Richard Lochhead
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Artificial intelligence and all the other developments will change how we raise and spend taxes, how we buy things and what we buy. Everything will be impacted by the changes that are taking place before our eyes. Automation will displace labour and it will do other things as well.”
“Across the parties, we all know what needs to be done. I hope that, in the future, we can build a consensus to make sure that that happens—with respect, grace, and good, robust arguments. If we do that better, perhaps we can set an example to other Parliaments in countries around the world.”
“I thank the current and three previous First Ministers, who entrusted me with the responsibility of being in Government; the Parliament staff and the civil service for their advice and support; and my private office staff. I thank my friends and colleagues—past and present—in my party group and on all sides of the chamber.”
“I thank Clare Haughey for bringing the debate before Parliament. The closure of high street branches and all the changes that that means for people in our communities have been a feature of the past few years. Clare Haughey is an outstanding constituency MSP who always looks out for the vulnerable.”
“The FCA has committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of its access-to-cash regime, and we will ensure that many of the issues that have been addressed in tonight’s debate are part of that review.”
“I am sure that my colleagues have similar thoughts about what we have witnessed over so many years. My heartfelt thanks must go first to my family: my wife, Fiona; my son, Angus, who is in Brisbane and is probably watching this speech at some ungodly hour; and my younger son, Fraser, who is about to turn 18 and is in the chamber’s gallery…”
The complete record
Every one of 418 lines we hold for Richard Lochhead, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“Across the parties, we all know what needs to be done. I hope that, in the future, we can build a consensus to make sure that that happens—with respect, grace, and good, robust arguments. If we do that better, perhaps we can set an example to other Parliaments in countries around the world. I wish everyone who is retiring from this Parliament well; I wish the best of fortune to everyone who is standing again; and, to every new MSP who will have the honour of sitting on these benches, I urge them to relish every single moment. I can tell them from personal experience that the first 27 years will go by in a flash. Finally, I say to the Parliament: farewell, and goodbye. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.”
“Artificial intelligence and all the other developments will change how we raise and spend taxes, how we buy things and what we buy. Everything will be impacted by the changes that are taking place before our eyes. Automation will displace labour and it will do other things as well. If we do not address some of those issues, we will end up importing tech and exporting profits, so there will be big challenges for the next Parliament to face. I joined the Scottish National Party when I was at school, so my views on Scotland’s future are clear. We have no time to waste, because all democracies have a need for speed. If we do not act quickly in the next five years, we will fall behind as a country. There are massive opportunities, but we must grasp them and be agile in prioritising and deploying them to make our country a better place.”
“We have world-class life sciences; a growing space industry; deep tech and critical technologies; a great and growing financial sector; an abundance of energy resources; and— one of my favourites—an amazing tourism sector, underpinned by the world-class brand Scotland. Of course, I must mention the global icon that is Scotch whisky, which is always close to my heart and to my lips. I hope that the next Parliament will have a laser-like focus on generating wealth and revenues from all those strengths. One thing is for certain: the next Parliament is going to experience profound change. More economic and societal change will be compressed into the next five years—certainly compared with the past 25 years and probably compared with our entire history.”
“We in this Parliament have spent nearly three decades building the foundations of a better country and navigating big events, such as the financial crash, Brexit, a global pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Now, we are witnessing a tide of populism across the world, in which people offer deceptively simple solutions to what are often complex problems. As a Parliament, we must look forward. Despite all those uncertainties, we have much cause for optimism. Our country is known for inventing the world; now we are shaping the future as well. There are many points of light across our country. Science and technology are generating solutions to our big problems in our universities, colleges, laboratories, burgeoning tech hubs and all our companies.”
“I thank the current and three previous First Ministers, who entrusted me with the responsibility of being in Government; the Parliament staff and the civil service for their advice and support; and my private office staff. I thank my friends and colleagues—past and present—in my party group and on all sides of the chamber. We are often defined by division, but we all share the burden of public office and we have that in common. Deputy Presiding Officer, I know that you are retiring at the election—I pay tribute to you for your service as PO and as MSP for your constituency over the years. When you leave, it will bring a particular clarity that comes with departure from this place. The partisan noise will begin to fade, and the fog of daily argument in which we all involve ourselves will also begin to evaporate.”
“I am sure that my colleagues have similar thoughts about what we have witnessed over so many years. My heartfelt thanks must go first to my family: my wife, Fiona; my son, Angus, who is in Brisbane and is probably watching this speech at some ungodly hour; and my younger son, Fraser, who is about to turn 18 and is in the chamber’s gallery, seeing his dad speak for the first time in Parliament. Of course, he was not even born when I first entered the Government in 2007. I also thank the people of Moray, who placed their trust in me and whom I have represented to the best of my ability for the last 20 of my 27 years in the Parliament. My constituency staff have been incredible—all of us in here know that they are the real engine; they are the people who do all the real work.”
“Natalie Don-Innes, who is sitting by me, is also retiring from Parliament, as is Bill Kidd, who is sitting at the back. I wish them all the best for the future and I thank them for their contributions to Parliament. I depart with profound gratitude. I am all too aware that thousands of our fellow citizens step forward to seek elected office. Not all of them make it on to the ballot paper, and even fewer are elected. Public service—in saying this, I know that I speak for many of us who are departing—is more than a career. It is an absolute privilege. I owe a debt of gratitude to those who have supported me on my journey over the past 27 years and allowed me to hold a front-row seat for experiences from the birth of devolution to where we have got to today.”
“When I delivered my first speech as a rookie MSP, as we all were then, my colleagues Shona Robison, Fiona Hyslop, Kenny Gibson and Christine Grahame were there. We met up the road from Holyrood in 1999 to reconvene our Parliament. Thinking of that, it is difficult for me to grasp that this is my last contribution to Parliament. Indeed, after 17 years in Government, I find myself at the end of a long but rewarding road. To have been returned at every election since then is a debt that I can never repay. I pay tribute to my colleagues who are here for the debate and who are also standing down for their massive contributions. Christine Grahame, who spoke in the debate, has been a force of nature and has contributed so much to Parliament.”
“The FCA has committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of its access-to-cash regime, and we will ensure that many of the issues that have been addressed in tonight’s debate are part of that review. I also say to Clare Haughey that, as one of my last actions as minister, over the next 24 hours, I will write to the UK Government to bring to its attention her concerns and those raised by other members who are looking out for the interests of their constituents. The closure of high street bank branches and the changes that we see in how we access our money is just one of the many changes in society that are due to changing technology. With the permission of Clare Haughey and the Parliament, I will use my remaining few minutes to reflect on my time in Parliament over the past 27 years.”
“I thank Clare Haughey for bringing the debate before Parliament. The closure of high street branches and all the changes that that means for people in our communities have been a feature of the past few years. Clare Haughey is an outstanding constituency MSP who always looks out for the vulnerable. I thank her for her kind comments and wish her the best with her petition and the best for her future. I assure Parliament that the Scottish Government is concerned about the speed at which high street bank branches have been closing. We engage with the Financial Conduct Authority on all those issues; of course, many of the issues that we discuss are reserved to the UK Government. Scottish Government officials met the FCA in October to discuss access to cash on high streets in many of our communities in Scotland.”
“The Scottish economy is resilient, but we are not immune to those pressures. Businesses are facing tough times and we will continue to do all that we can to help them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 8 was not lodged. That concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. Finance and Local Government Vaping Shops (Licensing) 1.”
“Richard Lochhead: As discussed in previous answers, businesses in Scotland face a number of pressures, not least rising national insurance contributions and rising energy costs, both of which are the responsibility of the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. We are continuing to do all that we can to support businesses against that tough backdrop. At the moment, 2.45 million people are payrolled in Scotland. That might be a slight decrease on the previous year, given some of the factors that I have discussed, but, compared with historical records, it is quite high. We should not forget the fact that unemployment rates in Scotland are lower than those in the rest of the UK, or our other successes in attracting inward investment to Scotland, which have created high-value jobs in our country.”
“Alexander Stewart: Nobody on the Conservative benches opposes fair pay for workers, but the minister must recognise that the gap between the number of accredited employers and the number of workers who actually receive the real living wage tells us a story. Businesses in Scotland are closing, relocating or simply not starting up because the Government has created a hostile environment for enterprise. Continually making feel-good announcements makes no difference. What action will the Scottish Government take to protect those businesses that are disappearing daily across our communities?”
“While key powers over employment law remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government, including those on the minimum wage, we have made significant progress towards our ambitious goal of becoming a leading fair work nation. Around 88.7 per cent of Scottish employees over 18 years of age are paid the real living wage or above, which is the highest proportion in the UK countries. Although the share of Scottish employees paid the real living wage or above was slightly lower in 2025 than in 2023, that has also happened in other parts of the UK and reflects a range of national and international pressures and costs in recent years.”
“We will continue to do all that we can to help; the member may be aware that we also fund Business Energy Scotland, for instance, to give advice to businesses. That initiative has, since we launched it, identified more than £200 million-worth of savings for businesses and has saved, on average, 24 per cent in the cost of energy bills for those businesses that have taken advantage of it. I encourage members to share information about that advisory service with businesses that are affected by high energy bills. We will, of course, continue to do all that we can to support businesses, but energy policy is largely the UK Government’s responsibility. As it has given some—albeit very limited—support to households, it should extend that support to businesses.”
“Jamie Halcro Johnston: While £10 million is going to support 71 businesses in Glasgow that have been impacted by the fire there, thousands of businesses across the Highlands and Islands will be seeing fuel costs double, with apparently no support coming to them. Will there be specific support for those businesses across the Highlands and Islands and across Scotland? I am thinking in particular of businesses in our rural areas, which rely on oil and already pay higher costs for it, and which are already massively impacted by the rise. Richard Lochhead: The member raises a serious issue that is impacting on businesses in Scotland, and we share his concerns. As I indicated earlier, issues relating to energy costs are largely reserved to the UK Government.”
“Ministers are deeply concerned about the impact of the conflict in the middle east. Both the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and the Cabinet Secretary for Housing have made representations to the United Kingdom Government on energy costs. We are hopeful that any de-escalation can reverse the higher energy prices and other increased costs that businesses face. We were disappointed that the financial support that the UK Government announced on Monday did not extend to businesses. We will, however, continue to work with companies to create better certainty and stability for business where we can. That includes an investment of £326 million for enterprise agencies in the budget and our package—which was referred to earlier—of non- domestic rates reliefs, which is worth an estimated £870 million.”
“As was discussed with the committee at stage 1 and reiterated at stage 2, there will be a need for legislation in the future to deal with a number of issues on the wider area of law, given how fast the world is changing around us and how fast technology is developing. We will continue to legislate in the future. We have to ensure that our legal system adapts in due course. However, the bill provides a necessary foundation and it does what the expert reference group recommended to the Parliament, which is now being implemented. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill be passed. 14:32”
“For instance, that includes the idea of civil possession, by which an agent’s possession of a thing on behalf of a principal allows the principal to become the owner of the thing. In a novel area such as this, it is right that the courts should have the same latitude to develop the law in response to new technologies that they have historically enjoyed when dealing with physical things of all kinds. During the passage of the bill, we touched on the possibility that there may be a need for further legislation in relation to digital assets—for example, to deal with their treatment as a matter of private international law. The bill will not be the last legislative work on digital assets.”
“In a leading text on the possession of corporeal moveables in Scots law, Dr Craig Anderson explains, in the context of physical things, that “to possess, one must establish control over the property”. In essence, the bill provides the courts with a proxy for physical possession to overcome the difficulty that digital assets cannot be physically possessed. That done, it leaves the courts with the necessary space to develop the law, just as they have developed the law to reflect practical and commercial realities in relation to things of every other kind. That means that legal principles that are developed in the context of corporeal moveables can be applied and developed in relation to digital assets, too.”
“Digital things of that kind are therefore not rivalrous, and the bill does not include them in the definition of the types of digital assets that it covers. Ultimately, it remains up to the courts to decide how to treat the digital things that the bill does not provide for. Under the bill, digital assets are incorporeal property, which is qualified by sections 3 and 4, which cause those assets to be treated in certain ways as corporeal or physical property as opposed to incorporeal property, because that more closely reflects how people who deal with digital assets tend to think about them. Of course, digital assets are not physical things, so the bill accommodates that by saying that having control of a digital asset in the way that section 5 describes is the equivalent to having physical possession of it.”
“The digital things that it covers are only those that are “rivalrous”—perhaps one of the new words that we have come to learn during the progress of the bill. Physical things, such as a coin, are rivalrous. If I give someone the coin, I no longer have it. If I give it to someone, I cannot give it to them again. That is in effect the definition of “rivalrous” in the bill. The same is true of, say, a bitcoin, because the system stops me spending it twice. That is another fundamental principle of the bill. It is not true of other types of digital things, such as a photograph on a phone, which we can share with any number of people without losing our own copy or our ability to share it with even more people.”
“We have a blossoming financial technology sector in Scotland that has grown from just 26 companies in 2018 to more than 260 today, and many of them are directly involved in developing digital assets. The opportunities that initiatives such as distributed ledger technology offer to create wealth and high-quality jobs are enormous, and the bill is a way for this Parliament to play its role in creating the legal framework that Scotland needs to realise its full potential in this area. As I said, this is a short bill—only three pages long—but it is an important one. To put it simply, its purpose is to ensure that Scots law can recognise certain digital things as objects of property, despite them being neither physical things nor intellectual property in the usual sense.”
“Thank you for the far too generous seven minutes. I welcome the members who have chosen to be present for the debate. I have moved lots of legislation over my 17 years in government. Although this is a short technical bill, it deals with a relatively complex area and those of us who have paid close attention to the bill over the past few months have had our vocabularies expanded—I certainly have. Despite the fact that it is short and technical, the bill is an important foundation stone in ensuring that Scots law can deal with an area of technology that is constantly evolving and becoming increasingly commercially important. The value of Scotland’s blockchain technology market is projected to reach £4.48 billion by 2030.”
“As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise of Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill, in the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill”
“For both physical things and digital assets, it is the mental aspect that is required for legal possession of a thing that will determine whether one, or both, or none of the people with control of a thing becomes its owner. Amendments 3 and 4 get rid of the material in section 5 that defines exclusive control and creates a presumption about when someone has it. If amendments 1 and 2 are agreed to, the material in section 5 explaining the concept will, of course, be irrelevant. I ask members to support the amendments in this group. I move amendment 1. Amendment 1 agreed to. Section 4—Acquisition of ownership Amendments 2 to 4 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends consideration of amendments.”
“Once it lands on the doormat, the law would treat both householders as having physical possession of the parcel. The fact that both people are regarded as having physical possession does not present problems for the law in relation to corporeal moveables, and neither should it in terms of digital assets. The current situation is similar to a digital asset being dropped into a digital wallet to which two people would have access. The law can cope with two people having physical possession of a tangible thing, so it is logical that it would be able to cope with two people having control of a digital asset. Given how common multiparty control arrangements are, it would be a problem if the law could not cope with them.”
“The physical element of possession is a problem in relation to digital assets, because they are not physical things, so section 4(1)(b) develops an analogy by stating that exclusive control of a digital asset is to be treated as physical possession of it. Having further considered the different ways in which digital assets may legitimately be in the control of more than one person and how those scenarios can be mapped on to the law’s approach to physical things, the Government now takes the view that control is the better analogy for physical possession. That the law does not require exclusive physical possession of a tangible thing to acquire ownership of it can be illustrated by thinking about a parcel being delivered through a letterbox in a two-person household.”
“Anyone seeking to rebut the presumption that a person with control of a digital asset is its owner will ultimately have to establish a better claim to ownership of the asset. Establishing that the presumptive owner’s control is not exclusive does nothing to prove that someone else is the asset’s true owner, so raising exclusivity in the context of section 3 is therefore a red herring. Amendment 2 removes the requirement for control to be exclusive from section 4, which provides that the common-law rules about how people come to own physical things apply to digital assets, too. Those rules generally require a person to have possession of a thing to become its owner. The legal concept of possession has both a physical and a mental aspect.”
“So-called multisignature arrangements, for example, involve multiple people each being able to use their own private keys to access the digital wallets in which a digital asset is held, and each person can initiate transactions in respect of the asset. The bill, as introduced, refers in various places to a person needing to have exclusive control of a digital asset. That requirement for being exclusive does not comfortably accommodate the reality of multiple people legitimately having control over an asset, so my amendments remove the requirement. Amendment 1 removes the requirement for control to be exclusive from section 3, which currently says that a person will be presumed to own a digital asset if they have exclusive control over it.”
“Commercial law of Scotland has developed to reflect the realities of how people use and trade in assets. The amendments in the group seek to do that by adjusting what the bill says about the level of control that someone needs to have over a digital asset to be treated as its presumptive owner and as having physical possession of it. I thank the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction task force for recently sharing with my officials, on an embargoed basis, its draft guidance on control of digital assets. That work, which explores the various arrangements that are used to control digital assets, has informed the thinking behind the amendments. For commercial and practical reasons, it is common for multiple people to have control over the same digital asset.”
“The member might wish to ask LINK to carry out an assessment to ensure that there is consideration of banking hubs and access to cash points in our communities. There are approximately 27 banking hubs in Scotland, with another six in progress through LINK Scheme. We continue to make sure that LINK takes into account Scotland’s distinctive needs.”
“By my count, nine bank branches have closed in recent years, which has left Blantyre and Cambuslang as banking deserts. Many individuals, businesses, churches and organisations need access to cash banking, and online or digital banking does not suit everyone. I am also deeply concerned about the impact that further bank closures will have on our local high streets. Will the minister join me in condemning the decimation of face-to-face banking across Scotland and join my calls for better access to banking facilities for all? Richard Lochhead: The member raises an important issue. I think that all of us who are constituency members have experienced the loss of high street bank branches and face-to-face transactions. That is a matter of concern to the Scottish Government.”
“Regulation of financial services is reserved. However, the Scottish Government regularly engages with the sector and the regulator through ministerial engagements, such as meetings of the financial services growth and development board. Scottish Government officials attended a forum convened by the Financial Conduct Authority on access to cash on 15 October 2025. That was an opportunity to raise Scotland-specific concerns directly with the FCA, LINK and Cash Access UK, including concerns about Scotland’s rural and remote geography and demographics and about decisions on banking hubs not taking into account individual communities’ needs. We continue to urge all financial services providers to listen to and address customer concerns. Clare Haughey: Yet another bank in my Rutherglen constituency is under threat of closure.”
“The level of unemployment in Scotland is lower than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have seen higher growth in gross domestic product during the years since the Government came into power, and a higher level of productivity. I have already given an example of our success in attracting inward investment to the country. However, it is a tough and fragile time for many businesses and for our economy, which relates to the previous question in relation to employment costs, energy costs and VAT in tourism and some related sectors. That is affecting Scottish businesses as much as it is affecting businesses in the rest of the UK, and that is why we need the UK Government to play its role as well.”
“That is just one of many examples of companies around the world—and, indeed, our own business community—showing confidence in the future of the Scottish economy. Pam Gosal: It is shocking that only 6 per cent of accountants in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland said that they were confident in the state of Scotland’s economy following last month’s budget and 78 per cent said that they were not. The largest area of concern was the need for long-term economic and tax strategies, which the budget fails to provide. Why is the Scottish Government punishing talent and businesses with high taxes? Richard Lochhead: As the member will be aware, 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers are now expected to pay less income tax in 2026-27 than they would have if they lived south of the border.”
“The Government has published a long-term economic strategy, setting out our 10-year mission to build a fairer, greener and growing economy. Our green industrial strategy also ensures that Scotland will secure maximum economic benefit from opportunities that are created by the global transition to net zero. We are delivering on that strategy. For example, for the past 10 years, Scotland’s economy has outperformed all parts of the United Kingdom except London in attracting inward investment, and we continue to attract investment to drive our future growth. I was delighted that, last week, Lenovo, the world’s biggest producer of personal computers, announced that it had chosen to base its new artificial intelligence technology centre in Edinburgh, against European competition.”
“Those are very real issues, but the big issues that the member mentioned are reserved for the UK Government, and we need it to play its role. The petition that is circulating at the moment is about VAT, which is a big hit on the viability of businesses.”
“On rates revaluation, which has been a regular subject in exchanges, the revaluation transitional relief that has been announced will protect those who are most affected by revaluation and will cap increases in gross liabilities until the next revaluation in 2029. The revaluation transitional relief that has been announced will save taxpayers an estimated £108 million over the next three years, ensuring that the gross bills of around 60,000 properties are lower in 2026-27 than they would otherwise have been. The Scottish Government has also announced that we will pass on to hospitality and pubs the consequentials of what was announced south of the border. A number of other rates assistance measures are in the pipeline.”
“Richard Lochhead: I have a regular dialogue with the tourism industry in Scotland, and I understand that, in many cases, bookings are looking healthy for the coming summer, so I do not want Murdo Fraser to talk down Scottish tourism. I also understand that it is now officially Scotland’s biggest employer, and many new investments are being announced in the tourism sector, notwithstanding the very real pressures that the member has raised—in particular, energy costs, employment costs and VAT, which is one of the biggest subjects of a petition that is circulating in many hotels and pubs in Scotland. Those issues are reserved to the United Kingdom Government; they are not the responsibility of the Scottish Government.”
“Murdo Fraser: It is no exaggeration to say that the tourism sector is in a state of crisis. Barely a day goes by without seeing news in the media about a once-thriving business closing or a hotel, bar, restaurant or cafe shutting its doors due to rising energy and employment costs. Of course, the latest blow is the revaluation of non-domestic rates, which we continually hear will force closures right across the country. We have seen some relief in the budget, but that will go nowhere towards addressing the concerns that many in the sector have. In Northern Ireland, the Sinn Féin finance minister has announced a pause to the revaluation because of the crisis there. Why will the Scottish Government not do the same?”
“Tourism contributes more than £4 billion to our economy each year, and we continue to support the sector to thrive. In the draft budget, we allocated VisitScotland almost £40 million a year until 2029. That includes £1 million over the next two financial years to continue growing direct international connectivity, for example. I can give some examples of what is happening in tourism at the moment. We have worked to improve connectivity from key markets, securing many new routes and adding substantial new capacity, with almost 27,000 new seats on aircraft, which is good news. More overseas visitors visited Scotland in the first half of 2025 than visited anywhere in the United Kingdom outside of London and the south-east. In addition, the budget includes £4 million per year for the next three years for the rural tourism infrastructure fund.”
“Scottish Government officials are working closely with the FCA. A forum on access to cash took place in October, just a few months ago, which gave us the opportunity to raise Scotland- specific concerns about some of the criteria and the impacts of the current regime directly with all the various players, including the FCA, LINK and Cash Access UK. I agree with the member that there is still a lot of work to do to look at post-implementation of that regime and to make sure that Scotland’s needs are taken into account. In the meantime, we will continue that engagement with the FCA. Tourism Industry 7.”
“However, Cumbernauld, which has also lost a number of retail banks, will not similarly benefit, largely due to the criteria of the current scheme being quite narrowly focused on access to cash. Does the minister agree that, in reviewing the scheme, there is an opportunity to take account of the wider range of benefits that can be brought by a banking hub model, including, for example, access to face-to-face appointments with banking personnel? Richard Lochhead: We all recognise the importance of face-to-face banking services in our local high streets, and I welcome the fact that at least one community in the member’s constituency will benefit from that. I remind members that any organisation or individual can ask LINK for a reassessment under the criteria if any decision has not gone its way in the past.”
“Regulation of financial services is reserved and, as such, the Scottish Government has no powers to undertake any assessment of the Financial Conduct Authority’s access to cash regime, including the effectiveness of banking hubs. However, we engage regularly with the FCA, LINK, the Post Office and Cash Access UK on subjects such as access to cash, and we have raised Scotland-specific concerns and impacts following the introduction of the FCA’s new rules. The FCA is undertaking a post- implementation review of the regime in 2026, so we will have further opportunities to engage directly with it during that process. Jamie Hepburn: The news that Kilsyth is to receive a banking hub is very welcome, as it has lost all its retail banks.”
“I am sure that one objective that an independent Scotland would have would be to forge a much closer relationship with the EU, especially given issues such as the current geopolitical situation. That would give us an ideal route for supporting the further export of Scotland’s food and drink products and the rest of our exports. Orbex (Scottish National Investment Bank Investment) 4.”
“Bill Kidd: Despite the recent figures that show that Scotland dramatically outperforms England on food and drink exports—in fact, we export more than six times as much per person—Scotland continues to face unnecessary barriers as a result of Westminster decisions, including on Brexit and trade deals that do not reflect Scotland’s economic priorities, not to mention the Labour Party’s crippling tax on Scotch whisky. What impact could a fresh start with independence have in allowing our world-class food and drink sector to reach its full potential? Richard Lochhead: Clearly, if we were an independent state, we would have full control over our own trade strategy, and we could decide how to work with our European partners as part of our relationship with the European Union, as well as being able to make trade deals right around the world.”
“Scotland’s £19 billion food and drink sector remains vital to our economy, with its products making up around 30 per cent of total United Kingdom food and drink exports. Despite challenging trading conditions, 2025 data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that whisky and salmon exports remain strong, being worth £5.4 billion and £828 million, respectively, which reflects the sector’s exceptional businesses. We will continue to back their growth in new and existing markets through our six-point export plan and our £15 million investment in Scotland’s industry-led food and drink strategy. Those are just two examples of how we are supporting the sector to ensure that it has a prosperous future.”
“Surely the only course of action is for OSG to abandon the plans and dump them completely. If the company does not do so, the Government must make the strongest possible statement that it opposes the plans, because they are not suitable for the Moray Firth or for Scotland and they should be scrapped completely. 18:14”
“There is so much to say on the issue that I could speak for seven hours, or even seven days, and I do not think that we would get through it all. However, I go back to the people who matter most here: the people who live in Moray and the Highlands, who will be affected by the proposals for years to come; who are fighting with great enthusiasm for the future of our area; and who are here in their Parliament today to hear— we hope—that the Government is on their side. We need to protect our environment and the nature that it supports. As the nature champion for the bottlenose dolphin, I have had briefings from the Whale and Dolphin Conservation’s Scottish dolphin centre at Spey Bay, which is worried about the proposals. There is much in the proposals that we are opposed to and very little on which we can agree.”