Well, as we know, Counsel General, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict that the Scottish Government, despite the strength of the democratic mandate it secured at last year's Holyrood election, has no legal route under the current constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom to hold an independence referendum if Westminster continues to withhold its consent. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has already stated in the House of Commons that he will continue to disregard that unambiguous mandate, even though you could say that his personal mandate is indirect at best and somewhat tenuous. And, really, what we have here, of course, is a Westminster veto, effectively, a clear crystallisation of the doctrine of Westminster supremacy that we, as a nation, and Scotland, as a nation, are not in a union of equals. We are not an equal Parliament either, and, unfortunately, of course, this situation will not change, even with a change in Government at Westminster, because the UK Labour leader has himself said that he will not agree an Order in Council, under section 30 in the case of Scotland, to hold an independence referendum either. So, that Westminster veto is being used by both Labour and Conservative parties at Westminster in this case.

So, does the Counsel General agree with the view that has been expressed today by the First Minister of Scotland that this judgment emphatically and unequivocally illustrates the fallacy of the notion of the United Kingdom as a voluntary partnership of equals, as a voluntary association? Now, the First Minister in Scotland has announced that she will hold a special conference to explore the means by which the next UK general election could be framed in Scotland as a de facto referendum. Now, this is obviously far from ideal, but it is the only route available to them currently, given the block on other routes for self-determination. As the Counsel General knows, there is a historic precedent in this regard, the 1918 general election, when Sinn Fein in Ireland sought a mandate and stood on a platform of establishing an Irish republic, and the landslide that they got through that referendum was the basis on which they established Dáil Éireann and declared the Irish republic, though, unfortunately, that mandate itself was not immediately respected with very tragic consequences that I'm sure all of us would wish had been avoided.

Does the Counsel General agree with the comments by Professor Ciaran Martin in the joint Senedd and Welsh Government lecture last night that all the nations of these islands should have a clear and legitimate route to express their desire in terms of their constitutional future, including the right to hold an independence referendum? And does he agree, whatever the judgment of the Supreme Court in terms of its interpretation of international law, that, politically, democratically, philosophically, every nation has the right to self-determination, that, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says,

'All peoples have the right of self-determination'?

That has a particular urgency, you and I will agree on this, in the cases of countries that are colonised or subject to military occupation, absolutely, but the principle is an universal one that we must all, as democrats, uphold. So, does the Counsel General agree that that right to self-determination for Wales, for Scotland, for the people of the north of Ireland, should be enshrined and protected in law in the UK to address the democratic deficit that has been laid bare this morning in the judgment? It is particularly affecting the people of Scotland, given the very clear mandate that there is there, but it is of importance to us as well as we consider our constitutional future. Though you and I disagree in terms of independence, would you, as a democrat, express your solidarity with the people of Scotland and express the clear view of the Welsh Government that every nation, including the Scottish nation, and the Scottish people have the right to self-determination and that should be respected?