Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed. It talks about “the Government”, when there is more than one Government in the United Kingdom. That would never happen in Germany, Austria, Belgium and so on. If we want to circle back to the main points that we have been discussing, it is about an attitude towards how things can work.

If we are coming to the end of this agenda item, convener, I want to stress again that we will do everything that we can to try to make systems work and that I am very open to systems being included for transparency and accountability. However, with regard to the bigger picture, we need to understand that we are dealing with an attitude that has not changed that much through devolution. That is the point that Mr Brown has made, and he is correct.

Yes. I think that the call lasted less than 10 minutes. I asked what I imagine most of you would have wanted to know in relation to Erasmus+, which is how it will work in the context of Scotland’s different funding structure for universities. Mr Thomas-Symonds did not know but undertook to get back to me.

Again, the interaction is good, but it would probably be better if we could do it before things are in the newspapers. I am somewhat surprised—that would be the diplomatic way of saying it—that we could not get an answer at that stage on things that are self-evidently and obviously of devolved interest and responsibility. Scotland’s funding structure for universities and students is not a secret. However, having a constructive tone and wanting to be in touch are common priorities for both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, which both want accession to Erasmus+. There is no criticism of that, but we still need to understand some of the details thereof. There is a bit of colour to how all of that works.

I am putting that on the table because it will lend itself to consideration of how we, as a Government, can report to you about those meetings in those different formats and how we can conduct our meetings with you in a way that is content rich but that does not undermine our ability to have intergovernmental discussions. As I have already said, although domestic and international custom and practice around those meetings is that they are private, we must, at the same time, get the balance right so that we can be held to account for what does or does not take place as part of those processes.

Convener, I am giving an answer to Mr Halcro Johnston’s observations.

Mr Halcro Johnston said an interesting thing when he talked about Lorna Slater and others saying that a vote for the Scottish Greens—and, by extension, the SNP—was not, of itself, a mandate for independence. I agree—what it is, though, is a mandate for a referendum. Both the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party, which make up the majority in this Parliament, were elected on a manifesto commitment that there should be a referendum. I would never ever pray in aid somebody voting for me in Edinburgh Central to keep the Tories out—because it is a two-horse race there between the SNP and the Tories—and say that a vote of a Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green voter who wanted to keep the Tories out was necessarily a vote for independence per se. However, I am very clear that, when a party says in its manifesto that it is committed to, and that its MSPs will vote for, a referendum taking place, it is a mandate to have that choice.

We do not need to go round the houses again on this, but it would appear that the salient point here is being lost by some. There is a difference between having the right of self-determination—and having an agreed route as democrats to be able to do that—and the pros and cons of independence itself. Nobody on the no side of the constitutional argument has been prepared to address that gap.

Mr Halcro Johnston will not, I am sure, be surprised to learn that I am a democrat and that the Scottish National Party is a democratic party that believes in the democratic process. Therefore, the plan is based on those principles. We are standing for election to this Parliament, and if we are elected, we will pursue an independence referendum.

In any other country, or in any other circumstance, it would not be considered a strange proposition that the party that wins with a manifesto commitment to do something actually does it. In fact, in most normal countries, Opposition parliamentarians would be jumping up and down, talking about delivering manifesto commitments—

I did not discern a question from Mr Kerr.

I can agree with Mr Kerr—that might shock those who are watching these proceedings—that the UK, because it has an unwritten constitution, has flexibility, to use the word that he used, to make different arrangements. However—

I understand the point that Mr Harvie is making, but it is also a question for other political parties. It is not a question only for the political parties that are in favour of having a referendum, which may or may not be in favour of independence.

Helpfully, the Welsh Government has very recently published a report on the constitutional future of Wales in the United Kingdom, and it says:

“it must be open to any of its parts democratically to choose to withdraw from the Union. If this were not so, a nation could conceivably be bound into the UK against its will, a situation both undemocratic and inconsistent with the idea of a Union based on shared values and interests.”

We may disagree on the substance and how we would vote, but I am simply appealing to colleagues, as democrats, to agree that, through the ballot box in a democratic election to this Parliament, we should be able to determine a vote on the country’s future. It is not that complicated. It is pretty basic in terms of democratic values, and it has the beauty of a precedent. It has happened before, so it can and it will happen again.

Through a vote by parliamentarians.

I am very disappointed by Mr Halcro Johnston, but we should—

I am delighted that that has been minuted.