
of
material
which
we
have
published
over
the
year.
I
mean
Scotland's
place
in
Europe
is
a
scenario
set
of
scenarios,
so
is
so
is
the
role
development
of
trade,
so
is
people,
jobs
and
investment?
All
these
things
that
we
have
published
over
the
last
two
years
are
essentially
contributions.
This
scenario
exercise
and
if
they're
seen
in
that
way,
then
they're
positive
contributions
and.
E
The
dialogue
is
to
say
that
you're
having
or
the
it
would
appear
the
lack
of
dialogue
that
you
portray
that
is
taking
place
between
the
UK
government,
yourselves,
that
seems
to
be
a
sort
of
a
logjam.
There
seems
to
be
a
trickling
of
information
rather
than
a
meeting
of
minds
in
our
and
and
and
a
real
connection,
taking
place
in
a
real
contribution
taking
place.
E
B
We
do
produce
material
which
you
can
buy,
Lodge
hasn't
done
yeah,
so
I've
got
a
list,
fear
of
actually
of
the
publications
we've
had
I.
Think
we've
got
published
16
papers
over
the
last
two
years
with
our
six
in
the
pipeline,
so
we're
not
short
of
material
that
we
put
into
the
public
domain.
That's
tended
not
to
be
the
case.
We've
been
very
open
and
transparent
about
what
we
want
to
see
happening.
B
You
know,
I
mean
we've
stood
absolutely
Foursquare
behind
the
idea
of
single
market
and
customs
unions,
since
we
published
the
first
paper
and
increasingly
people
are
moving
in
that
direction.
I
mean
indicated,
you
know,
Keir
star.
Mass
response
yesterday
to
the
issue
of
a
free
trade
treaty
is,
in
my
view,
another
step
towards
that
and
I
welcome.
That
I
think
that's
very
important
and
very
helpful.
So
I
think
our
position
is
well
known
and
our
projections
are
well
known.
B
I
think
the
the
difficulty
in
here
has
been
the
focus
that
has
increasingly
come
in
the
last
month
to
six
weeks
on
the
No,
Deal
scenario
and
I
think,
therefore,
the
expectation,
the
Scottish
Government,
should
jump
to
and
provide
all
the
answers
to.
That
is
a
false
expectation,
because
it
is
a
scenario
that
is
impossible
by
definition
to
completely
scope
out.
We've
never
seen
this
before,
but
there
are
things
in
all
that
work
that
we
have
done.
It
would
indicate
ways
in
which
we
could
move
forward,
also
facts
about
what
would
happen.
E
Know
the
New
Deal
scenario,
as
you
see,
has
recently
become
much
more
prevalent,
but
in
the
reality
many
people
believe
a
deal
will
still
be
struck,
whether
it's
the
complete
deal
that
is
expected
or
it
is
a
partial
manipulate
of
progress
moving
forward
and
you
and
your
view
on
that.
If
there
is
a
deal
that
is
expected,
but
it's
not
the
complete
deal
that
some
people
expect,
but
during
the
transition
period
there
will
be
opportunities
for
things
to
then
be
put
together
and
and
hardened
up
and
and
concrete.
It's
you
well.
B
You
could
get
a
high-level
deal
in
March,
which
said
very
little
and
remember
that's
exit,
that's
not
future
relationship,
so
you
get
a
high-level
deal
in
March,
which
you
know
eventually
agrees
to
there's
a
very
distinguished
you're,
a
former
European
Commission
official
who
describes
the
UK's
negotiating
approach
as
being
to
say
no
at
the
start
of
each
round
to
refuse
everything
during
the
round
at
the
end
of
round
2
suddenly
say
yes
and
to
treat
it
as
a
triumphs
that
you
move
on
to
the
next
stage.
That's
what's
happened
so
far.
B
You
could
do
that
again.
You
know
we
never
thought
it'd
get
to
this
stage,
but
you
could
do
that
again
in
March,
but
in
those
circumstances
the
real
problem
with
that
for
Scottish
business
is
for
all
organisations.
It's.
We
won't
know
anymore
this
time
next
year
about
some
things
and
we
know
now.
So
you
know
mr.
Scott's
skipper
in
in
their
wake,
won't
actually
know
what's
going
to
happen,
as
he
doesn't
know
now
now,
that's
not
what
we
should
be
encouraging
to
happen.
B
We
want
some
definition
and
finality
to
this,
so
a
high-level
outcome,
a
blind
breaks.
It
has
that
difficulty,
but
it
also
has
another
difficulty.
It
removes
even
a
small
amount
of
leverage
that
the
UK
presently
has
in
negotiation
because
it
has
none.
It
is
outside
the
EU
and
in
those
circumstances,
trying
to
get
you
a
DEA
deal
of
any
sort
when
you
have
no
leverage
is
pretty
pretty
difficult.
So
if
that
is
what
happens,
you
know
it
happens,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
good
and
helpful.
B
My
own
view
is
that's
more
likely
than
a
new
deal,
because
I
think
you
heard
the
noises
from
Germany
yesterday.
I
think
the
prospect
of
a
No
Deal
is
is
not
something
that
anybody
really
wants
sensibly
and
I.
Think
from
inside
the
European
Parliament.
You
know,
why
is
it
certainly
what
I
hear
in
there
is
that
European
Parliament
would
would
not
accept
a
no
deal.
They
would
find
a
a
European
mechanism,
whether
it
is
the
clock
that
stops
or
something
like
that
to
ensure
that
there
was
some
sort
of
outcome
to
the
process.
It's.
E
B
A
I
quickly
turn
to
another
subject,
which
was
there.
The
Scottish
Government
Street
paper,
which
she
brought
out
on
the
30th
of
August
and
I,
was
pleased
to
see
in
your
recommendations
that
you
recommended
the
statutory
into
government
trade
committee,
because
this
committee,
in
our
first
report,
unanimously
recommended
intergovernmental
treaty
committee
and
in
terms
of
them
ensuring
that
Scotland's
voice
was
heard
in
future
trade
negotiations.
B
Give
George
Harris
of
the
doubt.
You
know
that
was
an
initial
reaction.
I,
don't
think
he'd
read
the
paper,
I
hope
it.
It
does
stimulate,
debate
and
discussion.
It
follows
on
from
the
things
we
said
in
in
the
original
Scotland's
place
in
Europe
two
years
ago.
It
builds
upon
that
and
it
says
what
would
be
a
modern
set
of
trade
relationships
and
how
would
you
come
to
them?
You
know
the
last
time
the
UK
negotiated
trading
deals
on
its
own
was
almost
50
years
ago.
It's
a
very
different
world.
B
There
has
been
devolution,
but
in
addition,
this
parliament
has
set
an
agenda
for
the
type
of
world.
Do
we
want
to
see
the
type
of
Europe
we
want
to
see
in
the
type
of
relationships
we
want
to
have,
so
those
would
require
us,
for
example,
to
be
very
mindful
of
environmental
issues.
You
know
to
look
at
equalities
and
human
rights
issues
within
trading
relationships,
which
is
the
modern
way
that
things
are
done.
So
we're
saying
that's
necessary.
B
We're
saying
that
can't
ability
and
scrutiny
is
necessary
of
trading
deals
and
that
also
nobody
can
decide
for
us.
If
we're
dealing
with
that
matters
that
are
our
responsibility,
then
we
should
speak
for
them.
We've
used
the
example
of
the
CTA
treaty
in
there,
where
you
know
the
provinces
in
Canada
were
in
the
room
and
were
able
then
to
commit
to
delivering
that's
the
the
positive
example
of
Sita.
B
Unfortunately,
kagome
has
taken
the
negative
example
a
seat
at
the
heart,
which
is
the
problem
they
had
with
the
Vilonia
in
parliament
end
of
last
stages,
which
was
resolved.
You
know
and
was
resolved
in
an
amicable
fashion,
so
we
are
putting
forward.
Some
ideas
for
discussion
will
want
the
Parliament
to
discuss
this.
We're
looking
forward
to
people
coming
on
board
with
it
or
making
alternative
suggestions.
Adam
Tomkins
yesterday
in
committee
I
think,
was
what
was
eventually
at
the
stage
of
being
pleased
that
suggestion
he'd
made
about
wording
was
one
I'm
quite
happy
to
consider.
B
You
know
we're
not
saying
we
have
a
veto
on
anything,
the
only
vetoes
in
devolution.
We
should
remember
count
in
the
UK
government
they're,
the
only
body
that
has
a
veto
in
devolution.
Nobody
else
has
a
veto,
but
if
there
should
be
a
requirement
to
agree-
and
there
should
be
a
mechanism
that
makes
agreement
meaningful,
not
a
sewer
mechanism
which
makes
agreement
pointless
and
all
those
are
things
which
we
could
discuss
and
I
think
it's
I
hope
it's
a
helpful
contribution.
This
committees,
we
will
be
welcome.
The
parties
will
be
welcome.
Thank.
C
Baker,
its
Thank
You
convener.
The
reports
suggest
that
8%
of
service
draw
agreement
as
agreed
and
there's
still
20%
to
be
discussed,
including
the
issue
of
the
Irish
border
and
the
backstop,
and
does
the
Scottish
Government
have
any
views
on
how
this
could
be
resolved
and,
as
there
are
consequences
in
the
backstop
been
introduced
for
Scotland
that
they
think
are
particularly
challenging
for
us
all.
Yes,.
B
B
Moved
is
come
up
with
politics,
I
argue
that
case
and-
and
you
know,
I'm
pleased
that
the
Liberal
Party
accepts
this
part
of
that
case,
and
you
know
others
accept
all
of
that
case.
So
I
think
that
is
the
solution
and
that's
why
we
put
it
forward
the
backstop.
If
it
were
implemented
with
a
border
down,
the
IOC
would
have
implications
for
Scotland,
so
with
the
issue
of
differentiation
for
one
part
of
the
UK,
but
not
for
another
part
of
the
UK.
Those
are
issues
in
which
we
have
also
made
our
views
known.
B
We
are
absolutely
determined
to
support
a
peaceful
settlement
in
Northern
Ireland,
to
make
everything
not
to
do
anything
that
jeopardizes
that
at
all.
Equally,
we
have
to
reflect
upon
the
fact
that
if
there
was
the
opportunity
for
one
part
of
the
UK
to
stay
within
the
single
mark
in
the
customs
union,
it's
something
we
ourselves
have
proposed
for
Scotland.
You
know
two
years
ago,
and
we
would
want
to
continue
to
argue
for
that,
because.
C
A
difficult
situation
given
UK
government
have
said
that
they're
not
supportive
of
a
stain
within
a
single
market
and
the
customs
union,
which
would
be
the
obvious
solution
to
the
situation
we're
facing
and
West
Northern
Ireland,
and
so
you
do
recognize.
The
backstop
will
present
challenges
for
Scotland
and
even
though
you'd
like
to
a
definite
scenario,
if
we
are
in
those
set
of
circumstances,
could
you
maybe
say
a
bit
more
about
what
the
challenges
for
Scotland
will
be
in
terms
of
trade,
in
particular
in.
B
A
border
in
the
IFC
will
be
challenging
for
the
ports
in
the
IOC,
the
Northern
Ireland,
having
the
ability
to
compete
economically.
As
a
member
of
the
full
member
of
the
single
market
in
the
customs
you
know
in
Scotland,
not
being
that
position
would
be
very
challenging.
You
know
those
are
issues
there
would
be
security
issues
as
well.
Those
you
know
the
issue
for
us
would
be
you
know
we
don't
want
to
do
anything
to
disturb
the
situation.
B
Northern
Ireland,
but
we
don't
see
why
Scotland
should
be
excluded
from
arrangements,
as
we
also
voted
not
to
leave
the
EU
as
Northern
Ireland
did
so
that
would
be
a
negation
of
Scottish
democracy
as
well,
so
they're,
very
serious
implications
in
there.
We've
addressed
them
frequently
in
discussion.
We'll
continue
to
do
so,
but
we
don't
want
to.
We
don't
understand
in
the
way
of
the
right
solution
of
Northern
Ireland,
particularly
as
that
would
be
the
right
solution
for
Scotland
as
well.
A
G
That's
at
least
25
piece
of
legislation
and
what
work
does
the
Scottish
Government
done
with
the
Parliament
itself
to
ensure
that
the
ability
of
committees
and
members
of
this
Parliament
are
able
to
process
much
of
the
secondary
legislation
that
might
come
through
our
Parliament
over
the
next
two
years?
In
addition
to
the
existing
pieces
of
primary
legislation
that
the
government's
putting
forward
we've.
B
Proposed
a
protocol
to
the
Parliament
that
takes
involves
the
DPL,
our
committee,
which
I
think
mr.
McMillan
is
aware
of
of
how
we
handle
that
material.
But
we
cannot
disguise
the
fact
that
is
a
considerable
additional
burden
and
it
will
require
I,
think
probably
more
sitting
time
for
committees
and
it
require
possibly
more
chamber
time.
That
is
where
we
are.
B
You
know
the
number
of
items
we're
still
under
review,
but
next
week,
I
hope
to
be
able
to
give
people
not
only
a
a
better
estimate
of
that,
but
also
a
view
of
what
the
flow
will
be.
I
indicated
on
Tuesday
that
the
cutoff
date
for
the
No
Deal
scenario
would
be
the
25th
of
January
next
year,
so
there's
a
great
deal
of
material
that
has
to
go
into
the
system
before
then.
That
also
requires
us
mr.
Stewart's
point
to
cooperate
with
the
UK
government
as
much
as
we
can.
B
G
I
I
Russell
made
made
earlier
I
also
have
to
say
as
well
that
I'll
call
it
the
tightness
of
decision-making
within
the
UK
government
puts
officials
in
a
very
difficult
situation
as
well,
and
maybe
one
of
the
reasons
why
they
cannot
be
more
open
with
us
than
the
otherwise
would
be,
and
the
other
point
is
the
concern
around
security
and,
in
you
know,
information
leaking.
So
there
are
mitigating
circumstances
why
relations
would
be
put
under
strain.
I
But
again,
my
experience
of
working
on
this
over
the
last
two
years
is
that
we
are
nowhere
near
this
sort
of
engagement.
That's
necessary
that
solve
upstream
engagement,
where
officials
are
talking
to
officials
about
some
of
the
options
that
may
be
being
put
forward
for
negotiations.
You
know
it's
sounding
as
though
early
and
I
was
being
able
to
to
give
them
some
idea
of
how
that
would
react
in
a
safe
space,
because
that's
traditionally
what
would
have
happened
that
has
been
largely
absent
and
therefore
everything
is
piled
to
the
11th
hour.
I
We
have
given
documents
in
this.
Our
time
frame
and
everybody's
feeling
up
under
pressure
and
up
against
it.
So
I
would
really
I
think
I
would
have
to
say
that
we
are
nowhere
near
the
sort
of
engagement
that's
necessary
to
take
forward.
Such
a
complex
issue
is
trying
to
get
through
this.
The
relations
have
inevitably
suffered.
Thank
you
for
your
openness.
Although.