Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 22.
“However, I am curious as to why the plan would be fully costed and why that information would go to the patient, which would seem to be an unnecessary burden on them. Douglas Ross: It is to provide reassurance. I will speak to later amendments during the stage 3 proceedings, but there are people at the moment who do not have access to the palliative care that they clearly require and seek because of location, geography or otherwise. It is very important that that information is made available to the patient, so that they can see it at the point at which they are seeking further help and support. It is unthinkable that anyone should feel pushed into ending their life early because they cannot afford or cannot access the care that they need.”
“I will speak to the three amendments in my name in this group. At present, the bill requires a doctor only to inform a patient that they can be referred for a palliative care assessment. Section 7(1)(b)(iv) of the bill states that the assessment would “explore whether any additional support could be provided to them”. For those at the end of their life, that is simply not enough. My amendment 138 goes further. It would ensure that a person was eligible for assisted dying only if they had been offered and, in fact, had access to a fully funded and costed palliative care pathway specific to their individual condition. Emma Roddick: I agree with the amendment in principle and think that it is really important.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when the transport secretary, acting in her ministerial capacity, last travelled on the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. (S6O-05574)”
“The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross, but I afraid that that is not satisfactory and I now regretfully ask you to please leave the chamber. Douglas Ross: No. The Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if we could suspend proceedings for a moment. 18:25 Meeting suspended. 18:28 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: Given the situation in which we find ourselves, with on-going disregard for the authority of the Presiding Officer, but cognisant of the impact on all other members—I simply will not allow one member to continue to impact on our business—we will continue. Motion without Notice 18:29”
“[Interruption.] Standing orders are very clear that each member is allowed up to three minutes to make their point of order. You interrupted Russell Findlay a number of times. Last week— The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, please take your seat. I am wholly impartial and fair in this chair. Douglas Ross: No, you are not. Members: Oh! The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, I ask you to withdraw that. I would very much like you to remain with your colleagues until the end of the day. I think that it is very important that you have the opportunity to do so, but it is simply not appropriate for you to challenge the decisions and the authority of the chair in this Parliament. I would very much like you to stay with us, so I would be grateful if you would withdraw your remarks. Douglas Ross: I will withdraw them even though I believe them.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can I ask you directly why you interrupt points of order from Conservative members but allow SNP members uninterrupted time to make their points of order? [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, it is not appropriate to challenge the chair. I am making my decisions in the chair, live, according to what I have heard. I ask that you consider whether you think that challenging the chair is appropriate. It is not. Douglas Ross: Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: Is it on the same subject? Douglas Ross: It is further to that point of order. The Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross for a point of order on another subject. Douglas Ross: Our standing orders are there to protect all members—not just those of the SNP and not just the Presiding Officer.”
“Crown Counsel have decided that Peter Murrell should appear on petition at Edinburgh Sheriff Court charged with embezzling over £460,000 from the SNP.” Why did the SNP leader need to know that when nobody else in Scotland was allowed to know that? Why did the Lord Advocate, who sits in John Swinney’s Cabinet, feel that he needed to know that information but nobody else did? Given the concerns that were raised in the chamber last week about the First Minister having perhaps a few weeks’ prior notice, I again ask the minister what it now says about our justice system, our political system and the conflict between the roles of the Lord Advocate as both head of the Crown Office and as a member of the Cabinet that this information was provided to the First Minister almost a year ago and that that was kept secret?”
“For almost a year, the only person who was not involved in this criminal trial to have information about the scale of the alleged embezzlement was Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the SNP. Why did the Lord Advocate feel the need to provide that information to the SNP leader in March of last year and then again in January of this year? On the date that the information was provided to John Swinney—20 March 2025—journalists and the public were still being told that they could not be provided with any further information. Paragraph 6 of the Lord Advocate’s memo to the First Minister on 20 March 2025 states very clearly: “6.”
“I rise to make a plea to the minister to consider granting a statement in the Parliament, either later today or tomorrow, from the Lord Advocate. The minister can look like that if he wants, but, in the past hour, we have had a dump of 70 pages of information from the Lord Advocate that contains material that is extremely damning for the Scottish National Party Government. If those of us in the chamber thought that it was bad enough that the Lord Advocate briefed the First Minister of Scotland and the SNP leader on this case in January 2026, when nobody else knew, we simply have to go to page 6 of her bundle of papers, which shows that the Lord Advocate also briefed the First Minister of Scotland and the SNP leader, John Swinney, about this case on 20 March 2025.”
“Ben Macpherson: I thank Mr Ross for raising the important point about how our college staff are paid and the funding that is provided by the Government to facilitate that through our valued stakeholders. Of course, a period of work on industrial relations was undertaken prior to my appointment. Thankfully, we have reached a position of settlement with good outcomes for all parties, including, in recent months, support staff in colleges. The staff who work in our colleges are the most important stakeholders, as they deliver for the learners whom we are all sent here to serve and represent. I am happy to take away Mr Ross’s specific question on resourcing, both historically and going forward. I would like to give the member a substantial, detailed response, and do so in writing, if he is understanding of that.”
“In 2018, a comprehensive job evaluation exercise for college staff was initiated, and it has still not concluded. I know that the SFC is going through a lessons-learned process at the moment, but it is estimated that backdating this to 1 September 2018, which the Government has committed to, will cost £100 million. Is that £100 million ring fenced in this year’s budget? Does the minister agree with the suggestion that the exercise will cost £100 million? Given the length of time that it has taken to get to this stage, what has the Government done to look at the implications of that for people’s tax in the years that have passed since this review, which has still not been completed, was initiated?”
“The Government is involved in the issue, and I am sure that we will hear tonight from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy that she cannot speak about live cases, but she can speak about Scottish Enterprise giving £1.83 million to the company to develop the proposals to meet Scottish Government targets. The cabinet secretary has been questioned about that in the chamber previously, but there is still huge concern and worry about that level of Scottish Enterprise funding going to an organisation that wants to create destruction in one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland.”
“When people have asked me questions about the issue, I normally go to that Facebook page to get the answer because, if I do not know the answer, it will be there. Again, that highlights the commitment of the people who have been involved in the campaign. I have many concerns about the proposals and how they have been put forward, because the process was very underhand. They were announced with minimal fuss to try to dampen the opposition to them—and then the situation exploded. Subsequently, when there were serious questions to be raised, the developers first agreed to come to Tim Eagle’s meeting to debate the proposals, and then cried off and said that they would not engage with the local community. If you trust your proposals, you should be brave enough to be up front and answer questions about them.”
“Indeed, I have met no one who thinks that the proposals are a good idea—well, I have met the developers, who are, I assume, in favour of the proposals, but I have met absolutely no one locally who is. To go back to the issue of public engagement, my colleague Tim Eagle hosted a very well- attended meeting in Findhorn, with a satellite meeting in Nairn. I have been involved in public meetings in Moray for a long time, and I have never seen such a turnout before. I have never seen so many people wanting to get involved and engaged, and that is because they are worried about what will happen to our area if the proposals go ahead. I congratulate everyone who has been involved. To single out one person is perhaps not the best thing to do, but I want to credit David Ross and the stop the Moray Firth FLOW-Park Facebook page.”
“We in this Parliament have to recognise that we, as elected members, have been supported every step of the way by some very committed individuals in the area, and by a wider campaign group, who have provided me, as an MSP, with more detailed information and expert analysis than I have ever had on any other issue. Although I welcome that information and am delighted to receive it, I question why members of the public have had to commit so much of their time and energy to fight against proposals that should never, ever have got to this stage. The proposals are completely unacceptable and are completely out of character for our area. The numbers of people in the public gallery tonight, and the numbers of those who have been corresponding with their MSPs, show that there is widespread opposition to the plans.”
“This issue has captured the attention and interest of many people in Moray, Inverness and Nairn and further afield. I have had comments, emails and letters from people from all over Scotland and the United Kingdom, and from others around the world, who are aghast—and absolutely disgusted—at what Offshore Solutions Group is proposing for the Moray Firth. As I am sure that we will go through in the debate, the proposals are now less than what was previously put forward. I think that that just shows how cack-handed the company that is making the proposals has been throughout the process.”
“Why is it important that we are debating the issue in the chamber today? It is because of the people who are sitting in the public gallery: almost 50 people who have come down from Moray and the Highlands to their Parliament to hear the matter being addressed—[Applause.] That is deserving of applause, because some of us make that journey weekly, and it is not easy. I have led debates in Parliament before that have had a lot of public interest, but I am not sure that I have previously seen 50 people coming down from the Highlands to the Parliament to hear a debate— and that is just a fraction of the people in our part of the world who are interested in this issue. Many are watching online tonight, and many will be catching up later.”
“I thank all the members who have supported my motion and those who will contribute tonight. By way of background, I note that it has been a bit difficult to bring this debate to the chamber. I previously lodged a motion on the subject for members’ business that did not attract cross-party support. Emma Roddick then lodged a motion that attracted cross-party support, but the Scottish National Party did not choose to use it for one of the party’s members’ business debates. I then copied her motion, just to make sure that we were all on the same page. It might not be the exact wording that I would have used, but it was important for me to bring the debate to the chamber. I also support, and whole-heartedly and completely agree with, the amendment that has been lodged by Fergus Ewing.”
“How can the Lord Advocate come to the Parliament and say that the information that she provided to the First Minister in a memo was information that she was not then allowed to share with reporters who were asking her office for it? That is a clear issue that we need an answer on. The Lord Advocate refused to provide an answer to that question earlier, which is a very good reason for her to give a statement. We did not even get to the point about the Lord Advocate potentially being concerned about the Scottish National Party Government. I wrote it down: she said that the SNP Government had to be reminded of the legal issues surrounding the case. Those were the Lord Advocate’s words.”
“The amendment to the business motion that I am speaking to seeks a full statement from the Lord Advocate tomorrow, which would then be followed by questions being put to her. Questions still need to be put. For example, I specifically asked the Lord Advocate why, on the same day as she sent a memo to the First Minister, the Crown Office told reporters that it could not receive the same information that the First Minister received. I will give way to the Lord Advocate if she wishes to answer that question now. Members: Come on! Douglas Ross: This is why we need a statement tomorrow. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Douglas Ross: It is a serious question.”
“I am glad that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General remain in the chamber for this debate, because it is a request about the Lord Advocate’s time. I hope that she accedes to it, and I will give way if she wishes to intervene at any point. Many questions that were put to the Lord Advocate were not answered in the past 30 or so minutes. More worryingly than that, I believe that, in breach of our standing orders—although I respect the Presiding Officer’s ruling following my point of order—the Lord Advocate was aware of answers that she could have provided to parliamentarians but she decided not to give them to the Parliament today. She will write to the Parliament later. Therefore, it would be very helpful if we could have a full statement from the Lord Advocate tomorrow.”
“Douglas Ross: Presiding Officer, our standing orders make it very clear that if a minister answering questions has information available, they must provide that in their response to the question. The Lord Advocate has said very clearly that she has an answer to my question, but that she will provide it only after this session. That is not acceptable in a Parliament to which the Lord Advocate has been called to provide answers, and it is in breach of our standing orders. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. The contribution that members make in the chamber is not a matter for the chair. It is a matter for the minister and for the Scottish Government as to their response.”
“The Lord Advocate: I can, after today, give other examples of circumstances where this has happened previously. I would be able to give numbers and examples, as I can—[Interruption.] However, I really need to say this: I have to protect on-going live cases in respect of which there has been a sharing of a significant development that has entered the public domain in a sensitive case. The point is this: it is a case that is highly sensitive, and it is a significant development, and I was seeking to remind the Government to respect the rule of law and to restrict its commentary on such an important matter. Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Presiding Officer— Members: Oh!”
“On the same day that she sent a minute to the First Minister with information about this case, why was the Crown Office telling reporters that the only information that could be made publicly available was the date of the preliminary hearing? The Lord Advocate: In relation to numbers and examples, referring back to the question that I was asked, I note that I do not see that formulated in the urgent question. However, I can give— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another, colleagues. The Lord Advocate: I can, after this evening, provide more details of how— Douglas Ross: Will the Lord Advocate take an intervention? The question has not been answered— The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, let us hear the Lord Advocate.”
“The Lord Advocate is offering examples, but what we need are numbers. How many times has this happened before? She can surely give us an answer to that, and, if she is telling us that it has happened more often, have those instances also involved the political party that John Swinney is the leader of? That is the issue here. As the leader of the SNP, he got information that was not available to anyone else. How many such cases are there and, of the other cases, did they also involve the SNP? If not, it is a totally different situation. The Lord Advocate is trying to put this across as something that is perfectly normal.”
“That amendment, which should garner support right across the chamber, reaffirms our commitment to supporting domestic and international law and the rules- based order, which is relevant in the case of the recently interdicted Russian shadow fleet vessel; supports the future of Greenland being determined by Greenland and Denmark; and reaffirms our commitment to Ukraine and a just peace that is acceptable to its people. 15:53”
“An important point that has not yet been put on the record is that non-UK military require to obtain diplomatic flight clearance from the UK Ministry of Defence in order to fly and land in UK airspace. As members recognise, Glasgow Prestwick airport is an asset to the local and national economies. The airport plays a key role in infrastructure development in the Ayrshire region and supports a valuable aerospace cluster. International uncertainty brings risk to us all—to our economy, to our communities and to our safety. We cannot insulate ourselves. We must be committed to stepping forward as a good global citizen. That is why I urge colleagues to agree to the amendment in my name.”
“Ross Greer: Does the cabinet secretary not agree that there should be consequences for foreign militaries that breach Scots law and UK sovereignty within our waters? Angus Robertson: I would like to make the point in this way: if we are genuinely serious about dealing with Putin’s shadow fleet—I hope that we all are; I think that we all are—we need to get this right. I agree with Mr Greer on that point. We need to get this right, and that includes respecting Scots law. The Scottish Government is committed to playing its full part in the defence of our country and the security of our allies. Glasgow Prestwick airport and certain HIAL airports are important stop-over points for many air forces, including the Royal Air Force and the air forces of other NATO partners, such as the United States and Canada.”
“The First Minister made it clear in his statement to the Parliament that, although the Bella 1 was in Scottish waters, at no point were the UK or Scottish authorities in control of the vessel, and the Scottish authorities had no legal basis whatsoever for boarding the vessel at any time. The Scottish Government was informed that the two individuals had been removed from the Bella 1 by the United States after—not before—they had been removed from the vessel. Ross Greer: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angus Robertson: I will in a second; I just want to finish this point. The presence of the Bella 1 in Scottish waters emphasises the fact that international events directly impact on the responsibilities of the Scottish Government.”
“We have a continuing commitment to achieving a strong, just and durable peace that ensures that Ukraine has a secure future and that deters any future Russian aggression. We would back a properly constituted international peace plan that respects Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, that is agreed by Ukraine and that restores peace in Europe. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to supporting Ukraine, not only until a just peace is secured, but through recovery and reconstruction to a brighter future beyond. I will briefly respond to points that have been made in the debate. Concern has been raised about the actions taken in relation to the MV Bella 1, which is currently in Scottish waters.”
“That would be not only a waste of time on Opposition debate days, but a worrying waste of Government time. That is a direction of travel that I do not want to see, which is why we should not only reject the Greens’ motion today, but reject them at the ballot box in May. 15:49 Angus Robertson: I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I am reminded of the fact that, as many members have said, it is almost four years to the day since Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, which reminds us of the importance of global co-operation and the need for international law. It is right and proper that we can discuss such issues in Scotland’s national Parliament. The Scottish Government and, I believe, all parties in the Parliament resolutely condemn Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine, as we have done since its invasion.”
“If the Green motion passes today, all of that, as Sharon Dowey said, will be lost—thousands of jobs and vital resources for the Scottish Government coffers from Prestwick airport. That is what the Greens want. That is what they are happy with. How could they possibly have sat around their very small table to discuss topics to debate today and thought that this was the one that would attract them support in the election in a few weeks’ time? I conclude— Ross Greer: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I am sorry—I do not have time. I conclude by saying that, although it is bad enough that they do this in Opposition, we can imagine how scary it would be if they were back in Government. We know that the SNP was happy to take the Greens into Government before; if it needs to, it will take them back in again.”
“In the same debate that Ariane Burgess was trying to say that this is all happening covertly and no one knows about it, Gillian Mackay told us about a glossy brochure that has been produced for Prestwick airport about the very same thing. The activities cannot be both covert and advertised in a glossy brochure. We have had some common sense and rational thinking from the likes of Sharon Dowey, who spoke about the thousands of jobs that would be under threat if the Green motion passed. Are the Greens going to go to the south of Scotland, to Prestwick and Ayr, and say, “Vote for us, because we are going to close Prestwick airport and stop these flights coming in”? As Murdo Fraser said, those are the only flights that are generating a profit at Prestwick airport.”
“I take exception to some of the speeches that have compared this debate to student union politicking. That does a great disservice to our student union debates across the country. People in universities will be very ashamed to be aligned to the Scottish Greens. Listening to some of the Scottish Green contributions, I thought that the children in my four-year-old son’s nursery would have a better debate on what they had for their snack each day than we have had today. Ariane Burgess tried to paint a picture of the people in Wick being under the impression that some planes have been landing but not knowing anything about it. The people in Wick know what those planes are. They see them in the sky and see them landing and taking off.”
“They want to speak about reserved issues. As Christine Grahame said, the Scotland Act 1998 is very clear: it is not within the remit of this Parliament to discuss the issues in the motion being debated today. I listened to Gillian Mackay. She gave a very serious speech, and I was sat here wondering whether she honestly believes that, across the Atlantic, Donald Trump is currently in the Oval office, and people are going to barge in and say, “President Trump! President Trump! You need to get to the situation room. Gillian Mackay said something nasty about you in Holyrood—we must change our policy across the globe!” She should not be so ridiculous. Not even people in Scotland are going to be interested in what the Greens are saying today, let alone President Trump.”
“In summing up this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, I have to bring it all together and describe what the debate has been like. That is easy—it has been a complete waste of time. This has been a waste of valuable parliamentary time. Members of the Green Party and the SNP have recently rejected bills because the Parliament does not have enough time to consider them, but the Greens think that it is appropriate to sit here today and debate this issue. It is not. Stephen Kerr was right to say that we could have spoken about housing, education, health, the economy or many other things. The Greens could have asked us to speak about the climate, but they did not want to. Ross Greer rose— Douglas Ross: I will give way if I have some time at the end of my speech. They do not want to speak about the climate— no, no.”
“When the cabinet secretary announced that she wants to release prisoners who have served only a third of their sentence, she said that there would be “a short consultation”. The consultation period lasted only three days and it was conducted with a targeted number of respondents. That was a couple of weeks ago. What was the outcome of that consultation, and will it be made publicly available? Angela Constance: As told members last week, in the interests of transparency, and with the consent of everyone who participated in the consultation, we will release whatever information we are given permission to release. I assure Mr Ross that we complied with the legislation in relation to whom to consult. The legislation, which was passed by this Parliament, was pretty specific in that regard. Island Communities (Policing) 3.”
“I left a meeting about eight minutes ago and, at that stage, the Scottish Government had not yet given an indication as to who would deal with the urgent question. Portfolio Question Time Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business 14:01”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer has selected an urgent question to be taken in the chamber later today. That urgent question and the one that I submitted were almost identical, and both call on the Lord Advocate to provide the answers. Have you had any indication yet from the Government on who will answer the urgent question? We should bear in mind standing order rule 13.8, on urgent questions, which states: “An urgent question concerning the operation of the systems of criminal prosecution … shall normally be answered by the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland”. If the Lord Advocate is not going to answer the question, will an explanation be given as to why that is the case? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Mr Ross for his point of order.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether anyone who works for the Scottish Government, including ministers, special advisers or civil servants, was involved in discussions concerning the postponement of the trial of Peter Murrell until after the Scottish Parliament election in May. (S6T- 02896)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether the First Minister and the rest of the Cabinet are ashamed that the written case for Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate in the judicial review of the Scottish Prison Service policy for the management of transgender people in custody did not include a single mention of women’s rights. (S6O-05505)”
“It also gives us an opportunity to stand up in Parliament and take part in a debate that will, I think, be very consensual, because we all want to see the scheme continue to go from strength to strength. I will be looking at the next Parliament to see who gets not just the bottlenose dolphin, but many of the other species that have been mentioned tonight. 17:48”
“The species generates about £4 million for the Moray economy and the wider economy along the Moray Firth, because people want to come and see dolphins and, if possible, go on one of the number of tours that go on in order to get up close—but not too close so as not to disturb their habitat. A number of issues are concerning to those of us who are passionate about the species with regard to their habitat being disturbed. In three minutes, I do not have time to go over that. Nevertheless, being a species champion allows me to press those issues both in and outwith Parliament. In my final seconds, I will say that I highly recommend the nature champions scheme to incoming MSPs, as it gives us a greater knowledge of a species with which we may otherwise not be familiar.”
“I knew, when I was being photographed by the local press, that an image of me at that time, when I was leader of the Scottish Conservatives, looking out to sea with binoculars, was going to be used by some to say, “Tory leader looks for votes.” I do not know for which species Russell Findlay is now the champion, but I advise him to be very careful of photo opportunities such as that. It was, understandably, reported in the way that I expected, but I was still keen to do it, because the shore watch project is great for getting people involved. You can go down there for 15 or 30 minutes, do a shore watch and then go back in and record the numbers. Bottlenose dolphins also attract people to our area.”
“When I was appointed as champion, I found out that these dolphins are intelligent, inquisitive and playful, so I can only assume that 128 other MSPs were offered the bottlenose dolphin and refused, and it was left to the final MSP to take that one up. I was delighted when I was asked to be species champion for the bottlenose dolphin, because it gave me an opportunity, which I readily accepted, to go to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation’s Scottish Dolphin Centre at Spey Bay. The centre does incredible work, encouraging people to understand more about bottlenose dolphins and their life—which is a long life; many of the females live for up to 50 years or more—in the Moray Firth. As the species champion, I went on a shore watch.”
“I congratulate John Mason on securing the debate and delivering what I thought was an excellent speech, detailing just some of the species for which members are champions in the current session of Parliament. It reminded me of species champions from past sessions, because one of my predecessors representing the Highlands and Islands, Mary Scanlon, was the species champion for the freshwater pearl mussel; I know that she did a lot of work for that species and continues to take a great interest in it. Like Mr Mason, I am not coming back to Parliament, but I will continue to take a strong interest in the species for which I am champion: the bottlenose dolphin.”
“I asked local officers in Moray about the level of policing in the area and I was told that, just a few years ago, before the establishment of Police Scotland, we had eight officers per shift in Elgin, but we now have eight for the whole of Moray, and sometimes even fewer. For one town, we had eight officers. Now, for Elgin, Forres, Lossiemouth, Buckie, Keith and all the rural communities, we get eight in total, yet we have a justice secretary who does not regret that. Pauline McNeill: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I am sorry— The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding. Douglas Ross: I know that. I do not have time. It has been telling that, even in my four minutes, the justice secretary would rather stay silent about the cuts than admit that. If she does not regret them, she should. 16:41”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I think that it is clear now that the cabinet secretary is not seeking to intervene. The member has only four minutes, and we are at two minutes 36 seconds. Douglas Ross: I am happy to use my time in this way, because the silence is telling. Angela Constance gave a speech in which she said that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about, but there is something to worry about. If our justice secretary in Scotland has no regrets over the number of police officers falling or the impact that that is having on local policing, that is an issue. It is an issue if SNP MSPs vote for an amendment tonight that deletes that point, because the cuts are having an impact.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I think that it is clear that the cabinet secretary is not seeking to intervene, so I suggest that you continue, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: I do not think that that is clear, which is why I am going to give the cabinet secretary another opportunity. She has taken a clear position to delete those words, which suggests that the SNP Government, along with every SNP member who supports the amendment, does not regret cuts to police officer numbers or the impact that they are having on local policing and local divisions. Because the cabinet secretary has moved the amendment in her name, I ask again: does this SNP justice secretary not regret the falling number of police officers in Scotland or the impact that that is having on local policing?”
“Why does the justice secretary and the SNP Government want to delete the sentence that says that the Parliament “regrets that cuts to police officer numbers have disproportionately fallen on local divisions, reducing the number of officers on the frontline”? Will the cabinet secretary explain her rationale for deleting that? We know that what it says about officer numbers is true, so does the SNP justice secretary not regret the falling number of police officers on the front line? Angela Constance is not looking at me and does not want to engage in a debate, but I am using my four minutes to offer a debate, so I ask the justice secretary again— Angela Constance: I will use my five minutes to sum up, as is my right. Douglas Ross: I am offering my time to the cabinet secretary.”