Maggie Chapman
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“Our prison system is not working. Like so many other institutions, including our national health service and our schools, prisons reflect the society that they serve. That society is deeply unfair and profoundly unequal. Schools struggle to help young people to learn and thrive, as too many children arrive in the classroom hungry.”
“Overall levels of crime are about half what they were in 1991. However, we have left prisons, just like our schools and NHS, to pick up the pieces of failures elsewhere in society.”
“Far too often, we take people who have already been failed by society and place them in institutions that fail them again—institutions that are increasingly unable to guarantee basic standards of welfare, dignity and human rights.”
“For those who have committed less serious crimes and are serving shorter sentences, it makes no sense at all to spend, as the motion states, £52,000 per year on prison, given that we know that, in many cases, prison will not help them to stop reoffending.”
“With greater use of effective alternatives to custody, and sentencing that follows the evidence, we will need fewer but better resourced prisons that can genuinely support rehabilitation and reintegration. That approach is working right now in other countries.”
“It is no surprise, then, that prisons often perform worse than alternatives when it comes to reducing reoffending and preventing future harm. Short sentences for non-violent crimes, in particular, for which there are the clearest alternatives, result in some of the highest rates of prisoners leaving prison and coming into conflict with th…”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Maggie Chapman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 17.
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its international development work is supporting the humanitarian response in Palestine. (S6O-04547)”
“That is an important point that we will continue to consider.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: We should all be able to live without prejudice and violence in our society. It does no one any favours if there is prejudice and violence, or even just the threat of violence, as we discuss particularly sensitive issues. I said in my answer to Emma Roddick that it is important that we recognise the trans and non- binary community as our friends, neighbours and members of our family. That is how I will continue my work as minister with responsibility for equalities. The Scottish Government, in our acceptance of the Supreme Court judgment, will have to look at policies, practices and procedures across Government. That may mean that services and facilities have to be delivered in a different way in some aspects, but it is important that everyone has access to services and facilities.”
“Last weekend, thousands of trans people and their friends and allies gathered across the United Kingdom, including on the streets of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen. Trans people, like any of us, want to be able to live their lives without fear of prejudice or violence, but they are concerned about how their lives will be affected, including their access to healthcare and other essential services. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about advancing the equality of women, girls and the LGBTQI+ community. However, what further assurances can she provide today that the dignity and safety of trans people will be upheld and that they will have access to the services and facilities that they need in order to participate fully in daily life?”
“As my colleague Mark Ruskell said, non- compliance with the Aarhus convention is a political choice. We must grasp the opportunity to make a different political choice. It will be overdue, but I hope that it will not be too late. 17:05”
“Communities must be supported and enabled to do that important work. If we are serious about enabling a better, fairer, cleaner and more sustainable Scotland in which human rights are respected and nature is cherished, environmental activists and the Government are not on opposite sides—indeed, they cannot be, because no agency will always make the right decisions. Ben Macpherson: [Made a request to intervene.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Chapman is winding up. Maggie Chapman: I cannot give way—sorry, Mr Macpherson. When the decisions that are made are not the best ones, it is in the interests of a good Government and good governance that communities are able to challenge them swiftly and inexpensively, using their evidence, expertise and lived experience to complement and enrich official decision making.”
“We see that only too clearly with a climate crisis that will affect us all, regardless of where the emission of climate-changing gases occurs. More than that, the mechanisms of environmental degradation are weapons of oppression that are used against communities with the least privilege and power and for whom resistance costs dearly. As Monica Lennon has pointed out, the protections that we would get by complying with the Aarhus convention would be good for us all. Environmental protection is the protection of workers, communities and our futures. However, it is also protection by communities—communities of place, communities of concern and communities of care. Communities have a vital role to play in filling the gaps and addressing issues missed by Governments, public agencies and authorities.”
“There are families with children living near the at-risk park, and there are older people with health conditions created or exacerbated— often fatally—by air pollution. Like other communities across Scotland, Torry needs the Scottish Government to act and to ensure compliance with the Aarhus convention. As other members have said, the right to a healthy environment should never be just a luxury add-on. It should never be available only to those with very deep pockets. It is an essential means of ensuring rights to life, health and a family life. Environmental degradation does not fit neatly into political boundaries. The consequences of pollution, of the systematic destruction of green spaces and of modern forms of the enclosure of common land and shared resources extend beyond the boundaries of constituencies and states.”
“I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for the work that she is doing to keep this important issue on our agenda. Communities are struggling now—communities such as Torry in Aberdeen, which faces the loss of its last remaining public green space to private profiteering. Decades ago, Torry had to deal with the loss of old Torry to oil and gas infrastructure development. More recently, it lost its beach at Nigg Bay to the Aberdeen south harbour development. It is home to an incinerator, which overlooks the school, and to sewage works, which deal with all the waste from the city and beyond. Torry has to deal with all of that while life expectancy remains stubbornly low—more than 10 years lower than in more affluent areas of Aberdeen.”
“There has been 14 years of non- compliance, of missed deadlines, of failures to act, of opportunities missed, of procedural deficits still unaddressed and of individuals and communities waiting for promised legal aid reforms. In short, there has been 14 years of individuals and communities being denied environmental justice. In environmental justice, both of the words matter. This is about environmental degradation, which, in most cases, is irreversible. It is the degradation and pollution of the places where we live and that we rely on for our food and water, for the air that we breathe and for our physical and mental health and wellbeing. It is also about justice and human rights for those who need them most. It is about not only justice for communities now but justice for future generations.”
“Can the minister outline how the Scottish Government is actively listening not just to organisations that support autistic and neurodiverse people, but to autistic and neurodiverse people themselves? They know best about their lives. I very much thank Daniel Johnson for securing this important debate, and I express my immense gratitude to all those who work so hard to ensure that we hear the voices of autistic and neurodiverse people and those with learning disabilities, because their voices matter. 17:35”
“Other members have discussed many issues that the LDAN bill would have helped to address, but I want to highlight one area of concern with regard to how the proposed bill was developed, which I hope that the minister will address in closing. During that process, the voices of autistic people and of those with lived experience of neurodiversity were not always heard. Serious concerns were expressed by those people about the use of behaviourist approaches such as positive behaviour support and applied behaviour analysis, but those were not addressed and were not taken into account in the consultation on the bill. The trauma that approaches such as PBS and ABA cause was ignored.”
“In committee, we were specifically discussing the findings and recommendations of the SHRC’s report “‘Tick Tock…’ A human rights assessment of progress from institutionalisation to independent living in Scotland”, and it was clear that our collective failure to meet promised timescales for change or to implement various legal reforms for empowerment and redress should shame us all. We should not, and cannot, ignore the failure of the state to support the realisation of basic human rights. It is for those reasons that the delay in bringing forward the LDAN bill, in addition to the delay in the Government’s proposed human rights bill and in other pieces of legislation, is so frustrating.”
“The SHRC and all the third sector organisations that support autistic people and those with learning disabilities should not still be having to make the case that independent living is possible for everyone. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of human rights. Everyone has the right to live in the community and can do so if they are supported appropriately. Attitudes are clearly demonstrated through actions. When actions such as seclusion, restraint, overmedication and restrictions on food become the norm, and when people are cut off from education or their wider support network and prevented from forming relationships or from choosing with whom to live, and when those actions happen daily, it is clear that discriminatory attitudes and cultures must change.”
“The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland highlighted that story just a couple of months ago in its report “Hospital is not home: The circumstances of people with learning disability and complex needs who have been in hospital for 10 years or more”. Unfortunately, Michael’s story is not unique. In the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice committee this morning, we heard that 55 people in Scotland have been institutionalised for over 18 years—10 of them for more than 25 years. That is 25 years of living in hospital when there is no medical or clinical reason for them to do so. The Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee this morning that prejudicial attitudes to people with learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence are entrenched.”
“Michael has spent more than 15 years in hospital. He is autistic with a severe learning disability. He finds routine comforting, and unexpected changes cause distress, leading to self-harm or lashing out. At times, he is placed in seclusion for his and others’ safety. Michael is ready for discharge—he has been ready for discharge for years. His father has seen multiple housing plans fall through, and he fears that Michael has become institutionalised, with limited support to maintain his independence or his skills. Cost concerns and the risk of unsuitable shared accommodation add to Michael’s father’s worries. After years of setbacks, he doubts whether Michael will ever be discharged.”
“The Scottish Greens welcome the bill and look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber in order to make it as fair, inclusive and effective as it can possibly be. 15:36”
“Is it right or safe that details can be made public, even if the identities are anonymised, given that social media users might find the identities all too easily? My final concern is about who will be on the panels and committee. If the people who ask the questions are drawn from the same type of agencies as the people who have made the decisions, they are unlikely to ask the awkward, unexpected questions that lead to the most valuable insights. It is hard to see the wood when you are one of the trees. That is why it is essential that the committee and panels have meaningful and mandatory representation from other sectors, such as those who have expertise in domestic abuse and children’s rights. I hope that we will hear more about that at stage 2.”
“Maggie Chapman: It gives me some reassurance, but it is worth looking at the issue again, especially considering the inequality of impact that even a £500 fine can have on different families. On part 2, the Scottish Greens welcome the bill’s recognition that domestic abuse’s fatal effects go far beyond cases of direct homicide—given the figures, we perhaps ought to say “femicide”. The bill’s provisions are important and overdue, although we have some concerns about how they will operate in practice. One concern is about the duplication of inquiries and the stress, retraumatisation and emotional and practical burden of having to repeatedly tell a painful story without knowing what information has already been shared. The second concern is about privacy and confidentiality, especially in relation to children.”
“say that they’re letting them off lightly with a fine, but no, that’s not letting them off lightly if you can’t afford to pay, and if you can’t afford to pay that, then you can receive a custodial sentence.” The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association made a similar point, saying: “given that the default position is that non reply equals acceptance then there will inevitably be incidents where people face a custodial sentence of up to 28 days for a fine that they never knew they had.” I am sure that the committee and the cabinet secretary will want to address that issue. Angela Constance: Does Ms Chapman welcome section 227M of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which says that the court cannot impose imprisonment for fines that do not exceed level 2, which is £500? I hope that that reassures Ms Chapman on the fiscal fines issue.”
“The increase to the maximum fine is reasonable in view of inflation since the current maximum was set, and fiscal fines are a sensible way to deal with some offences that do not require a court hearing. However, we need to look at who is being fined and what effect that has on them and their families. The Scottish Women’s Convention written submission included the following quote: “They’ll ...”
“I look forward to hearing more about how appropriate, accessible and supported spaces can be created and maintained. For defendants, too, virtual attendance might not always work. People who are charged with a crime must have full and secure access to legal advice and assistance, including legal aid, where they need it. That is particularly an issue during somebody’s first encounter with the criminal justice system, when they might not know what to do, what will happen, how things will work, what to listen out for or even who their lawyer is. We need flexibility and choice, but we also need consistency in how the choice is offered, whether that is about giving evidence remotely or being able to use paper documents instead of a screen. The Scottish Women’s Convention raised an important issue about fiscal fines.”
“I hope that the reforms will recognise that, as Kate Wallace of Victim Support Scotland has pointed out, for survivors and witnesses, it is often not only the experience of giving evidence that is traumatic, but the experience of being in the same building as the person who has harmed them and that person’s friends and family. However, we must be careful that we are not creating new forms of exclusion and risk. Being online is not the same as being able to use the internet safely and confidently, especially in situations where people have good reason not to ask neighbours or family to help. Witnesses need a safe place from which to give evidence, and they need support before, during and, perhaps especially, after their evidence is heard, and home will not necessarily be that safe place.”
“Those reforms included using appropriate technology to share documents and allowing people to attend courts virtually. It is important that, where those reforms have been successful, they are put on a permanent basis. Some of that should have been done a long time ago—in the justice system and other systems, we could say. We owe a collective apology to all those, including many disabled people, who were excluded from participation in collective life by being told that in- person attendance was necessary when it really was not.”
“On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the bill and thank all those who have worked to bring it this far, including the many who responded so thoughtfully and carefully to the consultation. The bill has two important aims. In its first part, it aims to make the criminal justice system work more efficiently and accessibly, and, in its second part, it aims to address and reduce the tragic deaths that far too often result from domestic abuse. Both are valuable objectives, and we support the principles of both parts. However, as other members have stated, the measures will need more work, both during the bill’s progress and in implementation, to ensure that those outcomes are really achieved. I will speak first about part 1. During the Covid pandemic, reforms were carried out that made court processes more straightforward and efficient.”
“In terms of the here and now, I outlined the actions that are in place to care for young people in those first 72 hours in custody or beyond. Additional staff resource is now in place, and there are enhanced measures to ensure that those new admissions can be looked after in dedicated observation cells and will not be removed from those arrangements until it is safe to do so and there has been a case conference.”
“I extend my sincere condolences to the families of Katie Allan and William Lindsay and to all those affected by death in custody. The cabinet secretary spoke of the enhanced measures and resources that have been put in place for the first 72 hours in custody, acknowledging that that is often the most challenging time. She mentioned observation cells and the overhaul of the talk to me suicide prevention strategy. While the overhaul of talk to me is happening, what will be done to help and support those in the observation cells, other than observing them? Are there any other recommendations about talk to me that can be implemented immediately? Angela Constance: There is a commitment from me and from the Scottish Prison Service that all the recommendations in the fatal accident inquiry determination around talk to me will be implemented.”
“Given the time already, I would be very grateful if members could stick to their speaking time allocation. We will get everybody in, but we might need to extend the debate. With that plea, I call Marie McNair. 17:57”
“We can all speak more loudly in urging the UK Government to make the transformational change that we know is needed, in working with our allies in the UK and devolved Parliaments to make that case and in working with our councillors to maximise support and services at local authority level. Most of all, here and now, we call on the Scottish Government to act on the recommendations in Jen Ang’s briefing. We have a road map to show the way ahead, but do we have the integrity to follow it? For Tsehay, Sofija and Kunal, and for all the other people who are facing destitution in Scotland, we must. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move to the open debate, I alert members to the fact that there is a lot of interest in participating in the debate.”
“Until that system is gone, however, Scotland must minimise its harm. That means advocating clarity, transparency and the removal of Scottish benefits and assistance from its scope. We are not in the chamber for this debate simply as representatives of our parties. We are here as human beings—as representatives of a Scotland that cares, that welcomes and that remembers shared histories of destitution. It is a Scotland that knows of the utter poverty that takes away agency, choice and hope before it takes people’s lives, years before their time. Hearts starve as well as bodies, as all feminists and socialists know. This is a joint endeavour—a shared opportunity to do something that will make a direct difference to those in the bitterest of need. We can all play our part.”
“The fourth action is to increase funding urgently for housing, immigration and asylum legal aid. The United Kingdom Government has said that it will do that in England and Wales, so we have no excuse not to do the same here. Much of Scotland is a legal aid desert, especially for people whose lives and futures depend on being able to access justice. The fifth action is to engage positively and robustly with the UK Government on the NRPF system. We want that system to be abolished altogether. It does not do what its makers intended—it does not reduce immigration, it does not reflect what most people would consider to be fair, and it does not save money. It is a brutal weapon of the hostile environment, raining blows of hunger, cold, fear and isolation on those with least to protect them.”
“The second action is to resource the fair way Scotland partnership sufficiently so that it can respond to the real level of need across Scotland. We know that that model is working and is opening doors to support, accommodation, advice and cash payments for essential needs. At present, however, the partnership simply does not have the capacity to help everyone who needs it. The third action is to create a new Scottish crisis, or hardship, grant, using powers that the Scottish Government has under the Scotland Act 2016. That could fill the widest gaps and give emergency help to those who are in desperate need when no other financial or practical support is out there. When people slip between the provisions of existing law, the fall can be fast and fatal.”
“It shows how the Scottish Government, supported by all of us as critical friends, can act to open those locked doors and to make real the rights of our destitute neighbours. I ask the Scottish Government to commit to five tangible actions, all of which are within devolved competence. The first is to widen access to universal services and benefits, with a systematic review to ascertain exactly where and how that can be done. The word “universal” should mean just that—initiatives that are meant to reduce inequality and poverty must include people who are stranded by the widest inequality and struck by the deepest destitution. That includes people with no recourse to public funds or with restricted or uncertain eligibility, or NRPF/RE.”
“The Scottish Government has acted, and I commend the work that it has begun, following the work of the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—on which I am proud to serve—and through its work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in producing the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy. That strategy has enabled the life-saving work of the fair way Scotland partnership in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is not enough—too many doors are still closed and still locked. However, we now have the keys. Jen Ang’s legal briefing, “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers”, is clear and challenging. It sets out the ways in which people in Scotland are denied access to basic provisions through intentional and direct exclusion, indirect mechanisms and a lack of information, education, courage and care.”
“When we think of destitution, we think of distance—places that are torn by conflict or disaster, and histories of dispossession and famine. However, there are people living in Scotland today who are destitute. There are people dying in destitution here, in Scotland, right now. What do we call that reality? If there was nothing that we could do, we would call it a tragedy. However, if we could make change but we do not, and if we could open those doors to basic food, clothes and shelter but we keep them shut, what do we call it? We call it injustice. We call it, as it is, a breach of fundamental human rights. We call it, I believe, collective shame.”
“I thank all those who have worked so generously, meticulously and courageously, including I-SPHERE—the institute for social policy, housing, equalities research—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, other members of the fair way Scotland partnership and, of course, Professor Jen Ang. It is thanks to her that we are debating the subject today, and I hope that we can do justice to her integrity, expertise and vision. I also thank colleagues from across the chamber for supporting the motion and the debate, and for our discussion at yesterday’s meeting of the cross- party group on migration. When we say that someone is destitute, we mean that they are shut out from the simplest things that make human lives possible, usually from food and clothing, and often from shelter and home.”
“Deputy Presiding Officer, “Being on the streets almost destroyed me. Walking, walking, with no sleep.” “I’d just sit on the bench by the river. It was minus 6, then minus 2 in the morning when the sun shone ... I’m not safe here.” “I can’t sleep, because ... tomorrow, what is coming?” Those are the words of Sofija, Kunal and Tsehay: three people who came to Scotland looking for a better life and who suffered violent abuse, hunger, ill health and destitution. It is for Sofija, Kunal and Tsehay, and for far too many other people like them, that I speak today. I am honoured and grateful to have the opportunity to bring this issue, which is literally a matter of life and death and which involves one of the most foundational human rights, to the chamber.”
“There are changes that can and must be made now— changes to provision, services and strategies; changes to legislation and policy; and changes in attitude and priority. In my closing speech, I will say more about my commitment, which my Green colleagues share, to making a safe, secure and permanent home the reality for children everywhere. 16:21”
“The costs in every sense are far too high—for families, who are charged rent that they cannot afford, with debt in Scotland for temporary accommodation standing at more than £33 million; for essential furniture and appliances that should have been supplied; for storage fees and taxi fares; for running small electric heaters when the radiators do not work, again, for another week; for lost childhoods and chances; for lost agency and control; and for lost toys, with the swing in the old garden never forgotten. However, it does not have to be like that. We can change this. Children’s rights can be realised, and they must be realised as a matter of moral as well as legal responsibility. The report’s recommendations show us the way forward.”
“Babies and toddlers are without the space to learn to crawl and walk, with their shouts and cries quickly shushed for fear of the neighbours. Schoolchildren are separated from their family and friends as a result of long journeys to school, with missed opportunities, a loss of concentration and the recognition and sharing of their parents’ sadness. Teenagers, without privacy or a place to study, are ashamed of where they live, lose self-esteem and are susceptible to risky behaviour, with lifelong consequences.”
“We read of unsafe accommodation without basic protections such as properly installed fire alarms, functional lighting, window guards or safety gates. We read of unsafe surroundings—of violence, knives, needles and confrontational neighbours—and of there being nowhere safe to play. We read of unhealthy accommodation, often cold and damp, lacking space and facilities, that leads to sleep deprivation, malnutrition, delays in development and long-term, lifetime trauma. The mental health impacts for children and their parents are often worse than the physical impacts, through worry and anger, shame and secrecy, isolation and a sense of hopelessness. Some of those will stay with children for the rest of their lives. Some of those will make those lives shorter than they would otherwise be. Every age group suffers.”
“There are accounts of thick black mould not just on bedroom walls but on a child’s bed; of carpets soaked with urine and shared bathrooms smeared with faeces; of heating that does not work in the depths of a Scottish winter; and of a child in hospital with an infection caused by rat infestation. Another child lost two and a half stone as a result of their surroundings. The report talks of exposure to violence, including stabbings and shootings, and of noise through the night so loud that a child repeatedly fell asleep in their classroom. Those are the stories that shock us, but there are many more—not so dramatic, perhaps, but just as haunting. There are the daily struggles to make a home and the quiet spirals of loss, anxiety and stigma.”
“I am deeply grateful to Shelter Scotland and the authors of this clear and comprehensive yet heartbreaking report. Just reading it is a harrowing experience. To write it and to listen to those stories must have been much more so. To live those stories—to experience those horrors— and then to retell them for the benefit of others is worthy of the greatest respect and gratitude. Most of all, I thank the children and families who shared their stories with such grace, insight and integrity. I do not use the word “horrors” lightly. There are some terrible accounts in the report, which are all the more chilling for the matter-of-fact way that they are told.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported claims that policing of pro- Palestinian rallies and demonstrations has been disproportionate and heavy handed. (S6O-04457)”
“I end with the words of Judith Butler, a feminist philosopher and campaigner, who, in response to the question “What is a woman?”, said: “Feminism has always kept the question open and refused to answer it, refused on principle. Because we don’t know all the things women can be and do and we’re not about to say in advance: this is who you are, stay within the limits, stay within this category ... we don’t do that, we’re a freedom struggle.” I am proud to be a part of that freedom struggle, and I will be so until I die. 18:02”
“We stand with women everywhere, as their rights to reproductive justice—to make safe choices about their own bodies—are narrowed and diminished, and sometimes taken away completely. Misogyny in its most naked and violent forms is multiplying across the world, emboldened and inflamed by the Trump Administration, and transmitted through new media into the screens and minds of children. For a few, it is a route to money and power; for everyone else, including men and boys, it will be a disaster. Scotland must act. The groundwork for a misogyny bill has been laid—now is the time to make it a reality. Of course, legislation alone is not enough, but when the threat is so real and the damage so great, it must be part of our resistance.”
“It has been a tough year for women and, as always, the most dangerous place to stand is in the intersections that Kimberlé Crenshaw showed us, where oppressions and injustices thunder down from every direction. We, as far as we can, stand there in solidarity and care. We stand with trans women facing the most brutal scapegoating, as we have seen just this afternoon. We stand with women across the majority world—the global south—whose health, families, homes and lives will be lost through the cuts to US and United Kingdom overseas aid. We stand with women in Gaza and the West Bank, who are targets of apartheid and genocide. We stand with disabled women in the UK, waiting in fear for the next wave of cuts.”
“It was addressed by a notoriously and virulently transphobic activist, one from whom even anti-trans groups have scurried to disassociate themselves, with a history of Islamophobic discourse and allied with movements to dismantle women’s rights to healthcare, work and protection from abuse. That is why we, too, were on the streets of Aberdeen. We were speaking up for the real rights and needs of women—all of us together: feminists of all genders, disabled people, firefighters, and accompanying dogs and small children. The transmisogynists had a public address system to amplify their regressive nonsense, but we had drums and determination, bubbles and rainbows.”
“I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging her motion, for securing this important debate and for celebrating the achievements of women in the North East Scotland region. I have good reason, especially this year, to join that praise. On Saturday, which was international women’s day, I was in Aberdeen city centre as part of a large, diverse, joyful and resolute group of residents, friends, neighbours and strangers. We were there to express our support for and solidarity with women—“ALL women”, as the United Nations theme of this year’s international women’s day reminds us. All women matter. Another event was taking place in Aberdeen that day. It was a smaller one, attended by a few people, some local and some not, even if their red baseball caps were printed with “Make Aberdeen Great Again”.”
“Graeme Dey: I recognise entirely the point that Maggie Chapman makes and that Joe FitzPatrick made about the £200,000 transformation director approach that has been mooted. As I said a moment ago, we are looking for Universities Scotland to work with us to provide the kind of expertise that might be available and helpful to the university. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right: of course there must be an opportunity for the trade unions and staff to sit down. My understanding is that, beyond the briefing, further insight was provided to staff late yesterday that gave some more detail on the financial recovery plan. However, there must be an opportunity for them to bring forward viable alternative cost-cutting proposals that can save those jobs, or at least some of those jobs.”