forward, the scottish government would work with the uk government to explore potential amendments to the bill. the secretary of state refused this offer stating there would be no further meetings between the governments on this issue. he set up three options for the scottish government. we can drop the bill passed by the majority of this parliament altogether, we can address these concerns in an amended bill without providing which bill without the section 35 on top of it can pursue legal action. the uk government state of does not provide a reason. any divergence of approaching scotland would be unacceptable saying ensure it to different regimes create adverse effects. it is therefore proved impossible to find a way forward or to consider a form of amending the bill that this parliament would agree to and lead to the secretary of state to revoke the order. the scottish government remains committed to the bill as amended and as agreed by a majority in this parliament, which
calls into question devilish in itself. if the uk government can use this power once, without being challenged, how long will it be before it uses it again? as we have seen with the seal convention, once a precedent has been set, the uk government will find it easy to justify using a power again and again, gradually eroding the hard won powers of scotland. to conclude, i know that was the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of members, not all msps or all of the wider scottish public agree with the aims of this bill. but i hope we can agree that the unprecedented intervention of the secretary of state for scotland to halt a bill on devolved issues already passed by this parliament must be challenged. that is why scottish ministers have lodged this petition forjudicial review, we will fight to defend the devolved democratic function of this parliament and it is right we do so.