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 9 of 22.
“I am sorry that neither of them is in the chamber tonight, but I will relay the debate to them and highlight the issue again. We have a proposal from a campaign group that is made up of people who want to see a difference in their community. They have been met with challenges—their local surgery has shut down and they have come up with an alternative, but they continue to come up against obstacles from the Scottish Government, Moray health and social care partnership and others. A proposal from the group is sitting with the Scottish Government, but it has had no response. I urge the Minister for Drug and Alcohol Policy and Sport, after the debate, to go back to her officials in the health department to get a response for the save our surgeries Burghead Hopeman group. I have tried the same with the new chief executive of NHS Grampian.”
“I am always happy to accommodate Christine Grahame in any way that I can. I am delighted to contribute to the debate, which has been brought to the chamber by my friend and colleague Finlay Carson, who has ably articulated the problems in his constituency in the south of Scotland. I will take us up to Moray, in the north-east of Scotland, and talk about some of the problems that we are experiencing there. I could highlight many issues in the debate, but I will focus on just two. The first issue concerns the on-going campaign by the save our surgeries Burghead Hopeman group. I have raised this matter time and again in the chamber, and we have had meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests with respect to the Scottish Football Association and FIFA. I am delighted and thrilled to ask my question. To ask the Scottish Government how it will recognise the Scottish men’s national team qualifying for the world cup for the first time since 1998.”
“I was not surprised to see Humza Yousaf applauding, because he applauds anything—I remember when he was applauding a ferry being launched with painted-on windows. I was slightly more surprised to see the likes of Alasdair Allan, Karen Adam and Emma Harper, who are supposedly representatives of coastal communities, applauding the fact that their party’s policy is to take the fishing industry back into the CFP. Let me ask the representatives from the SNP whether—[Interruption.] Oh! I do not know what is going on over there. I have not even asked the question yet, and Emma Harper is throwing her arms up. I was going to ask whether members of the SNP can tell us what would be positive for their fishermen about rejoining the common fisheries policy. I will give way to Emma Harper if she can tell me that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call”
“I am delighted to contribute to this important debate about our fishing sector and the fishing industry. It is regrettable that it has taken two years for the Government to bring such a debate forward in its debating time. Perhaps that has happened because the Government does not have much that is positive to say about fishing in Scotland. It has a lot of complaints about other parties and other Parliaments on that subject, but not a lot to say about what it can do in Scotland— or, indeed, what it would do. One of the telling points in this debate has been the reiteration by the cabinet secretary that SNP policy is to take our fishermen back into the CFP. As though that statement were not bad enough, it was applauded by members on her back benches.”
“Our sectoral planning process for offshore wind seeks to avoid or minimise negative interactions between offshore wind development, the environment and other marine sectors such as fishing. It is vitally important that we continue to take an evidence- based approach and work together across all sectors to manage our marine space effectively, ensuring that the fishing industry can continue to thrive.”
“Scotland’s fisheries are already heavily regulated, with measures such as quotas, effort controls and technical measures providing a platform for fishing to operate responsibly and sustainably. Scotland’s fishers understand better than anyone the importance of safeguarding our seas for future generations. Their dedication, expertise and innovation are pivotal in delivering sustainable fishing in a healthy marine environment, both now and into the future. I understand the challenges that are facing the fishing industry and the concerns regarding the increasing pressure on marine space, including from offshore wind. The Government has a fundamental role to play in managing the marine space and in ensuring that the interests of all marine users, including our valued fishing sector, are properly considered.”
“Our fisheries management strategy is driving innovation and sustainability through measures such as remote electronic monitoring, vessel tracking and the future catching policy. We are also working towards more sustainable inshore fisheries through our inshore fisheries management improvement programme. We want to develop an agile framework for managing our complex inshore fisheries that is more flexible to the changing needs of the marine environment and our fishers and that can more easily deliver regionally distinct fisheries management measures. Scottish seafood remains among the best in the world, and strengthening the role that it plays in the global market is a key shared goal for Government and industry alike.”
“Is it not ironic that a group that was established to deal with the difficulties that the sector faced because of EU exit is once again being called to meet in the light of UK Government choices? In contrast, this Government will continue to do all that it can, within the powers that we have, to support the fishing industry and coastal communities. We have a strong record of supporting our marine sector through our marine fund Scotland. Since its launch in 2021, the fund has awarded more than £70 million in grants to 390 projects, enabling more than £150 million of investment. We can do much more, but that requires Westminster to listen and act on industry calls for a fair funding settlement.”
“To give Scotland a meagre 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund confirms that the UK Government simply does not care about our fishing industry. On Wednesday 22 October, I wrote to UK ministers to set out our serious concerns with the announced approach. There has been no reply to my letter. Our position is shared by key Scottish stakeholders, who have written jointly to the UK Government to call for the Scottish seafood industry action group to be reconvened to discuss this urgent issue alongside other concerns. I have written to the UK Government to echo those calls for the action group to be reconvened urgently, but, again, I have received no response.”
“Members who are present today will be aware of the recent UK Government’s announcement that it intends to allocate just £28 million of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund to Scotland. That is nothing short of an insult to our vital fishing industry and coastal communities. The UK Government must reconsider its approach and enter into discussions with devolved Governments and fishing industry leaders to agree a way forward that treats our industries and communities with the respect that they deserve. The Scottish fishing sector accounts for more than 60 per cent of the UK’s fishing capacity in seafood exports, and more than 75 per cent of all UK quota species are landed by Scottish vessels.”
“The cabinet secretary is speaking a lot about other parties’ policies on fishing. Will she confirm that it is still Scottish National Party policy to rejoin the European Union and the common fisheries policy? Mairi Gougeon: I am sure that members across the chamber are well aware of my party’s and the Government’s position, which was set out in a series of published papers. When Scotland becomes an independent country, we will rejoin the EU, we will be a key player in our marine environment and we will represent our fisheries sector, unlike the other parties. As I was saying, it should be noted that the agreement was reached between the UK Labour Government and the EU, with no discussion whatsoever with either the Scottish industry or the Scottish Government. It gets worse.”
“I reiterate that the Government’s spokesperson has confirmed that ministers have chosen not to comment rather than that they are legally prohibited from commenting. That is directly opposed to what the cabinet secretary told members repeatedly on Tuesday. What actions can we as back-bench members take to get truthful answers from Government ministers? Can Angela Constance be recalled to the Parliament to explain why she told us that she was legally unable to comment on a case that the Government has now confirmed that it is just choosing not to comment on? What further action can we take in the Parliament to get answers on this serious issue?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is now the third day in a row that I have tried to raise the issue of the court case between For Women Scotland and the Scottish Government. In relation to my previous two attempts, ministers have said that they absolutely cannot comment on a live on- going case. I do not believe that. I think that they actually can comment on a live on-going case. I understand that, after First Minister’s questions today, the First Minister’s official spokesperson confirmed on the record that it is a choice of the Government not to comment on the case that it has taken to court to try to get biological males to be imprisoned in the female prison estate. It is not a legal requirement that ministers cannot comment.”
“As ministers, we will consider what has been raised, and I will inquire with officials about whether and when an official ministerial response can be issued to Mr Ross on those matters. School Buildings (Asbestos) 3.”
“were inconsistent and lacking transparency” and that leaders who were part of the markers meeting spoke to people in “unprofessional” ways. I have tried time and again to get answers from the Government on the issue. Will the minister commit to going back to his department and asking for a full review of the 2024 higher history result? Markers are still raising concerns, and some of them will not take part in future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not relevant to the original question. However, if the minister has anything to add, I am happy to allow him to do so. Ben Macpherson: I appreciate that Mr Ross has put that on the record in the Parliament’s Official Report.”
“My supplementary question is on the bit of the question about the continued development of the curriculum. Exams play a role in that, in gauging not just how students have done but whether the curriculum has been set properly. I want to ask the minister about a Scottish Qualifications Authority report, “Exploring Perspectives on National Qualification Marker Recruitment, Retention and Experiences”, which is detailed in today’s Herald. It is about on-going serious concerns in relation to the 2024 higher history exam. In the report, markers have been critical about the exam, how it was set and how it was marked. Some markers are now “discouraged” from marking on behalf of the SQA. They say that “the standards ...”
“Keith Rollinson died in February 2024 after being brutally attacked while working as a bus driver in Elgin. His killer received a sentence of only four years and four months and his family have now been told, through the victim notification scheme, that he could be released as early as next year. Keith’s widow, Sue Rollinson, has called that “disgusting” and said that she feels “broken-hearted to think that Keith has not had justice”. She also said: “I don’t think he should be released early. We’ve been let down totally”. Sue Rollinson is right, is she not?”
“Obviously, the member has many ways in which he can seek to pursue the matter. Police Officer Numbers (Rural Communities) 3.”
“Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. In your ruling, you allowed the question in respect of peaceful protest. The minister has point-blank refused to answer any part of the question. Is that in order? These are serious matters that have repeatedly been raised in the chamber. Government ministers are refusing to answer the basic points that we need to hear being addressed in the chamber; they are also being asked outwith it, but we get nothing from them there. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Douglas Ross for his contribution. I am in charge of ensuring that question time runs smoothly and that supplementary questions relate to the principal question on the business bulletin. That is the point that I made to the minister. I am not in charge of how the minister chooses to respond—that is a matter for her.”
“We have seen peaceful protests outside the Parliament building by women’s groups who are urging the Scottish Government to finally respect the Supreme Court judgment. Instead, we get the Scottish Government going to court to argue that biological males should be sent to the female prison estate. In the 24 hours since we tried to get answers from Angela Constance and she refused to give them, has the Government sought any legal advice, or advice from its officials, about what it can say in Parliament, or does it simply not care about updating members and answering their questions? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please answer in relation to peaceful protest, minister. Siobhian Brown: I do not know how that relates to peaceful protest, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I will leave it at that.”
“In answer to the question that has been posed to me, the level of engagement between the Scottish Government and Historic Environment Scotland in relation to its problems of governance— Douglas Ross: What about you? Angus Robertson: Its problems of governance, as an arm’s-length organisation, are extremely serious. We are very closely involved in supporting Historic Environment Scotland, under the new chairmanship of its board, to ensure that it emerges from the challenges of its own making and is able to perform the functions that, I hope, all of us across the chamber believe are its core business. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I take this opportunity to remind all members that we have to listen to the member who has the floor and that we do not need running commentaries or heckling from sedentary positions.”
“I simply do not believe what the cabinet secretary has told the Parliament. However, if we are to believe his argument that he did not know anything about the requests, what action is he taking to investigate civil servants who have withheld information from a cabinet secretary? Does he believe that the reason why such requests have been withheld from him relates to the concerns—which we have heard from members of his party and of his Government—that he is a lazy minister who is not across the detail of his brief? Angus Robertson: I make it clear that I asked officials why they did not share the information with me. Although I understand their reasoning, I have been clear that, going forward, I am to be kept informed of any such requests in a timely fashion.”
“Since 2017, 50 deliberate fires have been recorded at Sunbank quarry in Lossiemouth. We need far greater punishment for those who are deliberately setting fires, because it is drawing away resources and is a huge concern. Jim Fairlie: There are a number of questions in there. I take on board the point about the restriction on the number of people who came to the round table. That was done deliberately, so that we could have a proper open discussion about what processes we would take forward, and I think that we did that. Douglas Ross also said that he would never be invited to a round table that I was hosting. [Interruption.] He is invited to the round table that I am holding this week—he has already been invited to that. [Interruption.]”
“It is not widely known that the helicopters that assisted in that wildfire were drawn upon only because of the insurance that was held by the estates; they could draw down on that insurance to use those helicopters. The minister mentioned reviewing insurance. We are hearing that insurers are unwilling or unable to provide cover for employees or equipment if employees are fighting fires on land owned by a third party. We need more than just a review; we need the minister to tell us what will happen to resolve the issue. At the same time that our firefighters were dealing with the wildfires on Dava and coming into Moray, we had more deliberate fires, particularly in Lossiemouth, draining away resources. What is the Government doing to tackle deliberate fires?”
“It is a welcome update from the summit, but I say gently to the minister—I exclude myself from this, because I know that I would not be invited to a summit with this minister—that there were certain estates and people within the sector who were bitterly disappointed that they were not included in the summit. I hope that the minister will consider that point. There is clearly an issue with capacity in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—it needed the help and support of many other organisations to get the fires under control. What consideration have the minister and the Government given to a dedicated wildfires unit in the SFRS? In his statement, the minister spoke about reviewing protocols for helicopters. Can we get more information on that?”
“The wildfires that we experienced in Moray and Highland in June this year were simply devastating. It is thanks to the heroic efforts of the Fire and Rescue Service, estate workers, gamekeepers, farm workers, forestry workers, volunteers and communities that they were brought under control. As I have said privately to both ministers, I believe that we were also lucky, as we got a downpour one night that put out most of the fires. At times, despite the heroic efforts, the fire was getting away from the professionals and those seeking to bring it under control.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to allow the member who lodged the question to complete her series of questions. However, in the cabinet secretary’s first response, Angela Constance said that she could not comment on the on-going case. Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 clearly allows the cabinet secretary to give full answers in the chamber today. Therefore, has the cabinet secretary misled Parliament? What action can we, as members, take to ensure that section 5 of the 1981 act is applied in the chamber? Given that ministers are freely able to answer those serious questions, I believe that the minister has misled Parliament by saying that she cannot do so.”
“Presiding Officer, I was not expecting to have to come in on this point of order, but I think that Tess White and I would certainly appreciate having from the chair the ruling that the understanding of the Presiding Officer of this Parliament is that section 5 of the 1981 act means that ministers are freely able to give full and substantive answers on the issue. We all saw the clip last week in which the First Minister told journalists that he could not comment on the case because it is a live case. That is not a defence; indeed, ministers are able and encouraged to comment on this live case. The Presiding Officer: The extent of my role, Mr Ross, is covered by rule 7.5 of standing orders. I direct the member’s attention to that with regard to admissibility. That is the extent of my role in relation to the matter. Business Motion 14:05”
“I did not hear that confirmation in the opening speeches; I hope to hear it in the minister’s closing speech. Presiding Officer, I will return the remainder of my time to you.”
“I see a case for allowing clinical expertise to shape that national investigation and to define its scope and timing. I am willing to allow the Government to go through that process if it can give us an assurance. The minister will be chairing the task force, so it is not simply a question of waiting for the task force to form a view. She will have a view in shaping the approach of the task force in the way that she leads it. I would like to hear from the minister in her closing speech a clear sense from the Government that it intends to use its leadership of the task force to ensure that the question of a national investigation, which is sought by members across the chamber, involves what the investigation will be and how it will be carried out, and not whether it will take place.”
“Those listening will have heard serious, thoughtful and informed debate, but they will also have heard a fair amount of political accusation and counter- accusation. I do not imagine that that is what they wanted to hear when they started listening. Staff, patients, inspection reports and documentaries have all brought to us the severe challenges that are felt throughout the system, as well as the many cases in which there have been unacceptable failings and the human impact on people in those situations. Our job—that of the Parliament and the Government—is to decide what to do about it. I have heard a very clear demand from across the chamber for a national investigation. I have not heard any reason to reject that on principle.”
“It is important and legitimate to reflect the fact that members can disagree in good faith on some of the delivery questions about the nature and design of services, and that they have a responsibility to speak up for their constituents, but a debate such as this one should not be about assigning blame. It should be about seeking to restore trust with those families and NHS staff who feel that they have been failed. A number of members spoke with professional expertise, as well as with deep compassion and personal experience. There are too many to mention, but I pick out Clare Haughey’s speech, which brought together those different elements. It is significant that we have someone chairing the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee who is able to do that. That kind of content and contribution should have characterised the whole debate.”
“Jackie Baillie might forgive me if I say that, on another day and on another topic, she is capable of party political point scoring as much as anybody is, but she clearly recognised that that was not the way to take forward today’s debate. A number of members have taken that approach. In fact, both Jackie Baillie and Neil Gray recognised the profound human impact on families who have been failed and our shared responsibility to them. As well as reflecting on issues in the inspection reports, the BBC documentary and their own case loads, members across the chamber have spoken up on behalf of people they have met, as well as reflecting on their personal experience and offering views on the overall provision of service in different parts of the country.”
“It should be the case that only those with lived experience can feed into it—the lived experience of the mums who, right now, might be travelling that treacherous 100-mile journey that takes more than two hours to cover, as they do battle with sightseers on the north coast 500 on the most important day of their lives. We should not expect them to face such a journey, which they sometimes do alone. I am grateful to the Government for supporting our amendment. It is a victory for the campaigners in the far north. It has been a long time coming—it has been far too long coming. 16:54 Patrick Harvie: In closing for my party, I begin where I started with my opening speech and recognise the tone that many members have struck in taking part in this debate.”
“There have been many examples of effective models that work in other remote and rural parts of the country, such as in Orkney or other parts of the Highlands and Islands. In agreeing to the amendment, the Parliament will have a responsibility to hold the Government’s feet to the fire. If we agree—as it seems we will do—to commission that independent review, that cannot be the last that we hear of it. The Government must, in short order, explain to the Parliament when the review will be commissioned, when it expects it to report, and how and by what means the campaigners and the communities of the far north can feed into it.”
“By agreeing to our amendment—as I am so glad that the cabinet secretary has signalled the Government will do—he will hand a victory not to the Scottish Liberal Democrats but to the campaigners, the patients, the mums and the midwives in the far north who have been crying out for an independent review for many years. I hope that, as the Government concludes the debate tonight, it will give us some detail on that review. It is clear that the Parliament will, by a majority, vote for our amendment. By so doing, it will instruct and commission an independent review into maternity services in the far north. I have never accepted that this issue presents a binary equation of either leaving mums unsafe in the far north or forcing them to come to Raigmore.”
“In her remarks, Jackie Baillie was right to touch on the many mums who, when they have completed that arduous journey, are turned away at the doors of Raigmore because of staffing and capacity pressures at the hospital. That sometimes increases their journey time to up to 12 hours, which comes with excessive waits and complications. All that Willie Rennie’s amendment asks for is that mums in the far north be offered the same consideration that was offered to those in Moray who, following an independent review of the kind that we are calling for, have now seen their access to a full spectrum of maternity services begin to return at Dr Gray’s hospital. Today, we are witnessing a welcome departure from the refusal and denial that traditionally come from SNP ministers. I welcome that. It has been a long time coming—nearly a decade.”
“What the Liberal Democrats have put in their amendment is extremely valuable, which is why the Conservatives support it. Is there also a need to look at Scotland’s neonatal transport service? It has three bases across the country, but the one that covers the north, including Caithness, might have its response team situated in Shetland or Tayside when it is needed in Moray or Caithness. Alex Cole-Hamilton: We need to consider provision for expectant mums in the round, so I welcome Douglas Ross’s intervention. There is also the case of Shelley Mowat, who in 2018 developed a potentially life-threatening blood clot as a result of the protracted journey that she faced to get to Raigmore.”
“I have made that point absolutely clear to NHS Grampian as well as to assurance board colleagues.”
“Time after time, they face chronic delays such as the one that that family has suffered. Neil Gray: I would welcome Douglas Ross’s sharing information with me in writing, if he can, about the situation that his constituent has faced, which, on the face of it, sounds as though it involved an unnecessary and unacceptable delay, for which I apologise. In response to Audrey Nicoll I set out the improvement plan that is in place to support the unscheduled care improvement that is required. Having made the point repeatedly in the chamber—in particular, to colleagues who represent the north-east—I have been very clear that the financial rigour that requires to be observed at NHS Grampian should not and must not get in the way of the improvements to patient care that I expect.”
“Too many of the NHS Grampian patients that I represent in Moray are not getting care when they need it. I have heard from a family whose husband and father suffered a heart attack at the weekend. He presented himself to A and E at Dr Gray’s hospital. He stayed in A and E for four days. There was standing room only. Patients were in beds in the corridors outside it. At one point on Saturday, there were six ambulances with patients in them outside A and E because there was no capacity to take them inside. That has been going on for far too long. While the Government is looking at the financial implications of the NHS Grampian recovery plan, what does the cabinet secretary say to that family and so many others who are not getting the care that they need and deserve—indeed, the care that the staff want to give them?”
“It has been a very successful scheme. We got £21 million out to farmers as soon as we possibly could, and we prioritised certain groups. It is a successful scheme, but it shows that, when we introduce other schemes, we have more targeted work to do to make sure that we get funding to as many people as possible. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to change positions. Health and Social Care National Health Service (Opinion Poll) 1.”
“Does the minister accept that people are suggesting, as that farmer from Lanarkshire did last night, that it feels as though it would have been as well selling raffle tickets for the fund rather than asking people to expend the extreme effort and time that was needed to make complex submissions that were ultimately unsuccessful? Jim Fairlie: I absolutely take on board Douglas Ross’s point. There are a number of disappointed people in the country—I made that point yesterday when I answered questions. I reiterate that AI was not used. One of the dangers of social media is that a mistruth can go around the world twice before the truth has got its laces tied. There was no AI used—let us be absolutely clear about that. The number of people who have not been successful is a reflection of the number of people who applied.”
“Fortunately, Presiding Officer, I spoke to a farmer from Lanarkshire last night, and she echoed many of the same concerns that I have heard from farmers across the Highlands and Islands. She was an applicant for the FFIS. She is a young farmer and a new entrant. She is a tenant on a small farm and was looking for only £3,000. Like those of many people, her application was unsuccessful. If AI was not used—that farmer thought that it had been used, and unsuccessfully—why has the scheme rejected so many people? Why were so many ineligible?”
“Although there is an awful lot of negativity, because people are disappointed—and I absolutely accept that people are disappointed— that demonstrates to me that we are on the right road and are trying to do the right things for our farming communities. I will continue to work as hard as I can to make sure that we continue to deliver for them, so that they can help us on that journey.”
“Will the minister provide a regional breakdown of the numbers of applications that were submitted and the numbers that were successful so that we can see the success rate in each constituency and region across the country? Jim Fairlie: I am absolutely happy to provide the information that Douglas Ross has asked for. On the point about a breakdown, we set out the scoring system and the funding that was available, but the scheme was massively oversubscribed. That goes back to the point that I made to Rhoda Grant. Farmers and crofters are clearly prepared to work with us, which is what we have been asking them to do, in order to meet our demands to reduce emissions, create biodiversity and be more efficient.”
“There will be winners and losers when any scheme comes to fruition, but I have been taken aback by just how many people have been angry and annoyed that they have been unsuccessful in this case because they are clearly part of the priorities of the scheme—they are young farmers, new entrants, tenants and island businesses. When the minister saw the provisional results, did he drill down to see why those priority groups were not successful? He has just told Parliament that 3,000 of the more than 7,000 applicants were not eligible. Did that information go back to the applicants? Most of the people that I have heard from were told just that they were not successful, and not that they were not eligible.”
“However, the issue divides opinions in the chamber, in our families and in our communities, so it is perhaps not surprising that the financial resolution is dividing opinions, too. 16:57”
“Douglas Ross: I accept that, but what was troubling me when Rona Mackay spoke earlier was the fact that—I am going to go out on a limb here—we know that the financial resolution is going to go through. The bill had a majority at stage 1, and I cannot imagine that anyone who supported the bill at stage 1 will not support the financial resolution. We already know the outcome of the vote, so what is wrong with those of us who opposed the bill at stage 1 voting against the financial resolution because we do not want resources to go to legislation that we do not believe in? That is the point that I am trying to make. In conclusion, I was not going to speak but I think that it has perhaps been helpful for members to put on record their views. I think that we know which way the vote is going to go.”