Emma Roddick
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Knowing all that I know about the high rate of comorbidity of ADHD and hypermobility, it did not come as a surprise when I was told in January this year that my mental health diagnosis, which came with a great deal of difficulty, stigma and, as it turns out, the wrong treatment over years and years, was misdiagnosed neurodivergence.”
“It might be that no one beyond the person’s GP is needed to manage the post-diagnosis situation. All that might be needed is guided self-management and the awareness of what their diagnosis is, which will give them the necessary confidence to ask for adjustments at school or the workplace.”
“A child with ADHD who can be managed with some changes to their school day should just have those changes made. Not dealing with those people creates urgent cases that never needed to become urgent.”
“I can now access the right people and I can read about my condition, not a label. What I cannot do is get help from the NHS. I have been advised to go private, which is something I hate seeing in a letter that is headed “NHS”.”
“I congratulate and thank Helen McDade for securing this important debate. I am glad to see that there are cross-party contributions this evening.”
“When someone feels like they do not fit in and they do not know why, they can start to resent the world and their peers, who think that the person is difficult and unfriendly instead of just quiet and busy thinking about 12 things at once.”
The complete record
Every one of 407 lines we hold for Emma Roddick, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“My colleague’s comments seek to provide clarity by making it explicit that a woman who is pregnant would not be eligible for assisted suicide under the bill. Where legislation fails to confront questions of such gravity, we risk passing not careful law but bad law. For that reason, I ask colleagues to—”
“As I was saying, without clarity, doctors would find themselves placed in the impossible position of being asked to facilitate an assisted suicide for a pregnant woman while knowing that doing so could also end the life of her viable unborn child. When the law places doctors in an impossible position, it is usually a sign that that law has not been properly thought through. That concern is not purely theoretical. Serious illness during pregnancy does occur. Medical research suggests that cancer arises in around one in every 1,000 pregnancies. Although not all such cases would meet the bill’s definition of “terminal illness”, some clearly would. If the bill cannot explain how the law would operate in one of the most ethically complex situations imaginable, the legislation that is before us is not ready.”
“I am interested, because the proposed amendments also do not differentiate between a pregnancy prior to 24 weeks and one post 24 weeks. Why is that? Will Stephen Kerr explain a little more the justification for testing whether women who seek assisted dying are pregnant, as presumably would have to be done? To force somebody who is terminally ill and close to death to go through an abortion beforehand seems inhumane. Stephen Kerr: I do not think that that is what Sue Webber’s amendments suggest. The amendments as drafted would capture all women who are pregnant, for reasons of lack of clarity in the bill in relation to the subject in total.”
“If someone needs to claim benefits to pay for adjustments to manage their autism, they should be supported and welcomed into the workplace. I regret that we will lose so many of the disabled MSPs who sit in the Parliament, regardless of what the election results might be, because so many are not seeking re-election. However, it does not surprise me, and we need to do better. I have sent a list of suggestions to the Presiding Officer that could make the Parliament and the induction for MSPs more accessible. I hope that this debate, Jeremy Balfour’s words and the many people who are crying out for change are listened to and that more disabled people are able to stand for and take up seats in the Parliament in the future. 13:21”
“I wish that the symptoms of autism did not trigger such a visceral, judgmental response. If the public reaction is that a neurodivergent person does not sound like an MSP, that is our failure, not the failure of the neurodivergent person. Of course that person can be an MSP. Of course someone who is capable with adjustments in place is just as deserving of taking up a role as someone who requires none because the environment has already been designed with them in mind. Of course the necessary adjustments should then be put in place and the individual should not be out of pocket, especially when adaptations often cost eye-watering amounts of money. If someone needs a ramp to take up the office of Presiding Officer, there should be a ramp. If someone needs Braille to press the right buttons in the chamber, that must be provided.”
“I am delighted that some of my constituents, including one with autism, attended last month’s summit. It was a long way for my constituent to travel, but he has a lot to offer policy making, as many disabled people do. In the past 48 hours, there has been a great deal of negative attention on disability, which has included screenshots flying around on social media of the types of adjustment that a disabled person who claims ADP might need, captioned with comments such as, “Does this sound like an MSP?” It has even been highlighted in newspapers that an ADP claimant has been seen enjoying life and shopping with her friends, as though that suggests that she cannot be disabled. We belong in public life and deserve to enjoy our lives as much as anyone else.”
“The behaviour that we saw at First Minister’s question time, which has been evident in many recent FMQ sessions, which targets people— mostly those with hidden disabilities—who claim benefits and tars neurodivergent and mentally ill people with allegations of fraud without knowing their personal circumstances sets us back. I am deeply concerned by that level of completely disgraceful targeting, which today involved a named disabled woman who does not sit in this Parliament and who was, therefore, unable to reply. That is never acceptable. As well as sending a message to the person who is targeted, it tells every neurodivergent activist, employee or constituent out there that they are deserving of suspicion and undeserving of holding office. We must do better.”
“I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging the motion. When I attended the disability summit with him a fortnight ago, it was lovely to see so many adjustments across the Parliament, from ramps around the building to live captioning throughout the event at the front of the chamber. It would be wonderful to see such adjustments being made, and disabled people from across Scotland taking their place in the chamber, on a more regular basis, but, sadly, a lot more needs to be done by political parties, Government and society at large if that is to become a reality.”
“It is vital that we invest in the yard’s future sustainability, so I warmly welcome this announcement from the Deputy First Minister. Can she say any more about the expected timeline for delivery of these vessels and the benefits of a confirmed pipeline of work? Kate Forbes: I said in my statement that it would be over the next five years. There is a programme to complete the Glen Rosa, and it is important to reiterate the requirement for the yard to complete the Glen Rosa. That requirement has been updated to imply that it will be complete in Q4, and we anticipate the work being ready to go shortly after that.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the Education (Scotland) Act 2025, how the new body, Qualifications Scotland, will ensure that the learner interest committee is representative of all of Scotland, including rural and island areas and neurodivergent learners. (S6O-05540)”
“We all have interests and biases, and the planning process is designed to focus only on what is relevant to the application. My personal objection to or support for any application should never be worth more than the views of my constituents down the road. The people in Nairn, Findhorn, Burghead, Buckie, Forres and Elgin who have all reached out to share their material planning concerns are the ones who must have a voice and a say in the process. I will continue to do what I can to draw attention to those objections and call out any failures to engage, lack of transparency or poor communication. All that needs to be done is to listen to the local experts. 18:18”
“People can understand things better with more information but, of course, when they have more information, they can also form arguments that are more relevant and effective. That is why it cannot simply be left to developers to decide whether they want to share the information that local people deserve to have. When we discussed the issue earlier in the committee room, there was an awful lot of speculation. Much of that might turn out to be unfair, but it might be bang on the money. The point is that nobody, from the campaigners to the MSPs in the room, knows the answer to that. In my view, planning and consenting should never be decided on a political basis. Fundamentally, I do not believe that politicians who are acting outwith the planning process should decide who gets to build and who does not.”
“Mentioning net zero on your planning application certainly does not excuse you from undertaking impact assessments, consultation and partnership working. The people whom I met in committee room 5 ahead of the debate—thanks to another colleague, Tim Eagle, who arranged a drop-in event—are not opposed to the future; they just want the local community to shape the future. That is what the Scottish Government’s guidance says should happen and that is the point of having local development plans, and I think that it is an entirely reasonable expectation for my constituents to have. I note that the constituency MSP for Moray, Richard Lochhead, has also asked pertinent questions about which areas are under consideration. There is a lack of information here.”
“If the people who have to live with the reality of a development—whether that is visual interference, an impact on livelihoods, or knock-on traffic, waste or employment impacts— feel that their voices are just being treated like background noise that can be tuned out, the process is broken. OSG’s refusal to attend a public meeting illustrated that point for me. The Highlands is used to promises of gold rushes but, even when short-term jobs or community benefits are offered, we often feel that we are left worse off afterwards. I have seen developers work with communities to identify what their priorities are and how they can mitigate any unwanted impacts. That will never please everyone, but it can be done. Infrastructure must serve the community, not the other way round, and vague gestures relating to green energy do not cut it.”
“Nevertheless, being careful not to prejudice the process does not mean that I cannot demand that the developers meet their obligations; that communities’ voices are heard; and that the legitimate, evidence-based and very detailed concerns are acted on, especially when they have been brought forward by volunteers in communities, whether those are individuals, community councils or businesses, who are putting the effort into crafting and sharing them with those who are responsible for making the decision. That has not happened in this case, which deeply concerns me. I am extremely disappointed to have had such strong and varied representation from people in the Highlands and Moray stating that they are not being listened to.”
“I am grateful to Douglas Ross for managing to get the debate into the Business Bulletin. As he mentioned, a few of us tried previously, so fair play to him for meeting the requirement for cross-party support. Having sat on a planning committee, I am always extremely careful not to cross the line into prejudicing a quasi-judicial process, which is why I worded my original motion in the way that I did. However, members are still required to take responsibility for their contributions in today’s debate.”
“The Cairngorms National Park Authority’s new byelaws attracted a lot of support locally, and people asked why they were not being brought in elsewhere. Councils told me that their inability to issue fixed-penalty notices is a huge barrier. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 and I was pleased to get supportive comments from colleagues across the parties. Since then, I have worked with the Government on further development of what is now amendment 62, and I am delighted that it is being considered today. I hope that members across the chamber will support it.”
“My amendment 62 will allow ministers to introduce by regulations fixed-penalty schemes in relation to any byelaws that local authorities introduce to prevent wildfires. It will also put beyond doubt the ability of local authorities to make byelaws for the purpose of wildfire prevention and suppression. As we know all too well in the Highlands, wildfires can be devastating. They pose a deadly risk to life, as well as threatening rural businesses. Large amounts of carbon are released and biodiversity is put in danger as many species struggle to survive the flames. Following the Dava moor fire last year, many constituents wrote to me suggesting various approaches that could prevent wildfires from taking hold, including banning disposable barbecue use during the summer months.”
“However, I find the amendment to be very wide ranging. It would mean that anyone could make a comment on the state of a hill. Such comments could be vexatious and might even carry no grounds. Therefore, the amendment would increase the very bureaucracy that the minister is trying to avoid. On that note, I will sit down so that we can get to the voting. I press amendment 1. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“In relation to amendment 93, deer always appear to be the problem. However, in vast parts of Scotland in which there is damage to the environment, especially in upland areas, it is not always deer that are the problem. As I said earlier, the problem is often sheep. I am conscious that we do not have unlimited time, but I will turn to a couple of other amendments. Amendments 16 to 19 would have a modest cost. The minister talked about bureaucracy, but the bill will produce a huge amount of bureaucracy. As far as amendment 99 is concerned, we should keep the power at 14 days. I cannot even get a response from the Government to a letter in 14 days, so I do not understand how SNH feels that it will be able to decide and do something in five days. I have listened to the arguments in favour of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 50.”
“Let me be clear: it is a biological fact that it is female deer that produce calves, and it is female deer that will hunt out the male deer. They will travel for miles to find a male deer to mate with. It is not the male deer that will do that; they will hold territory. Therefore, to kill just the males is not the way to keep the population down. Jim Fairlie: Will the member take an intervention? Edward Mountain: I will if I have time, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is limited time. If you want to take the intervention, you can, but I will not be able to give you all the time back. Edward Mountain: If I will not get my time back, then I will not argue about a matter of fact. The minister will be delighted to know that I have listened to his entreaties and I will not move amendment 12.”
“Jim Fairlie: During this whole debate, I have tried really hard to get us to a place where there is a consensus about deer management in Scotland and we are working together across the chamber, as has been demonstrated throughout this group of amendments. Those kinds of comments about the organisation that is there to help us to do so are uncalled for and unfounded. Therefore, I ask the member to retract them. Edward Mountain: I will not withdraw the comments. I stand by them entirely, because they are my impression from what I have seen in my time in deer management. I am sorry that amendment 78 has fallen on deaf ears. For those members who cannot remember, the amendment is about the killing of male deer.”
“With regard to amendments 5 to 7, I do not understand what the issue is with getting NatureScot representatives to attend deer management group meetings for each deer management group in Scotland. There are about two meetings a year. I am not sure what else they do in their offices all day—maybe they sit in Great Glen house pontificating things into the future. Jim Fairlie: Will the member take an intervention? Edward Mountain: I will in a minute. In my time, I have attended a huge number of deer management meetings. When SNH representatives are present, those deer management groups work a lot better. When they do not bother to turn up, they are missed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, briefly.”
“We could argue about that over a drink later, but I am happy to give way now. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly, minister. Jim Fairlie: If it gives the member confidence, sika deer are very much in the sights of NatureScot. We are well aware of the issues that sika deer cause, and distinct actions have been taken to ensure that we tackle that problem. Edward Mountain: The distinct actions that deer managers have always undertaken when it comes to sika deer are to shoot on sight, so that we can get rid of them. The fact that the minister is not going to support amendment 2 suggests that this Government is not interested in jobs in the countryside. However, I am pleased that the minister will accept amendments 3, 10, 11 and 102.”
“At the outset, I will say that what I have tried to do in these amendments is bring a certain amount of clarity to those who are going to be involved in deer management, from somebody who has, I hope, done enough of it to see the pitfalls on both sides. As far as amendment 1 is concerned, I am sorry, but we should be in a position where non- native animals in Scotland, particularly those such as sika, are controlled and removed where possible. I am not sure that they will ever be removed. That is why I am saying that deer management plans are required for native species, which I consider— Jim Fairlie: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Edward Mountain: I will, in a minute. I consider fallow deer, which have been here for more than 100 years, to be native.”
“With the bill, our aim has always been not only to retain flexibility, particularly in relation to voluntary agreements, but to ensure that NatureScot has the appropriate powers to allow it to exercise its functions. Amendment 105 would take away an element of that discretion, which is necessary to ensure that NatureScot can obtain the information that it needs. For those reasons, I ask Mr Mountain not to move amendment 105. If he moves it, I ask members to oppose it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Edward Mountain to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1. Edward Mountain: I am sure that everyone in the chamber will be pleased to know that I am not going to speak to every amendment in the group. I could do so, but I am not going to; I will just pick out the key amendments that I would like to speak to.”
“Amendment 104 would impose an unnecessary and disproportionate statutory compensation requirement for lawful entry, despite no evidence of harm arising from existing powers. Amendments 103 and 104 go beyond what is reasonable and would weaken NatureScot’s ability to carry out its functions. I therefore support amendment 102, but I urge members to oppose amendments 103 and 104. Amendment 105, in Edward Mountain’s name, seeks to require NatureScot to be absolutely confident that the information or documents that it is requesting are relevant to its functions. Although the amendment is well intentioned, in some cases, NatureScot may not be able to determine whether the information or documents required are relevant to a specific function until it has sight of them.”
“For those reasons that I ask Mr Mountain not to move amendments 100 and 101. If he moves them, I ask members to oppose them. Amendments 102 to 104, in the name of Edward Mountain, would insert new provisions in section 15 of the 1996 act. Amendment 102 strikes the right balance between transparency and effective regulation. It would ensure that landowners receive timely, accessible information about deer counts and impacts gathered on their land, which would support collaboration and informed management. However, I cannot support amendments 103 and 104, because they would unduly constrain NatureScot by preventing further action until the information has been shared, removing the necessary flexibility and risking delay where multiple or urgent interventions were required.”
“However, Mr Mountain does not define what is meant by “qualified in practical deer management”. That would leave the provision open to interpretation, creating uncertainty over its meaning and application and thereby making it not fit for the intended purpose, particularly in relation to powers of entry, where clarity as to lawful exercise is especially important. Amendment 101 would remove from NatureScot the power to enable an authorised person to enter on to the owner or occupier’s land for the reasons set out in section 15(3) of the 1996 act unless “previously agreed with” them. That would effectively transfer control of the power from NatureScot to the landowner or occupier, which would undermine its very purpose. In practice, it would risk delaying or preventing necessary deer management actions.”
“It is important to note, however, that the notice period is simply a minimum and that if NatureScot issued the notice and the relevant owners or occupiers were in touch to make other arrangements, NatureScot would consider alternative requests so long as the request was made in good faith. I ask members, therefore, to oppose amendment 99. Amendments 100 and 101 relate to the proposed new subsection (2ZA) to be inserted in section 15 of the 1996 act, which provides NatureScot with the power to authorise a person to enter land owned or occupied by another for specified deer management purposes. Mr Mountain’s amendment 100 would require that person to be “qualified in practical deer management” as well as, under the bill’s proposed new wording in the 1996 act, being “authorised in writing by” NatureScot.”
“That would be neither practical nor proportionate, and it would retain an unnecessary offence in the law. The safeguard introduced in section 20 is carefully balanced and firmly in the public interest, and it should remain in the bill. I therefore ask members to reject amendment 96. Amendment 99 seeks to undo the changes that the bill makes with regard to NatureScot’s notice period when entering on to land to exercise its functions. The bill reduces the minimum notice period that NatureScot must give to five working days. That was a recommendation from the deer working group, which recognised that the current period of 14 calendar days was unreasonably long in some circumstances, especially where NatureScot needs to take action to address damage quickly. The change was fully consulted on.”
“Amendment 95 would remove from the bill the simple, sensible safeguard that authorised persons must be “fit”, cutting across the wider drive for competence and high standards. The changes that I have set out are necessary and balanced and are in the public interest. For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendments 94 and 95. Amendment 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, seeks to remove section 20 of the bill. Section 20 introduces a tightly drawn and sensible defence where a person acts “to prevent or stop” an imminent risk of harm to human safety from deer. It applies only where the risk is immediate, the action is reasonable and proportionate and the incident is reported to the police. Removing that provision would mean that someone could still commit an offence even when acting responsibly to protect life.”
“For those reasons, I urge members to reject the amendments. Amendments 94 and 95, in the name of Edward Mountain, seek to reverse necessary changes that the bill makes in respect of emergency powers under section 10 of the 1996 act. Amendment 94 would strip out the bill’s prudent expansion of those emergency powers to cover damage to “the natural heritage” and “environment”. That would mean that section 10 of the 1996 act would be out of line with the rest of that act, and it would undermine rapid intervention precisely where it is increasingly required to protect peatland restoration, new woodland and sensitive habitats. The expanded measures are short, targeted powers that are already used proportionately to address immediate harm, and they are supported by the deer working group’s recommendations.”
“Amendments 18 and 19 would introduce a complex and disproportionate challenge process for the recovery of very modest sums. Creating independent panels followed by potential arbitration, while still retaining the mechanism of appeal to the Scottish Land Court, would undermine finality and risk legal confusion, in particular given that arbitration is intended to be binding. The cost of establishing and operating those processes would likely exceed the expenses being disputed, while the suspension of recovery action would encourage delay. Taken together, amendments 16 to 19 would add bureaucracy, reduce regulatory efficiency and weaken NatureScot’s ability to recover costs proportionately and effectively. There is already a robust appeal mechanism in place through the Scottish Land Court.”
“17:15 Jim Fairlie: I have already stated that, through the bill, we are bringing forward a national deer management plan and introducing new powers to take action where deer are preventing nature restoration and enhancement. Outwith the legislation, we are working hard to trial incentive schemes, which will be used to inform our decisions on the form of support that would best achieve our deer management aims. Amendment 93 would risk undermining the collaborative work that has been put into getting deer management where it is today, which I intend to continue. Amendments 16 to 19, in the name of Edward Mountain, relate to cost recovery for control schemes that are put in place by NatureScot. Amendments 16 and 17 are not necessary, as the bill as currently drafted will already achieve the aims of those proposed drafting modifications.”
“As Mark Ruskell kindly mentioned earlier, I worked with the John Muir Trust and Scottish Environment LINK’s deer group on a stage 2 amendment that sought to achieve the same thing, and the minister committed to working with me to find a way forward. However, he has since said that agreeing to such an amendment would put an obligation on NatureScot to address those protected areas, which are estimated at more than 250,000 hectares across Scotland. If Government officials recognise the scale of the risk, surely we want to write law that enshrines protection for those areas. As Mark Ruskell says, I would welcome a more detailed explanation from the minister as to why the Scottish Government is unable to support that effort.”
“However, I am sure that he could find some time in his very busy diary to help out the minister and make sure that Scotland leads the way. If we want to tackle the attainment gap, if we want more young people in positive destinations and if we want them to be genuinely involved in their community and feel a responsibility to it, this is not an opportunity that we can ignore. I will finish with a question that Gavin shared with me. He said: “We are continuing to see a positive impact in both our Nursery and Community programmes for children and young people and parents, teachers and young people, ask, why is this not in more schools across Scotland?” 12:57”
“It shows what a difference it makes when young people do something for themselves. We know that intergenerational work produces results, and we know that young people with adverse childhood experiences need a push, encouragement and opportunities to discover the amazing things about themselves that the world has told them are not there. We know that Growing2gether’s approach works, and it would be a very sensible—and successful—move if the Scottish Government were to seriously consider how it can support, explore and expand Growing2gether’s work. Gavin Morgan is a busy man. He has been down in Westminster sharing his successes, and he is working with even more schools that want to join up and be part of the programme.”
“What really came across as we sat around the table talking and laughing was that the teachers who helped to lead and organise the programme blended together with the young leaders. They had worked together. There was no top-down instruction; it was a partnership, and I could see that the young people carried themselves differently as a result of that. At the end of my visit, we posed for a photo, as usual. It was a normal MSP visit photo, with everybody standing with their hands clasped and looking polite. One of the young people then pulled out their phone and took a selfie. That is the photo that I used for my social media post about the visit, because that is the one that captured the energy and joy of the day when they explained to me how special it all is.”
“I was told about how one little girl cried and cried on the last day of the programme because she did not want to say goodbye. I could feel the emotion in the room that day as I heard about them reuniting just before I arrived. Another mentor shared that the parents of his mentee had sought him out and thanked him for whatever it was that he did to make their little girl come out of her shell. The programme leaders explained that one of the quieter girls there would have been too nervous to speak to me before she took part in the programme. She smiled and agreed; she said that it had changed everything. Both age groups bloomed from the belief that the programme leaders had in them and from the knowledge that they can build such relationships, learn from one another and be of value to the world.”
“However, the programme, Gavin and the energy around it stood out, and I had to see it for myself. I arranged to meet him and some of the young people involved up at Kinmylies primary school. I spoke with a few of the young people, some of whom had left the programme the year before but had taken the opportunity to come to speak to me and be reunited with their mentees. I was taken aback by that because I was expecting to meet the current cohort. It was a beautiful, sunny day, and those teenagers could have been down the pitches, up at the retail park or just lying in bed playing Fortnite, but instead they had come to Charleston academy to make sure that I knew how good the programme was and to see their old nursery partners.”
“I grew up in an all-female household, and to me, boys were mean, they hit you and they cared about Glasgow football teams for some reason. However, answering those wee boys’ questions, teaching them about the world of big school and watching them explore everything made me realise what I had learned so far and what I had to give back, and it made me feel more confident and responsible. That meant that I was already sold on the concept, but I met Gavin online to chat about what he wanted to achieve. He explained that really he only wanted me to tell everybody else about what he was doing. It was one of those days of back-to-back team meetings, typing up notes and actions for the evening, swapping from my work on rural affairs to healthcare to casework.”
“I could stand here and quote them all, but you really need to hear it from them, so I will share just one that sums it up for me. They said: “I finally feel that I am okay as a person. I thought that everyone else was better than me.” Many young people who grow up with trauma or poverty are led to believe that they are not special, that there is nothing more for them in life, that they cannot offer anything to the world but anger and that there is really no point in trying. I know that because I have felt it. It takes a lot of internal work to undo that complex belief system, and a lot of effort from kind adults who want to convince you that it is worth giving it a go. When I was in school, I was paired with a couple of nursery boys to mentor. I remember being really nervous about that. I did not like boys.”
“Right now, it is working in and around the Moray Firth and across Aberdeen. When Gavin Morgan of Growing2gether reached out to me last year, I could tell that there was something special about what the nursery programme is doing. Gavin is so passionate. There is no other way to say it. He loves what he does, and he loves seeing the results of his work. When I told him that we had finally secured a debate spot for the motion, I asked him whether there was anything new that he wanted to share with me since we last spoke—he sent me 10 bullet points, two PDFs and a video. I will circulate that video to colleagues after the debate. The reason that the programme works is the willingness of the young people who take part. Their reflections are so special.”
“I am unusually nervous today, only because I am so incredibly glad to have the opportunity to speak about Growing2gether and to share it with colleagues, the Government and anyone else who is listening, and tell them why engaging with this organisation, among the thousands of meetings that MSPs have, is one of those that I will always remember clearly. Colleagues will know the meetings that I mean; the ones that we remember because they make us feel something. Growing2gether works with young people who are experiencing or are at risk of poverty, mental health issues and adverse childhood experiences. It intervenes to support those young people to mentor nursery children and take on leadership roles in their communities, consult with community members and develop youth-led initiatives.”
“Developers have warned that the planned West of Orkney wind farm, which will have the potential to power 2 million homes by the end of the decade, will not be built unless unfair United Kingdom transmission charges are overhauled. Under Westminster control, the UK energy market is broken. Communities do not benefit from hosting development, and developers are penalised for being in Scotland. That is taking a toll on jobs, investment and, ultimately, costs, which leads to higher energy bills. Does the First Minister agree that powers over Scotland’s energy should be placed in Scotland’s hands?”
“If we can build something as beautiful, complex and record breaking as the Queensferry crossing, we can look after Telford’s bridges, and we can even build more to connect the Highlands and Islands. 17:30”
“Yesterday in the chamber, we were debating positive destinations and routes to work. The bridge in Nairn is a literal path to education for small children. It is a safer route to school for many in Nairn—it is a cherished walk and a busy crossing that is used and relied on every single day. We know that crisis management is more expensive and more disruptive to people than proactive maintenance. This is a national issue that is as much about attitude as finances, but I think that we need to see a change in both of those areas and agree that our bridges are worth protecting. I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and I hope that the Scottish Government shares some of the passion for bridges that we have heard so far in the debate.”
“Tim Eagle and I represent some of the communities that are most affected by depopulation, and we are both listing crucial bridges in those areas that are falling apart. Depopulation challenges will get worse if we do not protect what we have as well as building what we do not have. Talk of managed decline is deeply concerning to me, because I do not simply picture a bridge crumbling and declining. I know that we are talking about the managed decline of beloved walks, of commutes to work, of heavily photographed tourist hotspots and—sadly—of whole communities. I want to see more bridges, so my heart breaks a bit when I see coverage of the regular Infirmary bridge closures in Inverness over the years, or, this week, the very concerning closure of the Jubilee bridge in Nairn due to a sinkhole.”
“Our island communities, parts of cities separated by rivers or wide roads, and out-of-town universities or workplaces that were built without care for how folk were going to get there could all, with some bridges, see a boost in their opportunities and potential. Thomas Telford and the Governments that commissioned his work understood that bridges— which are, on the face of it, about transport and connectivity—could be strong drivers for tackling poverty and depopulation. Many of the bridges that have prompted today’s debate and are mentioned in the motion, and which come up in various other conversations across the country, were built in Telford’s era, in areas that are still facing those challenges.”