Willie Rennie
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“Daniel Johnson’s remarks were powerful, and he identified an issue that is sometimes uncomfortable and that we need to address. The country faces difficult issues, and we do ourselves no favours by ignoring those issues. Some of the points that Daniel Johnson made about immigration were right, and we need to discuss them.”
“Again, Daniel Johnson highlighted that when he talked about comments on “fighting- age men”, “strangers” and “two-tier policing”. We know what those terms mean and what they are appealing to. Thomas Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Willie Rennie: Yes, I will take an intervention from Mr Charmer himself.”
“I understand that a German company will now use the Dalzell plant as a jobbing mill, importing 4,000 tonnes of slab from a foreign supplier outside the UK instead of purchasing that slab from Scunthorpe. All that raises serious questions about an important part of the steel industry in Scotland.”
“It is important for the UK Government that there is learning from the process and that the circumstances of our Parliament—for example, when we re-form following an election—are not an afterthought in relation to the UK Government’s formulation of its approach to legislation and when it decides to introduce it.”
“So far, the Scottish Government has not been formally asked to provide support, but I advise the member and the chamber that the issue was part of my discussions with the UK Government minister yesterday. The legislation extends to Scotland, and the steel undertaking would capture the site.”
“Will that be repaid, and at what point? When will we have a proper functioning mill—the only wide-plate mill in the United Kingdom—at Dalzell? When will it have a constructive relationship with the Scunthorpe plant? All those issues should be at the front of the Government’s mind, but, as usual, it is not paying attention.”
The complete record
Every one of 861 lines we hold for Willie Rennie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 18.
“Again, Daniel Johnson highlighted that when he talked about comments on “fighting- age men”, “strangers” and “two-tier policing”. We know what those terms mean and what they are appealing to. Thomas Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Willie Rennie: Yes, I will take an intervention from Mr Charmer himself. Thomas Kerr: I have been called a lot worse in this chamber. On the point about watching our language, Mr Johnson forgot to mention the word “stranger”, which was interesting because, in May 2025, it was Keir Starmer who used the phrase “island of strangers”. Where was Mr Johnson’s faux outrage about that when he was banging on his desk? Is that outrage contingent on his comments being about Reform? Daniel Johnson: [Made a request to intervene.]”
“Daniel Johnson’s remarks were powerful, and he identified an issue that is sometimes uncomfortable and that we need to address. The country faces difficult issues, and we do ourselves no favours by ignoring those issues. Some of the points that Daniel Johnson made about immigration were right, and we need to discuss them. We should not be called racists just because we raise such issues—Daniel Johnson was right on the mark with that. Equally, we have a responsibility to address questions, whoever they come from and whichever party they come from, with dignity and respect, but with that comes a responsibility for those who ask the questions. We have been in politics for long enough, so we know about loaded language and the use of particular words in particular ways.”
“We recognise the sustained interest in the site, and we collectively want it to be a success. The legislation, as it relates to British steel and the broader strategic picture of the steel industry across the United Kingdom, provides an opportunity to contribute to a sustainable future for the Dalzell site.”
“So far, the Scottish Government has not been formally asked to provide support, but I advise the member and the chamber that the issue was part of my discussions with the UK Government minister yesterday. The legislation extends to Scotland, and the steel undertaking would capture the site. Willie Rennie: [Made a request to intervene.] Tom Arthur: It would appear that the member is poised to intervene. Willie Rennie: Was the minister aware that 4,000 tonnes of steel slabs would be coming from outside the United Kingdom and not from Scunthorpe? Did he know that it was going to be turned into a jobbing plant? Tom Arthur: The member is bringing information to my attention for the first time, and I appreciate his doing so. I will certainly follow that up with my officials following this debate.”
“All of us here, irrespective of our views on Scotland’s constitutional future, should be committed to upholding the rights of this Parliament and recognising the importance of the Sewel convention. As I have said several times, this process does not meet the highest standards, but—recognising the unique set of circumstances that we face—we have sought to move forward in a way that acknowledges the significant implications of the legislation and to work constructively in doing so. Mr Rennie raised a number of points about the Dalzell site. I confirm to him that we are keen to see the site restart. We continue to work closely with the GFG Alliance to understand how it can do that.”
“It is important for the UK Government that there is learning from the process and that the circumstances of our Parliament—for example, when we re-form following an election—are not an afterthought in relation to the UK Government’s formulation of its approach to legislation and when it decides to introduce it. Rachael Hamilton: The papers for this morning’s committee meeting stated that one of the reasons for the Scottish Government’s not supporting the LCM was that it was at risk of breaking the Sewel convention. Considering that the Scottish National Party is pretty obsessed with constitutional convention, does the minister now believe that the Sewel convention is intact? Tom Arthur: The Sewel convention is fundamental to the functioning of relations between the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.”
“Therefore, net zero is not just about our obligation to hand a better planet to the next generation; it presents a tremendous economic opportunity, which future generations would not forgive us for failing to seize. I recognise the points that Mr Harvie made regarding the process. As I said previously, it is not the process that we would have liked to see—the UK Government knows my views on that through the engagement that I have had with it. However, I have sought to engage in a pragmatic and constructive way, given the compressed timescales in which we are operating.”
“There is a sunset clause in the legislation, and UK ministers have the power to extend the legislation through the affirmative procedure, but that would obviously require a parliamentary vote. That is just a point of information in relation to the legislation—it will initially last for two years. I welcome the support expressed by Mr Massey, but I want to emphasise that the transition to net zero will be dependent on the steel industry, which will be crucial. There will also be an opportunity: whether it comes from electric arc furnace transition projects or grid reinforcement and improvement, there will be significant demand for steel because of the move to net zero.”
“However, it is a process in which we have sought to be pragmatic and get a constructive outcome. Mr Johnson was also correct to highlight the growing importance of national security and economic concerns. Today, we are marking 10 years since the Brexit referendum. When this Parliament first reconvened, it had been fewer than 10 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, but we recognise that we now occupy a very different world. National security and the economy are important concerns that occupy the attention of ministers and form an important part of our considerations when it comes to engaging with UK ministers. I will touch on the point that Rachael Hamilton made in an intervention.”
“Will that be repaid, and at what point? When will we have a proper functioning mill—the only wide-plate mill in the United Kingdom—at Dalzell? When will it have a constructive relationship with the Scunthorpe plant? All those issues should be at the front of the Government’s mind, but, as usual, it is not paying attention. 18:06 Tom Arthur: I am grateful to members for their speeches. I will be brief, because most of the substantive points have been covered. Daniel Johnson was absolutely correct to highlight the overlap of powers in relation to devolved and reserved functions, which contributed to some of the procedural complexity in this matter and led to, as Mr Harvie described it, a deeply inadequate approach, particularly with the compressed timescales.”
“I understand that a German company will now use the Dalzell plant as a jobbing mill, importing 4,000 tonnes of slab from a foreign supplier outside the UK instead of purchasing that slab from Scunthorpe. All that raises serious questions about an important part of the steel industry in Scotland. Therefore, while we are discussing this LCM, I want the minister to address the following questions in his conclusion. Why has the plant been dormant for two years? Given that a £7 million loan has been made to the company—to GFG Alliance, Liberty Steel and Mr Gupta—why has the Government allowed it to be dormant for two years? Why will the plant be used as a jobbing plant for slab that is purchased from outside the United Kingdom, rather than Scunthorpe? What will now happen to the £7 million loan from the Scottish Government?”
“For the same reasons as Daniel Johnson, I will support the legislative consent motion. However, if Ivan McKee will tolerate it, I will return to one of my favourite obsessions: the Dalzell steel plant in Lanarkshire, about which I have deep concerns because of recent developments that I hope the minister will address when he is summing up. As the minister says, it is an important part of the UK steel industry. The minister knows that the plant has been dormant since 2024, which is now almost two years ago. We were promised that Navantia would be rolling steel plate for the Royal Navy’s fleet support vessels, but because of problems in purchasing raw materials—the slab—production has been intermittent.”
“I hope that that work results in a sustainable future for our universities, because one thing is for sure: we cannot afford to repeat what has happened at Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and many other institutions throughout the country. Our staff deserve better.”
“When the Nigerian currency fell overnight, the Nigerian students stopped coming. Dundee was overexposed to the Nigerian market. We could have seen that coming; I had been warning for a long time about ever-riskier behaviour by universities. It was not helped by the UK Government. I accept David Barratt’s point that the UK Government exacerbated the problem, but overexposure to international students from riskier markets is not the future for our universities. I give the Scottish Government credit. The minister’s predecessor acknowledged that the funding system was broken. We now have the framework for the future of our universities, which no one has mentioned today. That is the way ahead for our universities. A cross-party and cross-sector approach is the solution. A lot of work has been done by those involved in the framework.”
“The situation at Dundee—although it is unique, it is not that unique—is a sign of a wider broken system. I accept that inflation and the war in Ukraine, which has driven up energy prices, have had an impact on universities, just as they have impacted many other businesses. I also accept that employer national insurance contributions have played a part. However, it is also a fact that the funding that the Government provides to pay for the tuition of domestic students at Scottish universities has fallen way behind the cost of providing that education. As Michael Marra said, that funding has been cut in real terms, which has, in effect, incentivised universities to take ever- riskier routes to find a source of income with margin—for example, international students from what are, sometimes, very risky markets.”
“I heard no one setting out new sources of income with margin that would allow for cross-subsidy for the areas that required extra support. This situation was therefore wholly predictable. Instead of complaining, the Government should come up with solutions. So far, though, I have heard a lot of heat but no solutions. None of that helps staff at the University of Dundee who are about to be made redundant and lose their jobs. I will always stand with them to make sure that they have a future. I was at the evidence sessions at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Just for the record, I do not think that Professor Gillespie has ever paid back any of his severance payment. I do not think that he was due that payment, because his leadership was shocking and led, in large part, to this circumstance.”
“For the past 10 days, I have received regular emails from my constituents who work at the University of Dundee. Those emails are full of pain and frustration about the uncertainty that has lasted for almost two years. The cloud has been hanging over their heads for far too long, and it has been intolerable. I have been working with them to find solutions. This week’s announcement was wholly predictable. I knew well in advance that £20 million-worth of cuts was coming; it was reported by the media. I was therefore surprised by the shock and horror that the Government ranks expressed when the announcement was made. Although I welcomed the Government stepping in at the beginning to make sure that the institution survived, that funding was only ever short term.”
“[Applause.] We will wait for around 20 seconds and then I will allow Mr Offord to ask his first question of the day. First Minister’s Question Time Party Leaders 14:00 Social Housing 1.”
“One thing that I explored with the teachers there was the question of managing the variety of needs in the classroom and in early learning settings. I assure Mr Rennie that that issue will be at the forefront of my mind as we take forward this work. The Presiding Officer: We are finishing general questions slightly early today, and one reason for that is that three of the 10 members who had questions did not actually lodge them. I hope that members will pay more attention to timescales so that they lodge their general questions, not only so that they can ask questions but so that other colleagues can come in with supplementaries. Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Hamish Cooper, High Commissioner of New Zealand.”
“Màiri McAllan: Mr Rennie should take confidence from the rollout of the 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare that the Government has already overseen successful delivery of. In his point about the propensity for additional support needs in our classrooms, Mr Rennie mentioned the statistic of four in 10. It is important to remember that a variety of needs are covered in those statistics, from lifelong medical conditions to transient but difficult things that a child might go through in their life, through to, for example, having English language needs. There is a broad range of children’s needs in that. This morning, I had a fantastic visit to St Sophia’s primary school in Galston.”
“The cabinet secretary knows that this is going to be difficult because, given that four in 10 pupils have an additional support need, schools are already struggling to cope with the massive demand that teachers face. There is a lack of back-up support from educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and the entire range of specialists that are needed to provide support. Are we drawing on lessons from schools to ensure that the rollout of after-school care and early years provision is taking that situation into account? So far, I do not have an awful lot of confidence that it is going to work, because we are not getting the approach right in schools.”
“The procurement framework for the work on the A9 was launched by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport earlier this month, and it sets out the broad provisions as we move towards the completion of the A9 over the next nine years. Rosyth Ferry Service 5.”
“There is some concern that the contracts will not deliver significant community and supply chain benefits. Can the minister set out what work has been done in that regard and say what lessons have been learned from the likes of the lower Thames crossing, which provides good examples of the delivery of such benefits? Tom Arthur: As I hope that Willie Rennie recognises, the framework under which procurement is governed in this country was very much ahead of its time when it was brought in and has stood the test of time with regard to issues beyond the delivery of the infrastructure—which is of course the central focus and concern—such as ensuring that significant investment of public money delivers community benefit and other lasting benefits.”
“I will support Graham Simpson’s amendment on multimodal ticketing. We should have had smart ticketing some time ago. People, particularly those in rural areas, who move from one bus to the next or even to the train require a much more simplified process. 15:57”
“I was looking at my speech and I am not sure that I used the phrase that he intimated I used. On the point about legislation regarding the £2 fare cap, that is indeed what we said in our manifesto. The better buses legislation is something that I will seek to work on with Mr Rennie and others to ensure that we can secure better services for people across Scotland. However, I do not think that I used the specific phrase that he mentioned. Maybe we can check the Official Report later. Willie Rennie: I am still not sure that that is very clear, because I am not quite sure what “better services across Scotland” really means. Maybe we will find out more when the cabinet secretary comes before the Transport Committee later this year and he can perhaps explain the position in full.”
“I do not know whether the cabinet secretary has an answer yet to the regulation point, but maybe we will keep on waiting. Is the cabinet secretary going to come back to me today or wait until he consults his officials? I am genuinely intrigued. As far as I am aware, we do not need legislation for the bus fare cap, so why are we introducing a bill if it is not for something more substantial? I think that an awful lot of organisations, such as Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, would welcome a simplified process that takes a shorter time than the seven years that it has taken to get to the stage that we are at now. If a simplified process is coming down the track, I would very much welcome that. Stephen Flynn: I took a little time to respond to the member’s point, because I think that he might have misheard me earlier.”
“Moffat & Williamson works well for its communities—it works with the council to fill in the gaps in services. That happens almost every year. Meanwhile, Stagecoach just chooses the routes that it wants. I want to urge a little bit of caution, because it was found from the English pilots on a bus fare cap that it did not represent particularly good value for money. The network support grant has been cut by about 31 per cent in real terms since 2012. I worry about us putting more money into a cap and concessionary fares. The effect of that could be that we shift support from rural areas to urban areas. Of course I am in favour of the cap and concessionary fares, but I want us to think carefully about how we use public funds in a time when public finance is restricted.”
“For people who live in Auchtermuchty and work in Perth, the bus route has been changed twice, and they now have to change bus several times in order to get to work. Many people simply cannot make it work. They have to get up extraordinarily early to make it possible to get to work. The bus companies just go around cherry picking. I have to say that Stagecoach is the worst, because it just picks the routes that it wants. It tries out routes and gets people to use those bus services, but once people have created new lives and new working patterns, it pulls the rug away from them in the following year. Meanwhile, the council has to come along and fill in the gaps, together with Moffat & Williamson, which is a very effective bus company. Not all the private operators are profiteers.”
“When the cabinet secretary described his new bus bill, I was intrigued by what he meant by one little line that he did not expand upon. He indicated that we might require legislation for the bus fare cap, but he also indicated that we could potentially need it in relation to regulation. Was he indicating that new legislation will be required to speed up the process? I am happy to take an intervention from him to hear whether that is what his intention is. Stephen Flynn: I will come back to the member on that. Willie Rennie: Okay—that is fine. It is intriguing in itself that the cabinet secretary is not able to answer that question straight away. For me, the issue is all about routes. In Fife, I experience the almost annual round of bus changes, which radically disrupts people’s lives. I will give an example.”
“Members do not need me to remind them of this fact, because I am sure that the public have made them very well aware of it over the course of the election campaign, but concessionary bus travel— the bus pass—has been one of the many success stories during my party’s time in office. It was a choice that we made and one that the public have chosen to embrace. Members do not even need to take my word for it—all they have to do is look at the numbers. In 2025, some 113 million journeys were taken by those who qualify for a bus pass due to disability or by virtue of being slightly more senior than others. For our young folk, we have today celebrated 300 million journeys using the free bus pass over the past four years.”
“Central to that pitch was saying to the public that the transport on which they rely needs to be affordable, reliable—as Mr Rennie outlined—and enjoyable. Right now in Scotland, 73 per cent of all public transport journeys are made by bus. Those journeys are people going to work, to school, to college, to university, to the doctor, to visit family, to see friends, to pop down to the shops or maybe even to see the football on a Saturday afternoon. To many, our buses are not just a matter of convenience; they are the only option. That is why we have acted decisively in the past and why we will continue to do so throughout this session of Parliament.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Stephen Flynn: On that note, I am happy to give way to Mr Rennie. Willie Rennie: I do not disagree with what the cabinet secretary says. However, does he also recognise that people in my constituency and in many other constituencies complain about the lack of bus services altogether, and they want routes developed into more communities so that they can go to work on time, when they are expected to be there? Stephen Flynn: I thank Mr Rennie for his intervention; I will come to address those points during my speech. To return to my speech, that is why, in the election just five short weeks ago, the Scottish National Party put tackling the cost of living crisis at the very front of our renewed pitch to the public.”
“I am more than happy to work with colleagues who are here today to make that possible. I invite members to work with me, give me their positive ideas and ensure with me that our public services continue to meet the expectations and needs of the people of Scotland. I move, That the Parliament welcomes that the Scottish Government’s Public Service Reform Strategy centres on the importance of prevention in the development of public services; believes that it is vital to empower staff, service users and local communities to be part of the design and delivery of services that meet the needs of the people of Scotland, and agrees that the delivery of excellent and sustainable public services should be the goal of public service reform, rather than the preservation of existing corporate structures. 15:27”
“That is why efficiency is a core part of public service reform—tackling duplication; sharing services across organisations; making better use of data, digital tools and our public estate; and being honest about where we can improve. That is why we have set ambitious targets. Every pound that is saved through doing things better is a pound that we can invest in care, education and communities. That is not something that the Government can do alone. Partnership is required with public bodies, local government, trade unions, businesses and communities—and across parties. Everyone will want to provide excellent public services. Every party recognises the need for change— although, to be fair, in their amendments, some have articulated that more coherently than have others. The Parliament can come together to deliver the change that is needed.”
“Public service reform is also very important in unlocking improvements through empowering the staff who work in our services and who know them best to come forward with ideas to make those services better and their work more fulfilling. I will be clear: a culture that does not empower staff, and leaders who do not see that as central to their role, must change. Organisations that are excessively hierarchical, with multiple layers of management, and stifling to innovation, need to change. We will work closely with our trade union partners to deliver that change. No one who uses or works in public services would say that they are as streamlined or seamless as they should be. Everyone can identify waste in the system.”
“Our democracy matters work has shown that there is a real appetite for people to have more control and influence over how services are designed and— importantly—how money is spent. Service delivery must also adapt to meet the unique needs of rural, island and urban areas. Our single-authority model, working with island communities, is leading the way on how integration of services locally can improve service delivery. By empowering communities further, we will build capacity in all our towns, villages and neighbourhoods to do more, making public services more agile, responsive and accountable to the people that they serve.”
“That is laid out, with more than 80 actions, and we are moving forward on all of those, because it is important that they come together as we take the agenda forward. The empowerment of communities is critical to our agenda—communities coming together to address the unique needs and challenges of their local area; working hand in hand with the public sector in bringing new ideas and fresh thinking on how to deliver better services and improve people’s lives; taking ownership and stewardship of lands and buildings, thanks to legislation from the Government; and being partners in how services are designed, making sure that they are focused on what is important to people locally.”
“I agree with all of that, but it sounds as if the cabinet secretary is trying to run the whole of Government by himself. Can he give us an idea of how he is going to prioritise? If he does not do so, I think that he is going to get lost. Ivan McKee: I thank the member for his comments. He can rest assured that all my Cabinet colleagues are 100 per cent on board with this important agenda and the First Minister has his weight behind it. We have the strategy, which lays out everything that needs to be done across 18 workstreams. People have asked why there are so many workstreams—as many as 18—and the reason is precisely that, as Mr Rennie identifies, there is an awful lot of work to be done here across a very broad front.”
“I look forward to engaging with the report, and to engaging with Willie Rennie and all other interested members about the future of SRUC, particularly with regard to the Elmwood campus. Business Support 5.”
“The minister will know that Professor Sir Ian Boyd has been commissioned by the board of SRUC to produce a report into the future of the institution in north-east Fife and Cupar for the longer term—a vision that has been long awaited. That report has now been handed over to the board. When it is published, will the minister and the Government get right behind it and make sure that it turns into reality? Ben Macpherson: As Willie Rennie referred to, the report by Professor Sir Ian Boyd will be shared publicly, alongside SRUC’s response, after its board meeting later this month. As Willie Rennie will do, the Government and I will consider that report carefully.”
“Frank Ross, who is the former provost of Edinburgh, Allison Graham, Cynthia Guthrie and a former competitor of mine, Douglas Chapman, who was the member of Parliament for Dunfermline and West Fife and who was the party treasurer—all of them resigned. All of them raised the alarm. We understand that the issue at the beginning was about whether the £600,000 was spent on independence or elsewhere, but all those people at the centre of it wanted to see the books. They were denied the opportunity to do their duties and to carry out their functions. If that is how they were treated by the First Minister of the country, that is surely a matter for the Parliament to inquire about. That is surely our responsibility, because it has massive ramifications. In recent days, Douglas Chapman has not said—”
“People understand that the matter is serious, and they understand that it is incredibly impactful on Scottish politics. The SNP should take this seriously, because, as well as affecting the body politic, first and foremost, it is affecting the SNP. There have been a number of failings, including the lack of curiosity that we have heard about repeatedly, as well as—this is more central to the operation of Government—the inability to listen. The inability to listen transfers across into how this country is governed. There was an inability to listen to people who protested, who raised the alarm and who raised concerns. We see that concerns were raised well before any police inquiry and that they were raised by people who were senior and respected members of the SNP. However, those people were dismissed and ignored.”
“However, that is not what today’s debate is about. It is about professional failure—it is professional failure, over a large number of years—and the professional failure of Nicola Sturgeon, as leader of the SNP and the First Minister of the country. As SNP leader, she had fiduciary duties—I know, because I was leader of my party for 10 years and I took those duties incredibly seriously. Irrespective of the personal tragedy, therefore, this is first and foremost a professional issue. Following all this, we cannot allow the matter to be swept under the carpet. What we are seeing from the SNP is an attempt to dampen it down, make it go away, ignore it and move on. In my advice surgeries over the weekend, this was the first and only thing that people wanted to talk about. This has cut through.”
“I pay tribute to Amanda Bland for her first contribution in the chamber—I will listen closely to her future contributions as we progress through this session of Parliament. I am a bleeding-heart liberal. I believe that the matter that we are debating today is a personal tragedy, and I understand the pain that many people feel. I understand that Nicola Sturgeon is hurting deeply with the breakdown of her marriage. I understand that it is a personal tragedy for party members in the SNP who worked really hard to raise a lot of money for a cause that they deeply believe in. I understand all of that. In fact, it is a personal tragedy for Peter Murrell, as well—he is in prison now; we do not know what is going to happen next. It is a personal tragedy for all those people and, in the circumstances, we need to think of those personal tragedies.”
“Let us have consistency, so that businesses know what is expected of them, rather than having constant change, depending on which way the political winds are blowing. We need pragmatism and an approach that works. The Government has various levers that it can use effectively. In an excellent contribution, Lloyd Melville highlighted exactly the power of procurement. That covers housing and all the areas around education and universities. All of those are great political levers, so let us use all of them to grow the economy of this country, because, together, by hunting for agreement, we can get economic growth to help the very people in Buckie that Karen Adam talked about. 17:17”
“I recently went down to see Babcock in Rosyth. There are 3,000 workers there now, and the place is absolutely buzzing. When I was the MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, at the height of the construction of the aircraft carriers, Babcock had 1,500 workers. The number is double that now, and we should celebrate that. Good young apprentices are getting good jobs that contribute to the defence of this country. That is an important factor. We need defence in this country, so we should celebrate the fact that Scotland has many great defence businesses and we should support them. We should say loudly and clearly that we are with them. The next point is about energy. We have flip- flopped all over the place on that, depending on what the international challenge is—whether it is on price, security or the climate.”
“Let us not be squeamish about profit and let us recognise that we cannot achieve growth by ourselves. Government is not all-powerful. The private sector is playing an important role in delivering economic growth, so let us work together in partnership and have strategies that work together. The next change of approach that we require is to accept—sometimes, this Parliament has not accepted this—that work is a good thing. People should be striving towards working. There is no shame in the fact that some people cannot work, but, if people can work, they should work. People should pay taxes, because that is good for society, and they should participate in society. The next point—about which, again, this Parliament has had some blind spots—is that people feel a bit squeamish about certain sectors.”
“They do not have time to look through every single press release that the Government issues to find out whether it is about real change, a repeat of a previous statement or spin of a previous announcement that does not mean anything different from what has been agreed before. Let us have a bit of boring predictability, so that businesses know what is expected of them and can get on with what they do best, which is running their businesses, rather than trying to second- guess what the Government is doing. The second point, about which Daniel Johnson was absolutely right, is that we should not be squeamish about profit. Profit is a good thing. When my dad was in business, profit was invested right back into the business to grow it and provide a better service for the community.”
“Karen Adam was right: it is about how people feel that really matters—the people of Buckie want to feel better. The fact that only half of the electorate turned out to vote in the recent election was a clear indication that they did not think that this place was working for them. We need to do better, no matter what the stats say, because the stats are used only to try to prove that we are right politically, not to benefit anybody’s life. We should focus on making an improvement and a change in approach will be required. First, detail matters. I am increasingly convinced that the glitzier the offer, the less convincing it will be, and the less meaningful in delivering change. The minister was right when he highlighted predictability and certainty. Daniel Johnson alighted on that as well. Businesses want to know what is expected of them.”
“I welcome Stephen Flynn to his new position. If the chamber is good enough to elect me as convener of the Transport Committee, I will look forward to his coming before that committee. Transport will be a key part of growing the economy, so I look forward to the partnership approach that we will, I am sure, be able to endeavour to take. One thing that frustrates me about debates on the economy is that each person trades in their own statistics. We should agree that we can all pick stats that favour our argument over another. We can show that the rest of the UK is better than Scotland, or that Scotland is better in the UK, or best in the world or best in the universe; I am not sure which way it is or how that benefits us at all. What is most important is that we recognise that we need to do better.”