Fergus Ewing
Independent · Scotland
“Last October, the Chinese renewables company Ming Yang announced an investment of £1,500 million in my constituency, which would initially create 1,500 direct jobs and lead to 4,000 jobs in phase 3.”
“As her cabinet secretary, I thank her for her diligence as a minister and congratulate her on the successful passage last week of a vital piece of Government legislation that was also supported across parties. I am glad that the bill that we have worked on together will—as I hope—pass this evening. It sends a strong signal.”
“I turn to the concerns of stakeholders, and particularly the teaching trade unions, with whom I have spent a lot of time in the past three years. First, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns from the teaching trade unions.”
“I will embarrass the minister now with all this praise in front of his colleagues, but he is known to be pro-business, and that is a good thing. Sadly, he is an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of disdain and disinterest.”
“Most practitioners will not need training, but those that do, definitely need it. Therefore, we need a focus on the training and on ensuring that it is available to all practitioners who require it.”
“Its work was diligent, detailed and critical to providing the scrutiny that allowed the bill to be improved. I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He has been a diligent parliamentarian throughout, and I agree with him on what the Parliament needs to aspire to being when it comes to how it works and how contributions are made.”
The complete record
Every one of 452 lines we hold for Fergus Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“The pursuer, Mark Hirst, a former STV journalist and prominent supporter of the late Alex Salmond, was prosecuted for an alleged breach of the peace for making comments that the sheriff found simply to be an expression of an opinion. The Court of Session found that Mr Hirst had a relevant statable case for malicious prosecution to go to proof but, because of the terms of section 170, the court’s hands were tied and the action could not proceed, and Lord Lake could not consider the proof even though he found that there was a statable case. Because he was acquitted, the pursuer, Mr Hirst, cannot succeed in a subsequent case of malicious prosecution. It seems to me that section 170 is our own legal version of a catch-22.”
“Specifically, he said that section 170 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is inconsistent with the ECHR. Such a declaration has been described judicially as a “last resort”. Section 170 requires, inter alia, that, for a case of malicious prosecution—which was what the case was about—to succeed, the pursuer must first have suffered imprisonment. That is plainly ludicrous. Of course it is correct that the Crown must be immune when it simply makes a mistake. Not every case results in a guilty verdict. Mistakes can be made and prosecutions brought forward in good faith, but the law should surely not protect those cases in which it can be proven that the prosecution was brought out of malice. That blanket immunity, which section 170 provides, is what I believe led to Lord Lake making his finding.”
“I wish to raise a matter of some considerable importance. I have given notice and a draft copy of my speech to the Presiding Officer, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and the Minister for Parliamentary Business. I should say that I have been a solicitor for 45 years. However, I am no longer in practice. Last Thursday—5 February—in the case of Hirst v chief constable and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Lord Lake, of the Court of Session, issued a seminal judgment in which he found Scots law to be in clear breach of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms. In particular, he found that Scots law unjustifiably restricts the right to a free trial. Lord Lake even took the step of issuing a formal declaration to that effect under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Shona Robison to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. You have up to five minutes, cabinet secretary. 15:49”
“Ivan McKee: Daniel Johnson talks about those big percentages, but he absolutely must recognise that the whole point of the £864 million of reliefs is precisely to prevent businesses from experiencing those increases, which are capped. Daniel Johnson: Sure, but, for those particular businesses, a 15 per cent discount on a bill that has already increased by 300 per cent— I see that the minister is shaking his head. I am happy to go through that, but, in essence, those reliefs will not do the work that needs to be done to save those businesses. For many of them, the impact of the increases will be existential. We need reform: we need to pause the revaluation, but we also need to overhaul how the rates system works, and its transparency and accountability, because we cannot keep on doing the same thing.”
“I am genuinely interested in understanding the analysis, because—to reflect on the interaction between Ivan McKee and Willie Rennie—the issue is too important for us to simply toss figures around. I would be interested in sitting down and looking at what can be done, because when businesses, and certain businesses in particular, are facing increases of 200 per cent, 300 per cent or 400 per cent, we have to get this right— Ivan McKee: Will Daniel Johnson take a very brief intervention on that point? Daniel Johnson: Very briefly—I am in my last minute. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Daniel Johnson is coming to a close, so you should be brief, minister.”
“To contradict what Clare Adamson said, it is untrue that ministers cannot intervene, because Scottish ministers have intervened in the past to delay the introduction of revaluations. Secondly—and most important—we have to make comparisons. We would need to delve into the exact figures, but I do not understand the value of the package that the Government has arrived at. We can look at the substantive benefits that are available south of the border, where reliefs are available for businesses with a rateable value of up to £100,000, in contrast with up to £50,000 in Scotland. Furthermore, there is a much more prolonged period of introduction and tapering.”
“At the heart of the matter, beyond the idiosyncrasies and issues that we face with the current revaluation, is the fact that the way in which RV is calculated for hospitality businesses is a disincentive to investment. You invest in your premises and increase the capacity for customers, and you will get a bigger bill. That does not make sense. We have a system that, for hospitality in particular, arrives at inexplicable increases in rates bills not only for individual businesses but for whole sectors. Stephen Kerr and Fergus Ewing were right about two important things. First, ministers must take responsibility—they can, ultimately, direct assessors; there are powers for them to do that.”
“However, one of the issues in the debate is highlighted by the fact that Lorna Slater also, in her opening contribution, implies that the rates system is fair because it relies on rateable value. Rateable value is a synthetic figure that is arrived at by assessors, using methodologies that we cannot interrogate. In fact, if you get to see the methodologies, you find that they are, in essence, made up. I saw how a rates bill was calculated when my business was facing a big increase; there were literally arbitrary inflators and deflators for different areas of my shop floor, which were arbitrarily arrived at. Rachael Hamilton was absolutely right to ask about the methodology that is used for hospitality rates, because it is different.”
“We have been limping along for far too long with the current system, which—as members have said— has unfairness and lack of transparency baked into it and is not working well for anyone. It is time—in fact, it is past time—for the radical reform that Scottish Greens, as well as Willie Rennie, have called for. 15:45 Daniel Johnson: I find Lorna Slater’s position in the debate somewhat difficult to follow. She is right that the current system is unfair and lacks transparency—too many businesses, in almost every revaluation round, end up with increases in their rateable value that simply do not reflect the business conditions that they and their peer businesses face.”
“We should be using our devolved powers to set property tax rates for domestic and non- domestic properties that are right for Scotland, that are in line with our vision for a fairer and greener Scotland and that help us to implement our wider social, environmental and place-based policies, as other members have suggested. The next Scottish Government, which will be elected in May, will have the opportunity to fundamentally reshape taxation in Scotland—to finally overhaul the long-broken council tax and combine it with the non-domestic rates system in a unified, progressive and sustainable property taxation system in order to put our public services on a sound financial footing and to tackle inequality. It is absolutely vital that it does so.”
“That would allow us to target rates relief to smaller local businesses, such as hospitality businesses that support our high streets and rural communities. For example, why do we give rates relief to businesses that use unfair labour practices? Non-domestic rates and council tax are—no matter how broken—still property taxes in essence. Reform of property tax has been a long- standing priority for the Scottish Greens. We have made the case for a unified system between residential and non-residential property taxes, with our preference being a tax that is based on land value.”
“If the minister is prepared to do that, we will enter into discussions in good faith and try to reach an agreement. I hope that the other parties will do the same, because this stuff really matters for our communities and our jobs. Budget action will not be enough. We need structural change, and we need to take the opportunity of what I propose as a pause to get that structural change, so that we do not have to come back here every time that we have revaluations. 15:43 Lorna Slater: Our rates system can and should be made fair. Our business rates relief scheme for small businesses currently goes to businesses that are anything but small, because we use a totally unfit definition for “small”. It needs to be overhauled into a fairer system, where big businesses pay more, according to their ability to pay.”
“We are prepared to discuss further measures that could be introduced in the budget to help the sector and, if he is prepared to do that, we would be more encouraged to vote for the budget at the end of the process. However, we need real movement, with measures that will have a dramatic economic impact. That is a genuine offer to the minister—if he is prepared to move further, we will be prepared to consider voting for the budget. Ivan McKee: I am happy to engage, as always, and I look forward to Willie Rennie suggesting proposals on what further support he wants to give for NDR relief and on where that money will come from. Willie Rennie: I appreciate that approach, because we need to move beyond rhetoric and get to practical action that will make a difference.”
“Jamie Halcro Johnston was right to talk about short-term lets and about the detailed, hard work that the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers has been doing with the assessor to meet the deadline of 19 February to change the practice notes, which might deliver practical improvements right now. We need a review of whether moving from the long-standing receipts and expenditure model to the rental-based model is the right thing to do, because it has resulted in colossal increases that must be changed. I will make an offer to the Minister for Public Finance. Stage 1 of the budget bill is coming up in a week’s time, and I know that there will be further talks between my colleagues and Scottish ministers.”
“That is why we need a Government that is flexible enough to reflect the problem that businesses face, instead of pointing elsewhere. It must take action now, here at home. Michael Marra painted a powerful and evocative image of the Dundee pubs, hospitality businesses and restaurants where people enjoy themselves after a hard week at work. The soul of the community is partly what the debate is about. It is not just the advert to the world that I was talking about but the heart and soul of communities. Those businesses face staggering rises, and that way of life is put at threat—the threat is real.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Rennie, I would advise caution. Willie Rennie: Sometimes, the shortest contributions are the best. Fergus Ewing got to the nub of the issue and set out the practical action that is required. It is important that Government members and SNP back benchers understand this point: it is reasonable to say that energy costs are going up and that Brexit, the pandemic and the increase in employer national insurance contributions have had an impact. All that is true, and it is not unreasonable, as Mr Brown said, to make that point, but businesses are still in the same place after those speeches, and they need practical action to solve the problem that they face today. That is why the more that the minister digs in, the more furious the sector will get.”
“The minister can answer during his time later. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please resume your seat, minister. Fergus Ewing: I hope that I will get the time back. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will not. Fergus Ewing: Oh. The Government should also estimate the difference between the tax take if the revaluation goes ahead and the tax take if we reverted to the 2023 revaluation rates. That information should be made public. This has nothing to do with Brexit. It is nobody else’s fault. This is a home-grown disaster—a home-brewed disaster—but it is not too late to avert that disaster. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 15:39 Willie Rennie: If it is any comfort to Mr Ewing, I have three older sisters and have faced that experience on numerous occasions.”
“Why is the minister not using the powers that are available to him to disapply the revaluation for the self-catering sector and, probably, for the pubs and hospitality sector? That need not stop the revaluation for other sectors. I want to ask the minister a couple of specific questions. First, does he agree that, if he continues to do what he is planning to do and thousands of businesses close, the tax take will reduce? Will he publish his estimate of the impact of the loss of businesses over the next few years on the tax take? He must publish those figures if he believes in transparency. Ivan McKee: Will Fergus Ewing take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is no time for interventions. Fergus Ewing: I have two minutes. [Interruption.] I have two minutes, for goodness’ sake.”
“Let me cut straight to the chase. The revaluation must be postponed. Moreover, the Minister for Public Finance has been given detailed briefings from experts such as Fiona Campbell about how it could be postponed. It could be disapplied for specific sectors, or we could revert to the methodology that applied previously for specific sectors. In the case of self-catering businesses, without any warning, the assessors moved away from receipts and expenditure and towards rentals. Only about 500 of the 17,500 such properties have any rentals, so the position is absurd. In a blog on 20 February 2023, the Valuation Office Agency— the assessors in England—said that that does not work and is not appropriate.”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises the pressures facing Scotland’s hospitality sector; calls on the Scottish Government to postpone the forthcoming non-domestic rates revaluation until a comprehensive review of the valuation methodology has been completed, and further calls on the Scottish Government to provide 100% rates relief for all hospitality businesses with commercial property valued up to £100,000. 14:55”
“It shows a strong sense of pessimism among the business community—80 per cent expect weak or very weak levels of growth in 2026, 80 per cent say that their costs have increased and 90 per cent expect further rises. A survey found a decline in levels of employment and weaker sales and revenue during the last quarter of 2025, which for retail and hospitality should be the busiest time of year. The situation could not be more serious, and Scottish hospitality stands at a crossroads. If the SNP is not prepared to change direction, there will be a catastrophic level of losses, with businesses folding and jobs lost. That is why the Scottish Conservatives have brought this motion to the Parliament to be debated today. We need action now, before it is too late—that is the point that I have made in my motion.”
“He went on to say that, having listened carefully to the concerns that had been raised with him and the Northern Irish Executive, it was only right and proper that the process be stopped at this stage. That announcement was warmly welcomed by the sector in Northern Ireland, which gave the minister credit for listening to its concerns. If a Sinn Féin finance minister in Northern Ireland can take such action, why can a Scottish National Party finance secretary in Scotland not do the same? Does the SNP not care about the fate of a vital tourist sector? Does it care less than Sinn Féin does about businesses in Northern Ireland? Just on Monday, we saw the latest edition of the Scottish business monitor, which is published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, with more bad news for the Scottish economy.”
“Will the member give way? Murdo Fraser: If I have time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly, Mr Ewing. Fergus Ewing: Does Mr Fraser agree that the immediate solution is to do what Northern Ireland announced on 29 January that it would do, which is to postpone the revaluation? Murdo Fraser: I absolutely agree with Mr Ewing. That is exactly the point in our motion. Just last week, the Northern Irish finance minister, John O’Dowd, in response to concerns from the industry there, announced a pause in the revaluation that is affecting hospitality. The coming year’s rates from April will be calculated on the current valuation, and the pause will allow consideration of the revaluation system. In announcing the change, O’Dowd recognised that those local businesses are the backbone of local economies.”
“I think that there has been communication with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, but I will check that, and I will make sure that Fergus Ewing gets a response on the current status of those communications.”
“There is plenty of money, cabinet secretary, but it is going to the wrong things and to the wrong people. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please, and supplementaries should be relevant to the substantive question. Shona Robison: The Parliament has previously been unanimous in its support for the climate action that is required to be taken for Scotland, and I think that it would be disappointing if we were to remove the critical investments in peatland restoration and decarbonisation and avoid Scotland playing its part. However, on Fergus Ewing’s point of concern about the bridge, I am very happy for communication to continue with Highland Council.”
“I have a constituent farmer, Neil Gordon, in Balnaan, who relies on the use of Balnaan bridge to carry out his work. The bridge has recently been closed because of safety concerns in relation to work that requires to be done. As a result, after doing a day’s work, he has to undergo a trip of 100 miles in his car. That is making his business nearly inoperable, to be frank, and it all comes down to money—money that Highland Council does not have. If the cabinet secretary wants to know where she can get that money from, there is the £250 million for peat restoration; the £200 million for decarbonisation of buildings; or the £20,000 increases that were granted recently to salaries of people at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Lothian, just for doing their jobs.”
“She gave up her job, her title, her salary, the ministerial car—all those things—because she believed in women and she stood up for women. She is doing that again today. She is somebody of whom every female in this country and every young girl should be proud. My plea to all the SNP members today is to ignore the whips, follow your conscience and do what is right. Let right be done. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pam Gosal, who will have four minutes, to be followed by Douglas Ross, who will have two minutes. 17:20”
“I was moved more than I can say by the testimonies of Venessa, Jenna, Chelsea and others who I listened to in the past two days. I am very surprised that the police, yesterday, after 186 days, came forward with a totally wild estimate of the costs. I am bound to ask: were they invited so to do by anybody in the Government? Were any civil servants asking them to do so, saying, “It would be very helpful if you could give us this information”. I will use a carefully crafted phrase and say that it sounds to me improbably coincidental. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ewing is concluding. Fergus Ewing: I have very little time, and I want to say a couple more things before I close. Alone in the history of this institution, Ash Regan resigned on a point of principle.”
“They have destroyed them. We have won the argument—it is clear. Rona Mackay: Will the member take an intervention? Fergus Ewing: I am sorry, but I do not have much time to take interventions. One of the points made by the convener of the committee was that it would be difficult to enforce. Well, rape is difficult to prove. Should we not have the crime of rape because it is difficult to prove? What a pathetic argument. Of course certain crimes are difficult to prove, and many more laws go unenforced. However, that is not a reason not to criminalise behaviour that is abhorrent to any right-thinking person in a democratic society. That is the purpose of public law and criminal law in a democracy—to ensure civilisation and protection of the weakest. That is the issue today, as we have heard.”
“What we do not want, he wrote, is “a nest of fearties.” What we do not want is “a symposium of procrastinators.” That is a sort of legal phrase; maybe he was a lawyer as well as a poet. The serious point, however, is this: we are not doing justice to ourselves today, and we are certainly not doing justice to the people of Scotland. However, far worse than that, we are allowing the continuance of the most vile and abhorrent abuse of women that is imaginable. It is happening as we speak, all over our country. I cannot match the eloquence of Pauline McNeill, Michelle Thomson and others, who have contributed to the debate and described those things graphically. They do not really bear too much repetition. I do think that Stephen Kerr, Michelle Thomson and others have really destroyed the arguments for voting against the bill at stage 1.”
“In the 26 years since the Parliament was reconvened, I have attended every debate that substantially—not entirely—involves a fundamental moral question. In those previous debates, generally, the reputation of the Parliament has been enhanced. The debates have been largely courteous and they have been thorough — and, above all, they have had sufficient time to do justice to a most serious topic. Sadly, we are not seeing that today: not because of the Presiding Officer, but because of the decision of the Parliamentary Bureau. Let us be quite clear about that. When we look back in history—as I am perhaps able to do, being rather older than most other members—we remember the poem by Edwin Morgan, who gave advice to MSPs. Do members remember his famous advice about what we do not want in Scotland?”
“Will the member take an intervention? Audrey Nicoll: If Mr Ewing will bear with me, I will take his intervention if I have time at the end. Our overriding concern is the evidence that we heard about the impact of the proposed offence as drafted on the safety of women. Supporters of the bill told us that there is no reliable evidence that the model proposed would make women more unsafe; however, we heard concerns that criminalising the buyer might drive prostitution underground and make it less safe for those selling it.”
“If someone proposes a national park for their area, they should be afraid—very afraid.”
“Although regenerative farming sounds like a good idea, if the national parks are given powers to control farming, people who work for them—who are unfamiliar with farming and may not have expertise or even experience of it—will be placed in a position of power over farmers. We have already seen the establishment of Cairngorms Crofters and Farmers Community as a result of the conflict about the way in which the reintroduction of beavers was phased in. Members might be interested to know that, in an opinion survey in an Aviemore community forum, when asked, “Do you think the national park is performing well?”, 444 people said no and 10 people—3 per cent—said yes. Members who might be disinclined to believe everything that I say—for reasons that have always escaped me, of course—should tak tent.”
“I will speak briefly to advise caution in respect of Emma Harper’s amendment 48, although it is very well intentioned. I do so on the basis of having, since the inception of national parks, lived in and represented people who live in a national park area. Mr Eagle is entirely right that there should be— and should have been—an independent review of how the existing parks work before any movement to establish new ones. The whole process to find a new park was a complete waste of money and an utter shambles, and I predicted from the outset that the people of Galloway would wisely reject it. People talk about the national parks as though they are an untrammelled good—like motherhood and apple pie. That is not how many people in, for example, Strathspey consider their relations with national park authorities.”
“Graeme Dey: I do not in any way accept Fergus Ewing’s characterisation of the matter. We are content with the advice that we have received.”
“When Alex Salmond defeated the Scottish Government in his court case, the judge in the case, Lord Pentland, said that the Government’s actions were “tainted with apparent bias”. The dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop, in advice to the Government, said that, thankfully, an affidavit by a senior civil servant was not lodged. Leslie Evans, the then permanent secretary, said on the day after the verdict that the battle may be lost, but not the war. The incontrovertible inference is surely, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that there is something rotten in the state of Scotland. Will the minister consult the permanent secretary to get fresh advice with a view to opening up the books and making public all the redacted and withheld documents from that period?”
“My question is this: is the First Minister not using the excuse of jigsaw identification as a human shield and as a pretext for declining to release information because the real reason is that it will cause extreme embarrassment to several people who are in the Scottish Government now and previously were in that trusted position? The First Minister: I cannot find it in myself to associate myself with Mr Ewing’s words “excuse of jigsaw identification”, because that question lies at the very heart of the provision of statute in this country. My duty as First Minister at all times is to obey the law, and Mr Ewing is inviting me to be cavalier with the orders that have been passed by a court in this country. I want to be crystal clear with Parliament that I will do not one bit of it.”
“But what the First Minister has not said is that, when James Hamilton produced his report, he himself, in public, in an unprecedented move, expressed his severe reservations about the redactions that he was required to make. Moreover, the orders that have been made regarding the release of further information have been made by David Hamilton, who is the Scottish Information Commissioner. The First Minister will accept that both James Hamilton and David Hamilton are individuals of the highest repute and integrity, and they would not invite him to do anything that was illegal.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether, without the use of private finance to enable construction of key infrastructure projects, there is a risk that Scotland could be seen as less attractive for inward investment and as a location for business, compared with other European countries. (S6O-05410)”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will conclude at the 20-minute mark, so I will take the next three questions but they will need to be brief, as will the responses.”
“Will she recognise that there must be an inquiry by Audit Scotland into that scandal of gross abuse and the failure of Transport Scotland to develop terms and conditions that produced competitive bids for the industry, which is a sine qua non— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary. Fiona Hyslop: Competitive bids are what is required. I think that Fergus Ewing is being selective. I know that he likes to dwell on the past—I understand that—[Interruption.] We must learn the lessons of that and then move forward. That is what the 2023 delivery plan set out. I correct the member: the Tomatin to Moy procurement began in September 2023, the contract award was made in 2024 and the dualling operation is due to be complete by spring 2028.”
“The Tomatin to Moy section was announced in 2021, but it will not be completed until 2028 at the earliest. That is seven years, and there are eight remaining sections. Let us do the maths: if there are similar delays, we are talking about 2075 and not 2035. When the Tomatin to Moy section was first tendered, it got one offer of £170 million, which was regarded as too expensive, but the outturn figure was £310 million or thereabouts. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there must be an examination of what went wrong and why Transport Scotland failed so abysmally?”
“Lastly, I apologise to everyone, not least the readers of The Press and Journal, which, quite rightly, as the “voice of the north”, reported that the Government is no longer committed to fully dualling the A96. In raising this clarification, I might, perhaps unusually, be doing the Government a favour.”
“I sought to bring the issue to the Presiding Officer’s attention shortly before today’s plenary meeting in order to give notice of this point of order. I seek guidance, under chapters 13 and 14 of the standing orders, on whether the cabinet secretary—given that she is present—can personally make a correction to what appears to have been a series of, if I may say so, schoolboy howlers, despite the fact that Transport Scotland, Government officials and ministers should have been all over the detail of that vital document. Will she issue a correction now, correct the Official Report and take whatever action is required to correct the Government’s official document?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance in raising a matter that came to my attention around a quarter to 2. Journalists have advised that the Scottish Government representative admitted to them that significant errors were made in the course of yesterday’s budget statement and in the associated documents. The error was that, in the course of her remarks, the finance secretary said: “We will take forward the dualling of key sections of the A96”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; c 17.] However, the wording of the commitment should have been, “We will take forward the dualling of the whole of the A96.” The mistake is compounded by annex B of an associated document, the “Infrastructure Delivery Pipeline”, making no reference to the whole of the A96, only to “A96 Dualling Inverness to Nairn (including Nairn Bypass)”.”
“Presiding Officer, may I offer a humble, sincere and unqualified apology for not being present at the beginning of these proceedings. I have got that over with. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential economic impact of fully dualling the A96, in order to provide faster and safer transport links between the two key economic areas of north east Scotland and the Highlands, and to support the significant number of renewable energy sector jobs that it and Highlands and Islands Enterprise anticipate will be generated in the coming decades. (S6O- 05362)”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has given a commitment to update Parliament when that work has concluded. Let me be clear: there is funding— The Presiding Officer: Briefly, cabinet secretary. Shona Robison: —for the A96 Inverness to Nairn in the budget and across the CSR in 2026- 27, 2027-28, 2028-29 and 2029-30, which I hope Fergus Ewing will welcome.”
“First, the Scottish Government’s position has not changed in that we remain in support of the full dualling of the A96 and are progressing the dualling process from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass. I can confirm today that investment in the trunk road network in the next four years will allow us to make progress on dualling the A96 between Inverness and Nairn, including the Nairn bypass. With the land acquired for the project, funding is included in the 2026-27 draft budget to commence the delivery of advance works for the scheme, along with the adjacent A9 and A96 Inshes to Smithton scheme. In parallel to the advance works, Transport Scotland continues to take forward the work to determine the most suitable procurement option for delivering the scheme and, therefore, a timetable for delivery.”