Alison Johnstone
No Party Affiliation · Scotland
“We will use the same voting procedure as before. Members voted by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer: Voting in this round of the Presiding Officer election is closed. I invite the scrutineers to proceed to the back of the chamber for the counting of votes. Again, candidates may also observe the count.”
“I now invite any scrutineers appointed by the candidates to go to the back of the chamber to observe the counting of ballot papers. Candidates may also observe the count.”
“The first meeting of the seventh session of the Parliament is resumed. I have received four valid nominations for the position of Presiding Officer. I shall now announce the nominations and ask all candidates, as their names are announced, to make themselves known to the chamber.”
“Ballot papers should be marked with an X before being folded and then placed in one of the ballot boxes provided at the rear of the chamber. At the end of each voting period, I shall invite any scrutineers that have been nominated by each candidate to monitor the counting of votes at the back of the chamber, which is where clerks will emp…”
“Members should remain in their seats until I invite them to collect their ballot paper from clerks at the back of the chamber. Members with surnames beginning with the letters A to F should collect their ballot papers from the desk on my left at the back of the chamber—the clerks there have their hands up.”
“15:29 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: This voting period is now open, using the same voting procedure as before. Members voted by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer: Voting in the third round of the election of the Presiding Officer is closed.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,933 lines we hold for Alison Johnstone, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 39.
“There are far too many issues on which we have kicked the can as far down the road as we can. The most critical issue is how we fund local government. That is about how we fund those who deliver our schools, social care, libraries and roads and pavement maintenance, all of which are absolutely critical to the day-to-day lives of our constituents. Much as the local government settlement this year is just about acceptable, we know that local services have reached a tipping point and that we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. There needs to be fundamental change to local government finances at the start of the next session of Parliament.”
“None of us will put reform of housing revenue accounts or ministerial direction powers on our leaflets for the coming election, but that is the stuff that really matters. People will have roofs over their heads as a result of the changes that we have delivered. However, there is still much to do. We have a choice. To go back to what I said in my opening speech, as we go into the coming election, there is an attempt to make it feel as if Scottish austerity is inevitable because of the state of our public finances. I agree that there needs to be a change to put them on a sustainable footing, but this is one of the wealthiest countries in the history of the world. As we go into the election, I urge colleagues, not just in the final moments of this debate but in the next session of Parliament—whoever is here—to be bold.”
“As well as the contradiction in the fact that the Tories demand more money for local government while refusing to give councils the power to raise that money, there is the Tories’ regular refrain that this is a centralising Scottish Government and that we should instead empower local government when, time after time in this session and the sessions before it, the Conservatives have consistently opposed our collective efforts to give local government more power over its finances and other matters. Along with reform of the council tax, the changes that we made at the same time to housing revenue accounts have resulted in the City of Edinburgh Council alone being able to commit more than £1.5 billion of additional funding over the next decade to the construction of more council housing.”
“Those properties did not disappear; they went back on to the market and were bought by people who chose to live in them, thereby helping us to tackle the housing crisis. Shona Robison: Does Ross Greer agree with me on how strange it is that the Tories always go on about funding for local government and yet oppose the very mechanisms that he is talking about for local government to raise additional funds on second and empty homes? Does he think that that is a bit strange and contradictory? Ross Greer: The cabinet secretary is absolutely right.”
“No one can defend a system in which most people are paying the wrong rate, yet we have got to the end of the sixth session of Parliament and have not yet fixed that. That is immensely frustrating. That said, I do not want to end on a negative, so I will talk about some of the limited progress that we have made on council tax, for which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government as well as the Cabinet Secretary for Housing deserve some credit. The changes that we have made to council tax for second homes and holiday homes have not only raised hundreds of millions of pounds for local services; in the first year alone of doubling council tax for second and holiday homes, there were 2,500 fewer properties of that type in Scotland.”
“Most of us recognise that the system needs to be scrapped and replaced but, at the very least, it should be based on accurate data and, unfortunately, only the Greens and Lib Dems voted for a revaluation exercise to take place. Those who rejected that need to take responsibility for the fact that the majority of households in this country are paying the wrong rate of council tax. We would not put up with that with income tax or most of our other taxes. Most of those who are paying the wrong rate are poorer households paying more than they should, and it is generally wealthier households that pay less. The system is fundamentally broken. Regardless of our ideological positions on tax, I believe that we all recognise the fundamental deficiencies in a system that is based on 1991 property valuations.”
“The system was out of date before this Parliament was even established, yet we have got to the end of its sixth session and we have not fixed it yet. The poorest households in this country are paying about five times more as a share of their income in council tax than the wealthiest. That should embarrass all of us. This Parliament is responsible for that, not councils. Yes, with any change to that system, there would be winners and losers, but there are winners and losers in the system that we have now—it is a broken system. The winners are the wealthiest, and the losers are the people who are struggling the most, in terms of how much they have to pay and their reliance on underfunded council services. It is frustrating that, in this session of Parliament, we had the opportunity to at least agree on a revaluation.”
“However, when it comes to how we finance local government, Scotland has an incredibly British style of centralised governance. Local government funding in Scotland is overwhelmingly dependent on the block grant from the Scottish Government—about 80 per cent of it comes from that—as opposed to the mainstream of European local governance municipalities, which raise a majority of their own funding. Local government in Scotland simply does not have the power to make those decisions. It is not really local—it is far too big—and it can barely do any governing. We have 32 regional service delivery bodies. We have reached the end of another session of Parliament with no progress made on the replacement of the council tax.”
“We move to winding-up speeches. 17:42 Ross Greer: In opening the debate, the cabinet secretary encouraged her successor in the finance portfolio to be bold. I absolutely agree with that. There is one particular area in which it is essential that they are bold. She has given me the opportunity to talk about my favourite hobby-horse in the finance debate: reform of the council tax. The Greens have often been focused on local government in our budget negotiations, but there is a fundamental problem in haggling every year over a couple of hundred million pounds at the edge of a multibillion-pound system that is fundamentally broken. Many of us—certainly those of us who believe in Scotland’s independence—aspire for us to be more like our mainland European neighbours, and particularly our Nordic neighbours.”
“Our first item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20721, in the name of John Swinney, on a motion of condolence for Jeane Freeman. We are honoured to welcome Jeane’s partner Susan and members of Jeane’s close family and friends to our gallery today. I was privileged to work with Jeane outwith and in Holyrood. In my spokesperson roles on health and on social security in the previous session, I worked with Jeane on a number of occasions in both of her Cabinet positions. Jeane was always professional, kind and determined. Her commitment to public service was clear. It was a tremendous shock and sadness to learn of her death. On behalf of all at the Scottish Parliament, I send our deepest condolences to Susan and all of Jeane’s family, friends and colleagues. She will be very sadly missed. 14:01”
“There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-20904, in the name of Graham Simpson, on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As this is a motion to pass the bill, the question must be decided by division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 18:30 Meeting suspended. 18:33 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We come to the vote on motion S6M-20904, in the name of Graham Simpson, that the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3 be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McAllan.”
“I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 6.29 pm.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to.”
“The Presiding Officer: If a member seeks a ministerial statement, they can speak with their business manager, who would bring the request to the Parliamentary Bureau, or they can directly approach the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans. If the minister is content to grant the request, the bureau will consider it before the statement request comes before the Parliament. Of course, Mr Findlay will be aware of other means of scrutinising the Government, including through oral questions, written questions, Opposition business and so on.”
“John Swinney, his SNP Government and the Lord Advocate reckon that we should all just go away quietly and forget about it. We cannot and we will not. This is about parliamentary scrutiny and Government accountability— The Presiding Officer: Mr Findlay, I am very keen that you identify the procedure that you are concerned about in relation to our standing orders. Russell Findlay: I am just doing so. This is about parliamentary scrutiny and Government accountability—[Interruption.]—so can you please tell me whether— The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Findlay. Russell Findlay: Can you please tell me what methods or mechanisms are available to me, or to any other member, to compel the Lord Advocate to provide a full statement to this Parliament?”
“Much of that material is irrelevant to the pertinent issue, but it contains at least one striking new admission: the Lord Advocate tipped off John Swinney with sensitive information about the criminal case against Nicola Sturgeon’s husband 11 months ago. John Swinney— The Presiding Officer: Mr Findlay, for clarity, I note that a point of order should describe which procedure you think has not been followed or is not being followed. Russell Findlay: I understand, Presiding Officer. I am just attempting to put context around it. John Swinney failed to disclose that when I questioned him at First Minister’s question time last week. Instead, he resorted to the usual angry bluster and deflection. It seems that a two-tier system is at work—one tier for the SNP First Minister and his spin doctors, and another tier for everyone else in Scotland.”
“Let us hear Mr Findlay. Russell Findlay: —and what Mr Swinney did with that information, which was kept secret from the public. I had the opportunity to ask only one question, which was limited to 45 seconds. Thirteen other members also asked brief questions, but the Lord Advocate’s lengthy responses mostly failed to answer the questions that were put. By the time she sat down, MSPs had even more unanswered questions. The Lord Advocate, who is a minister in the Scottish National Party Government, has refused to make a full statement to the Parliament. John Swinney and the SNP voted down our attempts to secure a statement. Instead, this afternoon, she dumped 70 pages of selective material into the public domain.”
“We could be waiting until the parliamentary session after that, or beyond, before we get a recall system or tackle members’ non-attendance. That is what we are voting on tonight. All those voting against the bill will be viewed dimly. I think that people know what is going on here—I will leave it at that. Let us get to the vote. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3. Points of Order 18:18”
“Christine Grahame: To amend the record, I was quoting Richard Leonard, who said that, despite the bill’s flaws, he would vote for it. I could not understand the rationale behind that position. I admire Richard Leonard in many respects, but not for that comment. Graham Simpson: I, too, admire Richard Leonard. As he knows, I am very sorry that he is standing down. When we get to the vote in a few seconds, we will have the opportunity to do the right thing. If we do not do so, Scotland will be left without any recall process. My concern is that failing to pass the bill will kick the issue into the long grass. Even if a special committee is formed in the next parliamentary session, the process could take years. It has already taken five years, and it could take a further five years.”
“Christine Grahame knows that I have a great deal of respect for her, but she called the bill flawed legislation that could be made better. A lot of legislation is like that, though. Christine Grahame: [Made a request to intervene.] Graham Simpson: If Christine Grahame would listen to the point that I am about to make, perhaps she could respond then. We have a process that goes through stages 1, 2 and 3. Stages 2 and 3 are for members to improve proposed legislation. Very few members engaged with the bill to raise concerns. Kevin Stewart did so at stage 2—he valiantly attempted to get an amendment agreed to, but it was not— but few other members engaged with it. If they had had concerns, they could have raised them. If Christine Grahame still wants to intervene, I will take her intervention.”
“Let us ensure that that can be done on a cross- party, non-partisan basis, considering all the issues in this complex process. Even though my decision not to stand for re-election means that I will not contribute to that process, I will watch on as an interested member of the public to see what the next Parliament chooses as the best way forward. 18:15 Graham Simpson: I will be brief, because I think that members want to get to the vote, and I think that they all know how they will vote. We are about to miss an opportunity. The Parliament wants to have a recall system, which the bill would allow to happen. As I said, it would allow the recommendations of the Agnew review to come into force. It is flexible enough to allow that, so there is simply no reason not to pass it.”
“However, from listening to Sue Webber’s remarks, I am concerned that those who succeed us will perhaps find the Tories a barrier to creating a fair and balanced system. Although the Government is unable to support the bill, I again highly commend the work that Graham Simpson has done and his approach to the bill. If the bill is rejected, I am optimistic that, in the next session, the Parliament can deliver the democratic accountability that we all want to put in place. I have confidence that a committee process—it is important that it should be a committee process—will be able to consider and come up with solutions to the difficulties that the Parliament has identified during the stages of this bill, not least in working out the best form of recall for regional members.”
“At this time, right at the end of a session of Parliament, what the Government supports, rather than the bill, is something that is put together on a cross-party basis with the parameters that I mentioned earlier at the forefront. On behalf of my party, I am happy to commit to supporting a process at the very start of the next session, when members come together as a Parliament—I nearly said “we” there—first to agree how to implement a sanctions regime based on the findings of the Agnew report, and then to support the development of a committee bill that would build a recall system on top of that. I do not believe that that is in any way beyond this institution, largely because of the work that Mr Simpson has done through the scrutiny of the issues.”
“Graeme Dey: At stage 2, I committed to the Government progressing a public consultation on that very issue—well, it would be on electoral reform and would encompass that issue. I noted particularly that, if the bill did not progress, the consultation would be a vehicle for exploring that. I reiterate that contribution. The matter that Mr Cole-Hamilton has brought to the Parliament is incredibly serious, and it is one that the Parliament must grasp by reviewing not just the concept of some sort of checking system but how that would work in practice and the complexities that would go with it. We must acknowledge that there are a lot of complexities.”
“Are we really prepared to introduce a recall bill now, without having in place a clearly understood set of parameters for sanctioning MSPs that ensures that everyone knows where they stand? Alex Cole-Hamilton: It is clear that those on the Government benches, and others, will not support the bill tonight. Laying aside the dismay that Scottish Liberal Democrats feel at that reality, I am gratified by the constructive work that we undertook together on my amendment 35, which was on conducting a review about introducing a disclosure scheme or a protection of vulnerable groups checking regime for future parliamentarians. In that spirit, and given that we still have four weeks before the end of the session, will the minister instruct officials to begin work towards that aim now, so that an incoming Government can pick it up in the new session?”
“Protecting those who serve on any sanctions committee is every bit as important as protecting the interests of those who might be judged by it. In this session of Parliament, judgments that have been reached by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on our behalf have been challenged in the chamber. Indeed, the member in charge of the bill, which seeks to bring significant sanctions into play, was one of a number of MSPs who opposed the comparatively modest punishment of another member by the committee just a few weeks ago. Let us imagine that session 7 turns out to be even more fractious than this one. Let us imagine, too, that the relevant committee is asked to sit in judgment on multiple colleagues. Do they not deserve the protection of a system that has been properly shaped?”
“18:10 Graeme Dey: The Government supports the introduction of a recall process—let there be no doubt about that—but this bill, at this time, is not the right way to deliver a recall process that commands the confidence of the Parliament and those who elect us. I am not seeking to make a partisan point here, but we know that the mood in the Parliament about many matters can become disputatious and divided. That can reflect strength of feeling about important issues but, sometimes— too often—it is the product of unconstructive reflexive disagreement. We owe it to those who would serve on any sanctions committee, and those who would be judged by one, to put in place a better process than what is set out in the bill and one that takes full account of whatever follows from the Agnew report on the Parliament’s complaints and sanctions system.”
“Let us hear Ms Wells. Annie Wells: The bill could have done exactly that. It could have put power back where it belongs: with the electorate. It could have ensured that serious wrongdoing would have serious consequences; and it could have strengthened the integrity of the Parliament. If an MSP breaks the law, they should be removed. If they disgrace the Parliament, they should face the voters. If the public has lost confidence in them, politicians should not be shielded from the consequences. That is accountability and that is leadership, which is why I am so disappointed that my colleague Sue Webber’s amendments were not agreed to. I believe in the principles of the bill, but this watered- down version cannot be the end of the discussion. Scottish Conservatives will abstain at decision time tonight.”
“Section 1—How a member becomes subject to a recall petition process The Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on how a regional member is recalled. Amendment 38, in the name of Sue Webber, is grouped with amendments 38 to 42, 42A, 42B, 42C, 43 to 46, 48, 52, 53, 61 and 68 to 70.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 55A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after the group has been called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress: Groups 1 and 2: 1 hour 5 minutes Groups 3 to 5: 2 hours 10 minutes Groups 6 and 7: 3 hours.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 3 14:38”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20879, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak to the motion to press their request-to-speak button. I call Graeme Dey to move the motion.”
“On the substantive question. Gillian Martin: On the substantive question about the specific incident, SEPA has undertaken a visual inspection and has been able to say that the situation is stabilised and containment at source is proving effective. SEPA received reports of oil in the River Dochart on Thursday evening and overnight, and it worked through Friday and over the weekend to identify the source and mitigate the impacts. A specialist clean-up contractor, contracted by the garage, has been working at the site and is carrying out works to reduce the environmental impact of the spill. SEPA officers will continue to assess the progress of the specialist remediation contractor’s clean-up. Maternity and Obstetrics Care (Damages Payments) 2.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20897, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a change to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 24 February 2026— delete 6.00 pm Decision Time and insert 6.35 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey] 14:05”
“Therefore, a focus solely on externals, such as economics, education and environmental issues, all of which have their place, but ignoring the internal and the eternal will not prosper. As the prophet reminded the people of his day, “you have planted much but harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You earn wages, they don’t last.” No wonder those words were bookended by, “Give careful thought to your ways”. I love my country, with all its quirks. What made Scotland a beacon of democracy, human dignity, invention and artistic genius can again make us thrive, with kindness and hope, when we hear the words of Jesus and, like the wise man who built his house on a rock, put them into practice. Business Motion 14:03”
“Today, more than 2 billion people, from remote rural tribal groups to the most sophisticated nations on earth, claim a live connection to him. That connection runs from today’s world of elite sport to historical figures such as Napoleon, who contrasted the empires of Alexander the Great, Caesar and Charlemagne: “On what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon sheer force. Jesus Christ alone founded His empire upon love, and at this hour millions of men will die for Him.” Jesus’s unique impact is matched by Jesus’s unique insight. Much to the frustration of both traditionalists and radicals of his day, Jesus made it clear that humanity’s problem was not out there but inside us; not external but internal; not merely nurture, but nature. Jesus said: “For from within, out of our hearts” spews everything that spoils.”
“Good afternoon. Our first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is the Rev Alasdair Macleod, the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland. The Rev Alasdair Macleod (Free Church of Scotland): In a recently published book entitled “What Has Christianity Ever Done for Scotland?”, the author reminds modern, secular Scotland that our education, legal systems, healthcare, human rights and arts were shaped by those who had a living connection to Jesus Christ. For instance, James Young Simpson, the pioneer of anaesthesia, was asked by a reporter, “what was your greatest discovery?”, likely expecting an answer along the lines of his life’s work. He replied: “That there is a Saviour.” What is it about Jesus Christ that draws the deepest devotion? There is no questioning his unique impact.”
“The Presiding Officer: The final question is, that motion S6M-20842, in the name of Shona Robison, on the reappointment of the chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee that Professor Graeme Roy be reappointed as Chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Women Against State Pension Inequality”
“There are three questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-20814, in the name of Ivan McKee, on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-20748, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.”
“I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move such a motion.”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-20842, in the name of Shona Robison, on the reappointment of the chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee that Professor Graeme Roy be reappointed as Chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission.— [Shona Robison] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Motion without Notice 16:53”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-20748, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill.”
“Before I call Willie Rennie, I am aware of several conversations going on in the chamber. Let us be courteous to one another. 16:37”
“We have a code of conduct and some standards to uphold in this Parliament—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you. You will stop shouting. Continue, First Minister. Let us hear one another. The First Minister: The shouting and bawling from the Conservatives demonstrates my point that they do not deserve to be here, and they will not be here, because they are on their way out at the forthcoming election. Lord Advocate (Information Sharing) 2.”
“I think that 14 members were able to ask questions of the Lord Advocate, in an extended urgent question in Parliament. This morning on the radio, Thomas Ross KC said: “I hope that now everything’s calmed the Scottish Conservatives are big enough to apologise for making that slur”— the slur against the Lord Advocate— “because being trusted is the most important thing for every lawyer in the country, and for somebody who is trusted”— the Lord Advocate— “to be accused in some way of dishonesty, I thought, was shameful.” I agree with Mr Ross. I was disgusted by the behaviour of Russell Findlay and a number of other contributors in Parliament yesterday. The most appalling level of behaviour was deployed by members of Parliament.”
“If John Swinney really does not understand why this stinks, he is in need of a software update. The Lord Advocate’s private memo gave John Swinney political advantage. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another, colleagues. Russell Findlay: He was Nicola Sturgeon’s right-hand man and he got a heads-up about the criminal case involving her husband. The Lord Advocate’s actions were wrong and her excuses do not stack up. John Swinney says that he has confidence in the Lord Advocate, so will he therefore support our plan to get her back into Parliament to provide a full statement about this shameful, rotten episode? The First Minister: Parliament decided on that point last night in a democratic vote by its elected members. Yesterday, Mr Findlay put on the record all his points to the Lord Advocate.”
“The First Minister: I point out that the regulation of the arrangements for the Lord Advocate holding the dual functions of being the chief legal adviser to the Government and the head of the prosecution service is in the Scotland Act 1998, which is reserved legislation. If Mr Findlay wants to do something about that, he should support Scotland in becoming an independent country. Russell Findlay: The Oscar for best phony anger goes to John Swinney. What a desperate deflection—unbelievable. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear our proceedings. Russell Findlay: After five years of inaction, it maybe will take this rotten episode to finally force the SNP to end the Lord Advocate’s dual role. This scandal is typical of an SNP Government that is obsessed with secrecy and spin, personified by the First Minister.”
“[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you. The First Minister: I am disgusted by the way that Russell Findlay spoke about the Lord Advocate yesterday. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should withdraw every word of contemptible rubbish that he put on the record yesterday and today. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you. Let us continue. The First Minister: The Government was elected on a policy commitment to explore, examine and consult on issues related to the dual functions of the Lord Advocate. Those issues are being considered; research work has been undertaken and it awaits decisions among ministers. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister. Thank you.”
“Russell Findlay: It once again highlights the inherent conflict of interest with Scotland’s top prosecutor also being a member of the Scottish Government. John Swinney stood on a manifesto promise to address that. Five years later, nothing has changed. I wonder why. Does John Swinney now agree that the Lord Advocate’s dual role must end? The First Minister: Before I address that point, I want to say something very directly to Mr Findlay, the Parliament and the public in Scotland. Dorothy Bain is an outstanding prosecutor. She is an outstanding lawyer. She has 40 years of unimpeachable service to the public interest in Scotland. She alone is responsible for more cases of sexual violence of men against women being brought to justice than any other person. I put on record my absolute confidence in the Lord Advocate in undertaking her duties.”
“The First Minister did not answer the question, but it sounds like he did not share the information with his entire Cabinet, but he shared it with his spin doctor. The Lord Advocate should have known that handing politically advantageous information about an acutely sensitive criminal case involving Nicola Sturgeon’s husband to the SNP leader was a gross misjudgment. The Lord Advocate was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon and retained by both Humza Yousaf and John Swinney. As a member of the SNP Government, the Lord Advocate is supposed to be scrupulously politically neutral. I will say it again: in the real world, this smacks of corruption. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another.”
“[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. The First Minister: Sorry—it was Mr Thomas Ross. My apologies. Mr Thomas Ross KC said: “I thought it was an absolute disgrace. I mean, the current Lord Advocate has practised at the Scottish bar for 40 years. She has a stellar career. She is trusted by every practising lawyer and every judge in the country, and for her to be accused of corruption without a shred of evidence to support it was one of the most shameful episodes I have seen in that building.” It was a shameful episode, for which Russell Findlay was responsible. He should be ashamed of himself for what he has said. Russell Findlay: Imagine boasting about getting an FOI answered on time—absolutely desperate.”