Michelle Thomson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home.”
“Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available.”
“Willie Rennie: I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority.”
“To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation.”
“On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that “in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.” In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerat…”
“I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infra…”
The complete record
Every one of 425 lines we hold for Michelle Thomson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“My concern is that the Government could be at risk of legal action in differential treatment or, even worse, mass exit, which would inadvertently exacerbate the current undersupply of housing stock. Màiri McAllan: I reiterate that one of the principal concerns in responding to the housing emergency is about creating confidence in the sector. I hope that responding to key calls for multi-annual certainty, for an uplift in funding and for an all-tenure target will create optimal circumstances. In respect of Ms Thomson’s specific question on exemptions from rent control, I was able to confirm last week our intention in principle to exempt from rent control build-to-rent properties and mid- market rent properties. That was informed by consultation, as well as by our housing investment task force.”
“I am very pleased that some of the actions that I announced were welcomed by Homes for Scotland, among others. Michelle Thomson: I thank the cabinet secretary for her full reply and agree that all steps must be taken to support SME house builders, particularly around planning and certainty over access to finance. House building is part of the picture to address pent-up demand; another part is retaining existing stock. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s recent warmth to the removal of rent caps to mid-market rent and build to rent, but will she extend that to all types of provisions, such as private landlords, or, as a minimum, will she allow rent rises between tenancies?”
“The actions in the plan which speak to that aspect include specific cross-Government interventions to better support SME builders and Scotland’s housing sector, including by working with the Scottish National Investment Bank, with investment over four years of up to £4.9 billion. That is complemented with an all-tenure delivery ambition across all sectors to grow by at least 10 per cent each year over the next three years. Planning is another area that has been raised with me as being critical. As I announced, we will shortly write to planning authorities to set out our expectation for proportionality when dealing with SME house builders. We will extend the forthcoming planning consultation on accelerating the build of new homes to specifically cover measures for SMEs.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Scotland’s population being around 5.5 million and the reported need to expand the housing sector capacity, whether it will provide an update on what targeted support it is providing to address the reported decline in small and medium-sized home builders. (S6O-04925) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): Over the summer, I worked extensively with partners, including small and medium-sized enterprise house builders, to inform the housing emergency action plan, which I presented to the Parliament last week. A key pillar of the plan, as I said in response to an earlier question, is creating the optimal conditions for confidence, investment and growth in our sector.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with United Kingdom Government ministers regarding the potential impact on the Scottish economy of recent developments with the Grangemouth cluster. (S6O-04873)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to supporting schools to raise awareness of, and provide the required assistance to, people with hearing and sight difficulties. (S6O- 04864)”
“I therefore believe that we have the leadership in the organisation to recognise that the spending plans , the outlook that I have set out today and the requirements for reform, including doing things differently and head-count reduction, have to be delivered throughout the organisation, starting at the highest level, from the permanent secretary down. He will be working very closely with the ministerial team, including the First Minister, in delivering that. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement. There will be a short pause before the next item of business. I apologise to members whose questions I was unable to reach. Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 16:19”
“The cabinet secretary referenced culture change. The permanent secretary gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday, during which he confirmed that nearly 50 per cent of all Scottish Government staff are in a management role. That culture must change as part of public sector reforms. Is the cabinet secretary absolutely assured of the complete support of the permanent secretary, as accountable officer, to make that skewed figure into a much more normal distribution? Shona Robison: The permanent secretary agreed that cultural change is required.”
“We recognise the huge economic impact of the manufacturing sector on our economy, and ADL has long been a critical part of that. On the UK Government’s industrial strategy, we have engaged with the UK Government to represent the interests of Scottish industries. We very quickly engaged with the UK Government on these matters, knowing full well that ADL had already been in touch with it. The Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if we kept questions and responses concise. There is much interest in asking a question, and we are marching through the available time.”
“In a statement on 11 June, the chief executive officer of Alexander Dennis said: “The stark reality is that current UK policy does not allow for the incentivisation or reward of local content, job retention and creation, nor does it encourage any domestic economic benefit.” He further made it clear that its commitment to the UK is dependent on the content of the UK Government’s forthcoming industrial strategy. To what extent has the Scottish Government been consulted in relation to the preparation of said strategy and, in particular, the mitigation of the issues that Alexander Dennis outlined? Kate Forbes: The member is right to quote the letter and to talk about some of the changes that need to be made. Ultimately, this is about supporting Scotland’s industrial base and the wider manufacturing base.”
“That is witnessed by the reduction in head count that we have seen across the total civil service workforce and the reduction in the Scottish Government’s total operating costs—possibly for the first time, but certainly in a long time. The Scottish Government is sticking to its budget in terms of the civil service, which it has not always done, and that is important. I know that the new permanent secretary is committed to working in partnership to deliver on the strategy.”
“Ministers have responsibility for certain budgets and policies, but operational aspects are controlled by those who lead those organisations, and the impartiality of the civil service means that ministers do not have a veto or control over how many are hired, what grades there are and what they are working on. Those matters are left to the civil service, due to the impartial nature of that organisation. The Scottish Government website makes it very clear that the civil service is not, in that sense, accountable operationally to ministers or to Parliament. I have confidence that the new permanent secretary is in an effective place with regard to the measures that we are taking forward.”
“First, Presiding Officer, I apologise for being a little late. Can the minister help other political parties understand who is ultimately accountable for the head count of the civil service? At a recent meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the outgoing permanent secretary, John-Paul Marks, stated that his role included “being steward of head counts”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 March 2025; c 17.] To that end, will the minister confirm that his good efforts on reform, including having the right number of people in the right roles, will be fully supported by the new permanent secretary? Ivan McKee: Michelle Thomson is absolutely right.”
“The chief executive of Scottish Engineering has warned that Labour’s immigration proposals risk undermining the recruitment of vital workers, saying: “Immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight.” My concern is not only for Scotland but for my constituency, including Grangemouth, where science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills must be part and parcel of any future economic recovery. Will the Scottish National Party Government continue to make the case for a separate immigration system for Scotland, not only because it is the right thing but because it is an economic imperative?”
“That is even more important in today’s world, given the speed of change.”
“Stephen Kerr: Does Michelle Thomson not agree that part of the problem is that, as a Parliament, we spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about social issues and very little time discussing the sort of issues that we are discussing this afternoon? Even this afternoon, we have a very short debate. Michelle Thomson: I completely agree. It is well known that I would spend most of every day talking about such matters. We need a wealthy economy to support the social changes and contribution that we want to make. Thomas Watson, the founder and long-term chair of IBM, probably put it better than I can when he said: “If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.” Fundamentally, if we want to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, we all have to understand that we need to increase our tolerance for risk.”
“If the initiatives that we take to support innovation and entrepreneurship were never to lead to some failures, that in itself would be a major failure. Rachael Hamilton: It is not policy makers or Opposition members who are criticising the policies that are failing; it is the industry and the sector. Michelle Thomson: That is simply not true. Every single week, I listen to baying from across the chamber about multiple policies. My point is that we must allow for some risk taking if we are to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, and businesses accept that. I am making that point to all of us, and to civil servants. There is a fundamental dichotomy at play that will not serve us well in the world.”
“Entrepreneurship and innovation are central to driving economic growth. One might suggest that they are the twins of purposeful change in the economy, driving a culture of development and productivity improvement. All innovation involves what the late Professor Tom Burns called the “application of novelty” and he said: “All novelty involves some degree of risk.”. Innovation and entrepreneurship are social phenomena that exist at their best in cultures that support change and risk taking; they do not thrive in risk-averse cultures. I would contrast that with our activity as parliamentarians and Government ministers. In the main, there is too much of a tendency to see each and every failure in policy making as bad and a matter to be condemned. That encourages risk aversion among policy makers.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Thomson. We move to the open debate. 12:58”
“The shift away from a European focus in the new American foreign policy can only embolden other actors in the region, and I fear that we feel further away than we have ever been from acknowledging what happened and taking the steps that are required to allow for healing and moving forward. The work of the International Commission on Missing Persons continues. It is still finding remains of the men who were killed, sometimes in multiple locations, as the bodies were buried, lifted and buried again—sometimes multiple times. I give the final words to Mejra. Speaking to Eddie Barnes, she said: “Why do we do this? We are fighting for justice and truth to be heard. Our fight is for the truth and justice for our beloved ones who were killed.” Her fight for truth and justice is a fight for us all.”
“It not only collects their stories but attempts to bring about prosecutions of the perpetrators—men who move openly still in Serbian society today. We drove past a warehouse in Kravica, one of the places where more than 1,370 men were shot. The bullet holes have been plastered over, and a wall has been built around it that stops the mothers and wives from laying flowers in homage to their loved ones. Bosnian politics have long been notoriously complex, and they remain so to this day. Despite promises made, accession to the European Union feels no closer for many of the successor states of Yugoslavia, and the lack of progress continues to lead to irritation and a sense of being let down across the entire region.”
“It was one of the best organised trips that I have ever been on, and it gave a proper sense of what happened and the extent to which events still rest heavily on those who remain—and rightly so. Women are always casualties in war, too, and this war was no different. While visiting the cemetery where more than 6,000 bodies have now been officially buried, we spoke with Mejra Djogaz, who lost her husband and three sons in the conflict. Quoted in an article by my fellow delegate Eddie Barnes, she said: “I would never have returned to Srebrenica if one of my children was alive but since they are all dead then this is the only place I can be near to them”. We visited the charity the Association of Women Victims of War, which gives voice to many women who were raped during the conflict.”
“Besides the thousands of men and boys killed, tens of thousands of women and children were uprooted and removed from the area. As my motion states, “54 individuals have been prosecuted to date for their role in the massacre but ... many more were involved in creating the culture and environment, which led to the genocide in Srebrenica, through their use of hate speech, oppression, discrimination and propaganda against the Bosnian Muslim population”. I should have added “only” before the number 54. The international community failed in 1995. Too many, including the blue helmets of the United Nations, looked the other way. I would like to offer a personal perspective, after having been invited to visit Srebrenica by the charity last year.”
“A great many vehicles were commandeered to move the prisoners, and bulldozers and excavators were commissioned to dig their graves. The killings were done in a grotesque fashion. One of the rare survivors recounted to the court: “When they opened fire, I threw myself on the ground ... And one man fell on my head. I think that he was killed on the spot. And I could feel the hot blood pouring over me ... I could hear one man crying for help. He was begging them to kill him. And they simply said, ‘Let him suffer. We will kill him later.’” This was a case of both genocide and androcide—the systematic killing of males because of their sex as part of a deliberate campaign to eliminate a specific religious and ethnic group. It was a horrific exercise in ethnic cleansing.”
“The images of Serbian soldiers tormenting and then shooting the Bosnian Muslim prisoners, whose hands were tied behind their backs and who offered no resistance before being shot, was to prove a telling piece of evidence. The trial examined evidence of mass executions at a total of nine sites from 13 to 17 July 1995. Dozens of burial sites were created for the mass disposal of bodies, and the evidence showed it to be a lie that those killed were combatants. It was also not a result of some spontaneous revenge killings—far from it. It was a premeditated and planned mass killing operation of men and boys. It was a genocide. Soldiers were mobilised to guard the prisoners, move them to execution sites and shoot them. Thousands of rounds of ammunition to shoot the prisoners were supplied.”
“It states: “The massacre that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995 was the single worst atrocity committed in the former Yugoslavia during the wars of the 1990s and the worst massacre that occurred in Europe since the months after World War II.” Some of the evidence that was presented in subsequent court cases was harrowing. In June 2005, during cross-examination of a witness in the case against Slobodan Milošević, the court viewed rare video footage showing a Serbian paramilitary unit, calling itself the Scorpions, execute a small group of Bosnian Muslim men and teenage boys who were captured after the fall of Srebrenica in 1995.”
“I am honoured to speak to my motion on 30 years on from the Bosnian genocide in Srebrenica. In the troubled world of today, it is important to reflect, and I am indebted to the work of the charity Beyond Srebrenica and its programme lessons from Srebrenica. I thank David Hamilton, Sabina Kadić-Mackenzie and all others involved in the charity for the chance to participate in its delegate programme, and I thank the Scottish Government for its sponsorship. I was rereading a published document from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and it is telling how it, in quite a matter-of-fact way, described the significance of the events in Srebrenica in July 1995.”
“To ask the Scottish Government to what extent it considers workers in the health and social care sector to be skilled. (S6O-04690)”
“As a locally elected member, Michelle Thomson has regular dialogue with it as well. The task force approach has been used to examine how to take forward improved and affordable flood resilience for Falkirk and Grangemouth residents and local communities. It is important that it is given the space and support to do that. Michelle Thomson mentioned other funding opportunities. We need to see the plans that come back from Falkirk Council on the issue before we can answer any of those questions. As I said in my earlier answers, I will discuss all those elements with Councillor Meiklejohn, who will lead the deliberations.”
“Fundamentally, the fact that there is no clear line of sight for funding is still a huge issue. Having no guarantee that the scheme can be funded in whole or in part seriously calls into question the tens of millions of pounds that have already been spent or that there are plans to spend. When will the aforementioned assessment criteria be set out for that scheme and others? What further opportunities for widening the funding burden have been identified through discussions with the UK Government and industry? Gillian Martin: As I said in my statement, it is for the local authority to decide whether to take the scheme forward in part, in a phased approach or as a whole. That will determine how it approaches the funding issue. A lot of the discussions on that will have to happen with the local authority.”
“To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the recently announced UK-USA trade deal and its potential implications for businesses in Scotland. (S6F- 04082)”
“My first point is about harm. To do nothing on the issue is already causing harm; to do something might also cause harm. No vote that we can cast will guarantee that no harm will be done. A vote against assisted dying will mean that many people will continue to die a slow, lingering death with, as they see it, no quality of life. They will be condemned to suffer at the behest of society, regardless of the quality of their palliative care. A vote for assisted dying will mean that some people are likely to die prematurely and, at worst, will feel compelled to make that choice because of external pressure, from whatever quarter.”
“This is arguably the most important debate in which we will all participate during this parliamentary session. I thank Liam McArthur and all members who have spoken thus far for their contributions. Members will be aware of my interest in ethics. I am grateful to Professor Richard Huxtable for setting out an ethical approach to the matter. He notes that some people believe that “the law should reflect … that choice matters, suffering matters and consistency matters”, whereas others, who hold opposing views, simply state that “life matters”. In his essay in the book, “The Reality of Assisted Dying: Understanding the Issues”, Professor Huxtable sets out a proposed pathway that is slow and cautious, that signposts choices and that checks the perimeters and leaves no one behind. I think that that is a sensible approach for us all.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made to ensure the timely delivery of benefits by Social Security Scotland. (S6O-04638)”
“The Acorn project is a vital component, so we must redouble our efforts to pressurise the UK Government to look beyond England for investment in carbon capture. I therefore welcome the fact that, as part of the programme for government, the First Minister is committed to increasing the £80 million of Scottish funding that is already available to make the Acorn project a reality, should the UK Government give it the go- ahead. There is much to welcome in the programme for government, and there is much to do. I will play my part in supporting the Government’s ambitions. 16:03”
“Michelle Thomson: I completely and strongly agree with that point, particularly in relation to some of the funding requirements for net zero, for example. That is imperative. It is fair to say that profits help to drive growth, as we discussed earlier, and growth supports our social policy ambitions. I have no shame in saying that. It is really important to recognise that point. As the member for Falkirk East, I was particularly interested in the First Minister’s comments about Grangemouth, which was the subject of my question to him yesterday. I welcome the leadership of the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, who is engaging, as I am, with potential investors to ensure a green industrial future for the Grangemouth site. Yesterday, we talked about a key feature of that being the development of carbon capture in Scotland.”
“In pursuing the drive for the commercialisation of research projects, with which I completely agree, we also need to review the gaps across Scotland’s financial sector architecture—arguably, the lack of our own stock exchange, for example—and we must do everything in our power to create a fully supportive economic environment for business. Economic growth must be supported not only by the Government but by business. We know that we need to nurture an environment of profitable businesses that are given the confidence to invest in the future. Liz Smith: Does Michelle Thomson accept that part of that involves ensuring that there is much better co-operation between the public and private sectors, so that we can scale up things and deliver growth?”
“As someone who has regularly called for greater recognition of and support for women in business, innovation and entrepreneurship, I was pleased to note that that was recognised by the First Minister and is, doubtless, supported by the Deputy First Minister, who shares my passion in that area. The First Minister talked about the launch of a new proof of concept fund, with a focus on supporting the commercialisation of research projects with significant economic potential, including action to transform the number of women who start and scale up businesses.”
“It is quite clear that its aim is to increase US exports and decrease imports. Another point that worries me is that alignment with US standards would present a specific danger to Scottish products. It would mean greater divergence with the EU, and it could also compromise our own standards—not only those in agriculture—creating a toxic mixture for Scotland’s domestic and export businesses. Last week, during question time, I called for a review of our export strategy in the light of international challenges. I am therefore pleased to note the new six-point export plan to enable Scottish exporters to diversify and grow markets. In the past, I have written about the need to fully utilise our Scottish business diaspora, and I look forward to continued engagement with it as part of that export strategy.”
“I agree with the First Minister, who, in yesterday’s statement, said: “Tariffs will impact directly on many Scottish exporters to the United States, while a US recession and a global trade war will have direct and indirect effects on almost every sector of our economy.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; c 13.] That is not likely to be fixed by a bilateral trade deal between the US and UK, and the mood music on a trade deal with the US is not good. I agree with the recent review of the UK trade policy observatory, which is a joint initiative between the University of Sussex and Chatham house, that “a quick and economically significant outcome to US–UK trade negotiations seems unlikely.” The Trump Administration has issued stringent guidelines to its negotiators as it moves away from multilateral to bilateral deals.”
“Murdo Fraser: Will Michelle Thomson give way? Michelle Thomson: I will take Jamie Greene’s intervention, as he asked first. Jamie Greene: Income tax is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but that responsibility comes with risk. It has resulted in £3.3 billion of additional tax being raised due to tax divergence with the rest of the UK, yet only £600 million has gone to the Scottish budget in net terms due to a slower economic performance. Michelle Thomson might want the powers, but she has to accept the responsibility as well. Michelle Thomson: I appreciate that Jamie Greene is new in post and will still be getting his head around exactly how the fiscal framework works. What he describes is a function of the fiscal framework.”
“I welcome the programme for government and, in particular—perhaps this is no surprise—the actions that will support growth in the economy. Having recently returned from Alberta, I am more convinced than ever that Scotland needs more powers and flexibility than is available under the current devolution arrangements. I want Scotland to be a normal independent country but, if this institution is to be a devolved legislature, can it please have the same powers as the Legislative Assembly of Alberta? The province retains all the tax take from oil and gas and has unlimited borrowing powers. It is ridiculous to pretend that Scotland, with its very restrictive regime— particularly around capital borrowing—can fully address the great challenges that are ahead. Jamie Greene: Will Michelle Thomson take an intervention?”
“Scotland can do better, which is captured well in Murdo Fraser’s amendment. This is a country that is crying out for leadership that delivers and believes in enterprise, rewards hard work and empowers every person to fulfil their potential. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Stephen Kerr: It is time to turn the page on 18 wasted years of nationalist drift and get to work building a stronger, more dynamic country where real opportunity is open to all. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members that there is time for interventions; they simply need to be included in the member’s speaking allocations. What there is not time for is electioneering. 15:44”
“It is a Labour Government that—as is typical of Labour Governments—has no idea how to grow the economy. All it knows how to do is grow indebtedness and the levels of tax and to boost inflation. Critically, Labour Governments always know how to increase unemployment, and that is what Labour is doing with its tax on jobs. I will get back to the SNP. I am running out of time—rather sadly, because I have much more to say. However, time being what it is in this Parliament, there is no time for proper debates. I would love to have given way for more hubris from Michelle Thomson, for example. I will simply say that after 18 years of failure and broken promises—my goodness, those parties know about broken promises. [Interruption.] Oh, they absolutely do know about that. They are blame shifters and people who hide behind excuses.”
“The Deputy First Minister used to love to talk about broadening the tax base. At one point, in the not-so-distant past, she was someone who understood that the burden of tax, as it stands in Scotland, is a massive disincentive to the people who must take risks, build businesses and create jobs to provide economic growth. Kate Forbes: What would the member say to the 250 people who are at risk of losing their jobs right now at Harbour Energy because of the energy profit levy that his party’s Government introduced? Stephen Kerr: I think that it is well recorded what I thought about the excess profits levy—or whatever it is called—that the Labour Government has managed to increase the burden of while reducing all the investment incentives. It is a disgrace.”
“There is another bunch of summits, and there are more task forces and reviews. The SNP cannot govern, so it hides—as it has always done—behind process. However, Scotland cannot afford to wait. If this programme for government really is about economic growth, it fails on that fundamental test, because economic growth has not been put at its heart. Every good outcome that the Parliament wants to see—lower poverty, better public services and greater social justice—depends on a growing economy, because without growth there are no resources and there is no hope. Economic growth does not come from press releases or speeches, and it certainly does not come from increasing the burdens of taxation; it comes from enterprise, vision and determination, and from people who take risks, build businesses, create jobs and contribute to the tax base.”
“We always need to remember that it is the public who will vote. I am sure that the member would have enjoyed—as I did today—looking at the current poll numbers. The public are clearly predicted to vote with their feet by voting to give the SNP the largest number of MSPs by a country mile, unlike his own party. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members about electioneering in the chamber. Stephen Kerr: That was a fantastic display of hubris from Michelle Thomson. Let us see what happens when they open the ballot boxes and count the votes. This is a Government that is clinging to office, not one that is capable of delivering for the people of Scotland. It is a case of another year and another plan—and yet another plan—which is all kicking the can down the road.”
“The UK Government has supported two carbon capture projects in England, and there is an undeniable case for the Acorn project. The Scottish Government is willing to be a more significant funder of that project if it gets the go-ahead, and I encourage the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government to give it.”
“I welcome the commitment to an industrial future for Grangemouth in my constituency and the £25 million that has been pledged thus far. Carbon capture and storage is an important part of the industrial strategy, so I am also pleased that the Scottish Government is willing to increase the current commitment of £80 million for Acorn if that means that the UK Government will approve the project. Will the First Minister join me in continuing to call for that essential project to be given the green light at pace and, ideally, in the forthcoming UK Government spending review? The First Minister: It would be enormously beneficial—actually, the word is not “beneficial”; it is essential that we get the green light for the Acorn project. I must use the word “essential”. It is a superb opportunity for Scotland.”
“I mentioned the 66 inquiries, and Michelle Thomson and I separately met representatives of one such interested company this morning. The innovation coming from those investors and developers that I am hearing about is extraordinary. We have previously talked about the fact that project willow will be spread over a number of years, but some opportunities can be accelerated, because they are ready to go. We are committed to ensuring that companies can access units, relocate to Grangemouth and start to employ people as quickly as possible.”