David Torrance
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“That brings me to Square Go Films, which is another brilliant example that comes from Fife. Square Go Films is a Kirkcaldy-based production company whose team has built a reputation through independent feature making, podcasting and a lively, community-driven presence in Scottish film culture.”
“In 2025 and 2026, the studio’s work was recognised by Rondo Hatton classic horror awards, which included special recognition for its contribution to independent horror. The Hex story is about as local as it gets.”
“With the B-team, a community-facing initiative around independent horror and direct-to-audience filmmaking, a production house, a training ground and a community built around classic cinema venues, Hex Studios has gained recognition for reviving Amicus Productions.”
“I thank Alyn Smith for securing this debate. The motion recognises something that is truly worth celebrating—Scotland’s screen sector is growing and it is doing so in places that we might not expect, such as Kirkcaldy and across Fife, where creative ambition, technical skill and local pride have been turned into real films, real jobs and…”
“Its founding team includes Lawrie Brewster and Sarah Daly, and the project was described at the time as not just a production space but a grass-roots movement with real creative intent. Hex’s story is a reminder that success in film, as in so many other areas of life, often begins with courage.”
“The motion recognises that Scotland’s screen sector is a living network of people and places, from national institutions such as Creative Scotland and Screen Scotland, to local offices and studios in Fife and individual makers with a vision and the determination to pursue it.”
The complete record
Every one of 188 lines we hold for David Torrance, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“I support amendment 51, which will ensure that the report on the Scottish education system’s performance will include an overview of the inspection findings that are published in that period. That will mean that information is provided about, for example, the performance of the schools that have been inspected. That also addresses the intention behind amendment 48. I also ask Mr Kerr not to move amendment 52, which I do not believe to be necessary. Section 39(2) of the bill will allow the chief inspector to determine the “form of each report” on the Scottish education system’s performance. We do not need to qualify that, despite the addition of amendment 51, because the rule in section 39(2) is about the report’s format and not its content. I move amendment 46.”
“I am happy to support Mr Greer’s amendments in the group. I will leave him to speak to the detail, but the committee discussed very similar amendments at stage 2 and at that time it was agreed that those should be pursued at stage 3 in order to get the wording right, which I believe his amendments now do. I turn to Mr Kerr’s amendments in the group. I note that we discussed the provision in amendment 48 at stage 2. I thought that we had agreed that the right place for information about relevant educational establishments’ performance is the report that will be produced on the Scottish education system’s performance, which is set out under section 39. I ask Mr Kerr not to move amendment 48, because his amendment 51 is preferred.”
“Amendment 45 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 20 is on reports of the chief inspector. Amendment 46, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 242, 243, 48, 244, 245, 51, 52 and 246. Jenny Gilruth: My amendment 46 will adjust section 37(1A), which was introduced at stage 2 by Pam Duncan-Glancy. As we know, there are establishments in Scotland that offer qualifications such as A-levels, and I do not believe that it is the intention to restrict the provision to teaching or training on qualifications Scotland qualifications only. My amendment will therefore ensure that regard will be given to representations that are made by those who represent teachers or college staff without any limitation on where they teach. I believe that that will better capture Ms Duncan- Glancy’s intentions on that point.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 46, Against 67, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 241 disagreed to. Section 37—Reports on inspections Amendment 45 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. David Torrance: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I still cannot connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Torrance. We will make sure that that is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 47, Against 69, Abstentions 0.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide details of its engagement with stakeholders on violence prevention during its youth violence summit on 12 June. (S6O-04846)”
“Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to change position. Economic Performance (A Better Deal for Taxpayers)”
“How are rapid cancer diagnostic services helping to speed up treatment and improve outcomes for people across Scotland? Jenni Minto: A report published by the University of Strathclyde in February 2024 found that the services are achieving what they set out to do, which is to find cancer, while delivering at speed a high standard of quality care, and that the overall median time from RCDS referral to diagnosis was 14 days. To date, we have established six successful rapid cancer diagnostic services, significantly reducing the time taken from referral to diagnosis for people with non-specific symptoms of cancer. Our sixth RCDS was launched last month in NHS Forth Valley. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it anticipates that NatureScot will complete its review of the bird species in schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. (S6O-04805)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded.”
“What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact that recent changes by the Scottish Funding Council to funding allocations will have on the ability of Fife College to deliver high-quality education and training opportunities?”
“I ask ministers to listen to the people across the country, but especially the people in Balloch, who are demanding that they save Loch Lomond and end this saga. The Presiding Officer: I call Craig Hoy. We have a little time in hand, so you have a very generous four minutes, Mr Hoy. 16:49”
“Before I close, I will touch on the economic issues that have been raised. We are not talking about an economic opportunity for the area; it is an opportunity for a private developer to extract wealth from the local area. The existing businesses in the area are overwhelmingly small businesses owned by local residents who reinvest their profits in the area. As Flamingo Land’s economic impact assessments have shown over the past decade, it would put many of those businesses out of business. That would cost local jobs, and their profits would disappear from the community. I am really proud of the save Loch Lomond campaign and everything that we have done to prevent Flamingo Land over the past decade. It has tried to drag things out and exhaust us, using its deep pockets, but the community has never given up. The stakes are simply too high.”
“However, we want to see development at that particular part of the site. On the other hand, there is simply no way to develop at scale on the west riverside. It is a flood plain and the ground is contaminated. Any work that could be done to compensate for the flood risk would resurface the contaminants, which are only 25cm below the surface, as Flamingo Land confirmed in its impact assessment. The point about developing on some parts of the site but not all of it relates to Bob Doris’s issue with the local development plan and how out of date it is. The site should never have been packaged together as a single site for development. It is between two and five separate sites, which should have been considered individually, with different invitations being made to developers.”
“It is not the case that we want to see no development whatsoever on the site. There should absolutely be redevelopment at Woodbank house, which is a grade A listed building, as David Torrance mentioned. It was only at the appeal stage, in Flamingo Land’s written submission to the reporter, that we found out that redevelopment of Woodbank house was to be the last part of a 10-year construction process. Flamingo Land did not disclose that to the community or, as far as we are aware, to the national park authority when the application was initially considered. Members may call me cynical but, given the developer’s behaviour so far, I sincerely doubt that it will ever get round to the redevelopment of Woodbank house, because it is not the part of the site that it would profit from the most.”
“That is not something that the reporter did. The reporter was within their rights to look purely at written submissions and to do an individual or sole private site visit. However, they did not even speak to the national park’s expert planning officers. I think that they badly misunderstood the incredibly valuable contribution that that expert team made, and I urge ministers to engage with that team in particular. The community needs to be heard, too. It has attempted to develop alternatives for various parts of the site over the past decade, but it has essentially been locked out because Flamingo Land has an exclusive agreement with Scottish Enterprise for the whole site, apart from the parts that it already owns. I ask ministers to outline the process that they will take as soon as possible in order to give the community confidence.”
“Frankly, any field that has had a bus stop in it at any point in the past century could essentially have no protections from flooding. On nature, we simply cannot compensate for the loss of ancient woodland. However, as Bob Doris laid out, the reporter granted the application on the basis that it is possible, at Drumkinnon wood, to compensate for the loss of ancient woodland elsewhere. The Woodland Trust, in both its written submission and its contribution to the hearing, spelled out in incredible detail why we simply cannot do that. By the very nature of ancient woodland, we cannot, for example, compensate for it with new plantings. I ask ministers to ensure that, as part of their consideration of the application, they are inclusive of all the parties that have been involved in the process up to now.”
“NPF4 includes specific exemptions from flood protections for previously developed land, and exemptions in planning are narrow by default. The interpretation is the broadest possible interpretation of that particular exemption, and the reason is that part of the site had a railway line on it more than 40 years ago. As anyone who has been there knows—any local will certainly know this—it has been a park for decades. It is not developed land, and it is not land that we intended to exempt from the flood protections when the four specific exemptions were included in NPF4. As part of the process, ministers will need to clarify how the exemptions from the flood protection provisions in the planning framework are to be used.”
“I want to elaborate on that, because it is one of the key issues that ministers now need to consider. The national park board cited two key grounds for refusal of the application: flood risk and net loss of nature and biodiversity. The protections in relation to both of those grounds were strengthened by this Parliament in NPF4 just two years ago, and the reporter’s interpretation is simply not what the Parliament thought that it was voting for. On flood protection, if the reporter’s interpretation was applied nationally as the precedent, it would in effect exempt vast amounts of land from those protections. That was not the Parliament’s intention, and it was certainly not the national park’s understanding of that part of the national planning framework.”
“Their engagement with statutory bodies, including SEPA, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and local authorities, will ensure that every technical and local concern is rigorously evaluated. We are here to support responsible development, we believe in sustainable tourism and we stand for a planning system that is built on fairness, justice and long-term care for our country. Recalling the Lomond Banks appeal reflects those values, and it shows that Scotland is serious about protecting our most iconic places and making the planning system work for people and nature. The Presiding Officer: We move to the winding-up speeches. 16:43 Ross Greer: I said in my opening speech that one of the reasons why it was right to recall the application is the precedent that it sets for the whole planning system.”
“I very much welcome yesterday’s announcement confirming that the appeal regarding the Lomond Banks proposal has been recalled by the Scottish ministers. It is our duty not merely to weigh the merits of the planning application in isolation but to consider its wider consequences for the natural world, future generations and Scotland’s national identity. It is vital that our planning system earns and keeps the public’s trust. People need to know that their views matter, that environmental concerns are being heard and that planning decisions are always fair, open and unbiased. Recalling the appeal is about ensuring exactly that. The escalation to ministers for thorough reassessment will allow fresh consideration of environmental safeguards, flood risk management, infrastructure capacity and community sentiment.”
“Although my constituency sits many miles from the banks of Loch Lomond, the response there has been just as ardent. I have received countless emails from constituents, which universally express outrage at and condemnation of the proposals. I strongly believe that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site that would have a disproportionate impact on the landscape and the environment. There could be a sympathetic planning application that would lead to the restoration of the grade A-listed Woodbank house, which is a central feature of the site that is on the buildings at risk register, in addition to the reuse of other listed buildings on the site, but I do not believe that this is the application to do that.”
“It embodies Scotland’s spirit: resilient, welcoming and proud. It is fair to say that the proposed Lomond Banks development by Flamingo Land Ltd has drawn considerable public attention since the application was first submitted. Eliciting a record 155,000 objections that raised significant and wide- reaching concerns, it ignited a wave of concern that extends far beyond Scotland’s shores. Tens of thousands have spoken out—locals and environmentalists alike—all driven by a deep love for one of the most iconic landscapes in the world. Their voices all echoed the shared truth that Loch Lomond is much more than just a place; it is a symbol of natural beauty, heritage and national pride. This passionate response shows just how deeply people care and why the area must be safeguarded for future generations.”
“Loch Lomond, which is the largest inland stretch of water in Great Britain by surface area, has long held a cherished place in the heart of Scotland’s natural and cultural heritage, and nowhere can that be seen more than in the loch’s immortalisation in the traditional Scottish ballad “The Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond”—a poignant song that has become a proud symbol of Scottish identity worldwide. The loch’s natural beauty is unparalleled. With more than 30 islands dotting its vast expanse and the majestic Ben Lomond rising from its eastern shore, the scenery captivates visitors all year round. Rich woodlands, tranquil waters and diverse wildlife create a haven for outdoor enthusiasts, nature lovers and artists. However, Loch Lomond’s importance goes beyond tourism and natural splendour.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on planning and to respond to the motion on the Lomond Banks development at Balloch. The proposal from Flamingo Land Ltd would undoubtedly bring a significant leisure and tourism development to Balloch but, although investment and tourism are always welcome, we have to ask ourselves what kind of development we want in our national parks and what we are willing to sacrifice in the process. Scotland’s planning system must balance development and investment with our commitments to leadership on the climate, biodiversity and the integrity of our natural environment.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its assessment is of the impact on Scotland’s economic growth of the increase in employer national insurance contributions. (S6O-04774)”
“To ask the Scottish Government when the constitution secretary last met, and will next meet, with United Kingdom Government ministers. (S6O-04739)”
“If we get it right, I believe that that approach can have a transformational effect on the work of the Parliament and, most importantly of all, on the relationship that the people of Scotland have with their Parliament, and their trust and involvement in it.”
“We have spoken a lot about deliberative democracy in the form of people’s panels this afternoon so, before I conclude, I will come back to the other part of our report’s title, and indeed that of the debate: “embedding”. If panels are to reach their full potential and deliver in the way that we hope they can, they cannot be a “nice to have” or an afterthought to other work; they must be fully embedded in the work of the Parliament. I have already spoken a bit about what that might mean for committees that want a panel to support their scrutiny work; it also means that panels should be embedded in the Parliament’s wider work, looking at participation, engagement and effective scrutiny. All those aspects of our work should complement and support each other.”
“In session 5, the Local Government and Communities Committee did just that—it used an online deliberative platform to understand public priorities in community wellbeing, which led to post- legislative scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The final area for further development that I will highlight involves tracking the impact and outcomes of panels, in relation both to scrutiny impact and to the impact on participants over time. Tracking impact over time is a long-standing challenge. In the context of scrutiny, it has come up as part of the evidence that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard during its committee effectiveness inquiry. There are no easy answers, but it will be important for panels to reflect any applicable recommendations from that committee’s inquiry in their approach.”
“The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee used such an approach in 2023 to empower participants from the whole family equality project to put questions to the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees as part of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny. I note that, in the debate of 22 May on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, there was an emphasis on the need for committees to spend more time on the careful development of their work programmes and scoping inquiries. The issue of reflecting the interests of the public was also raised.”
“How much do those bodies connect, collaborate and share information on how they use deliberative methods, and how might we balance our ability to be a role model to those bodies with our need to carry out scrutiny of how Scotland’s public services are being delivered? Another area for further development is understanding how we might increase the use of deliberative models on a smaller scale, outside the people’s panel model. With a new session on the horizon, committees should be using the full range of tools that are available to them. I will give two examples of past work on which they might build. We have already seen a precedent for using deliberative work to involve people in the Parliament’s budget scrutiny process.”
“We know from the evaluation that, when people take part in a panel, most of them will feel enthused about the work of the Parliament and their role in it afterwards. Not everyone can take part in a panel, but finding ways to work with participants to spread their increased knowledge and confidence more widely will ensure that the resources that are invested in people’s panels have the greatest possible impact. As Scotland’s national Parliament, we are one of its most high-profile public organisations. We are well connected to other legislatures that are using deliberative approaches, and we know from those connections that we are somewhat ahead of the game. We might consider, therefore, our role among Scotland’s public bodies.”
“The breadth and balance of evidence should take account of different kinds of expertise including specialists, advocates and those with lived experience.” Our report and blueprint also set out areas where we think that there is potential to further develop our approach to people’s panels. Continuing to innovate and evaluate is an important part of the approach that we have set out, and we are clear that there should be further consideration at the end of session 7 of what the approach should be for session 8 and beyond. One key area involves finding effective ways to harness the enthusiasm that people feel when they take part in a panel in order to give them the confidence to engage with Parliament more widely, and to increase their enthusiasm for doing so.”
“Their work not only helps us to be sure that we are guided by solid principles and meet best practice standards, but supports innovation and continuous improvement and helps us to communicate and extend our reach. With regard to delivery of the panels, the principles that the blueprint sets out underline some of the key elements of a panel, which include randomised selection, robust safeguarding and reducing barriers to participation. The principles also make it clear that the high quality of panels must be maintained. Crucially, the principles also set out that “The question chosen and evidence given to Panels should meet high standards of transparency and legitimacy.”
“That does not mean that committees are obliged to accept all the recommendations that a panel makes, but they should give the work of the panel proper consideration. With only one panel being convened per year, it is vital that committees make the best possible use of that resource. Again, officials will ensure that committees have the information, tools and resources to do that. Principles for topic selection are set out in the blueprint and are based on criteria that were developed by Professor Stephen Elstub during his academic fellowship with the Scottish Parliament. Professor Elstub was the first of several academics to undertake fellowship projects and evaluation contracts, and I extend my thanks to all the academics who have supported the development of the blueprint.”
“Those cover how the panels should be used to support committee work, how topics should be selected and how panels should be delivered. The blueprint is clear that “The primary purpose of People’s Panels is to contribute to informed and evidenced scrutiny”. We have heard today some fantastic examples of how panels have contributed to scrutiny so far. If the Parliament endorses the blueprint, officials will use the knowledge that has been gathered from the panels to date to ensure that committees in session 7 have the tools and the information that they need to get the most out of people’s panels. The blueprint also sets out the expectation that committees will give a considered response to recommendations from a panel and make the fullest possible use of panel recommendations in their own scrutiny work.”
“Although, as I have said, this debate is in some ways the culmination of the committee’s work, it is hoped that it is also just the start of the next phase of the Parliament’s approach. Should the Parliament agree to the motion, officials will prepare for four panels to take place in session 7, in line with the approach that is set out in the blueprint. I want to use my time this afternoon to speak more about the future of that work and how it will evolve. The blueprint sets out a number of principles for best practice in deliberative work, notably that the process should be transparent and that deliberative approaches should support scrutiny. It also sets out more detailed principles for the use of people’s panels.”
“They both made the point that we must look to ourselves when it comes to the decline in trust in politicians. Martin Whitfield spoke about further developing proposals and said that continuous improvement and innovation are an important part of what our committee wants to see. Evelyn Tweed spoke about a targeted approach for marginalised groups and communities. One of the benefits of embedding people’s panels would be that that would also embed and renew our skills of facilitating deliberative events, so that we can use them in a range of participation approaches. That also touches on points that Oliver Mundell and Christine Grahame made about ensuring that we continue to seek ways to engage with the widest possible range of people across committees’ scrutiny work.”
“On Christine Grahame’s point about reaching people who had not engaged at all previously, we know that at least one of the members of the panels had never voted before and yet took part in the panel and not only engaged with the process but has continued to engage with the parliamentary process, as can be seen by their presence in the public gallery today. On Stephen Kerr’s point about the extent to which a group of only 25 people can have a positive impact on the wider disenchantment with politics, as the convener said, panels are not the only answer but they play an important role. As for the rest of Stephen Kerr’s 15-minute speech, I was waiting on him bringing out his Reform Party membership. My committee colleague Maurice Golden made important points about trust in politics, a theme that was also picked up by Maggie Chapman.”
“That is summed up in this comment, which we received from a member of one of the panels: “I would strongly recommend anyone who is selected to go on a People's Panel in the future to participate as it is a great experience and a unique opportunity.” There is also clear evidence that members of the panels found that the process increased their understanding of the work of the Parliament. One said: “Interacting with diverse individuals, listening to their views and challenges gave me an overall perspective about the democratic process.” In this afternoon’s speeches, Jackson Carlaw, the minister Jamie Hepburn, Maggie Chapman and Foysol Choudhury all highlighted the satisfaction of participants who took part in the people’s panels and backed that up with some powerful quotations.”
“I thank all my colleagues who have participated in the debate. The work of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on citizen participation has been so long running that only the convener and I have lasted long enough on the committee to see it through from the start—although I am not going as far back as Jackson Carlaw did today, when he referred to ancient Greece. Having been on the committee since the start of this work, it has been a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to listen to a debate that, in many ways, is the culmination of our work. Before I begin, I want to share some comments about the process from people who took part in the people’s panels. From the evaluation reports, we know that the vast majority of people found participating in a panel to be a positive experience.”
“It feels really good to have taken part in that. People’s panels would be a great thing to do for the future.” Let us honour her voice, and the voices of many others like her, with action. Let us endorse the blueprint, fund it and embed it in the standing orders. Most of all, let us continue to imagine a Parliament that is not only for the people but of the people and by the people, for a better democracy and a better Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. Members might have picked up on the hint that we have a little bit of time in hand. They will get the time back for interventions and be given a bit of latitude with their speaking time allocations. 15:36”
“It is about shifting power away from parties’ rooms and towards the people of Scotland. The issues that we face—climate breakdown, inequality, housing insecurity and drug-related harm—are too urgent and complex to be solved without the participation of the people they affect. We need their wisdom, insight and experience. That is how we move from rhetoric to reality. Deliberative democracy brings new voices to our debates, new legitimacy to our work and new energy to a Parliament that often feels disconnected from daily life. It can beautifully complement our representative democracy. I will end where I started: with a member of the public, who was a participant in one of the people’s panels. She is a woman in her 70s who had never before been involved in politics. She said: “I thought my voice was so relevant.”
“Others will argue that the process will not make a difference, but we have seen real impacts. Panel recommendations have informed debates, led to accepted Government policies and even helped to shape legislation. That is meaningful scrutiny and public power in action. The Parliament was founded on the principle of power sharing. We committed to openness, accessibility and participation—that is the vision that was laid out in the consultative steering group’s founding report. However, if we are honest, our practice has not always matched our promise, so now is the time to close that gap. Let us be clear: the blueprint is not only about improving scrutiny, although it does that, and it is not only about better policy outcomes, although it delivers them. It is about democratic justice.”
“That might give people something to do, but it would be a very expensive and less democratic route than the people’s panels and the deliberative democracy route that we are looking at. Maggie Chapman: Yes—we probably all know people who would like to shuffle off into a closed room somewhere but, in the Greens, we are fundamentally opposed to any second chamber in the Scottish Parliament that is not elected or of the people. The House of Lords is undemocratic and should have no place in 21st century Scotland. Some will say that the panels would not be representative, but these panels use sortition— random and stratified sampling—so that participants reflect Scotland’s diversity, which is arguably more representative than most of what happens in this chamber and in this building more generally.”
“On Maggie Chapman’s point about panels being too expensive, £55,000 per panel is 0.054 per cent of the Scottish Parliament budget. Do you agree that that is well worth it to ensure the participation and engagement of the Scottish public? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, Mr Torrance. Maggie Chapman: I absolutely agree with Mr Torrance. It is not only worth it; it is incredible value if it gives us democratic renewal and helps us to rebuild trust in politics, which we all seek. Jackson Carlaw: I am grateful for the point that Maggie Chapman makes. I think that Mr Torrance is correct that the cost is quite modest. A commitment to deliberative democracy seems to me to be a far better use of money than, say, the suggestion of one of my colleagues, who is retiring, that we create a Scottish house of lords.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential impacts of the EU-UK agreement on Scotland’s rural economy. (S6O- 04710)”
“There is a lot of demand for supplementary questions, so I ask for brevity in questions and answers. Brain Tumours (Outcomes) 1.”