John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“However, it seems that some people hold Israel to a different standard, potentially because it is the only Jewish state. We have to be very careful about doing that, as both Europe and the Arab world have a long history of treating Jews as second-class citizens. We need to be careful not to repeat those historical injustices. The Scottish Government seeks immediate recognition of Palestine as a state. I fear that that has no real meaning in practice and would not really move us forward. However, I still think that a two-state solution is probably the best solution that we can aim for. Therefore, let us see increased medical and other aid getting into Gaza but, primarily, let us see both the UK and Scotland doing more to encourage, promote and help to make peace. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 16:50”
“Sadly, I fear that Israel is steadily losing friends, the longer that the one-sided war goes on, while opposition to Israel is strengthening in Gaza, Palestine and beyond. At the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel, and elsewhere, I have asked representatives of the Israeli embassy what the Israeli Government’s aim is in the conflict, but I have never had a clear answer. We all need to ensure that we judge Israel by the same standards that we apply to other countries around the world, where there is horrendous abuse of minorities and others by a variety of states—such as Afghanistan with women; China with Tibetans, Uyghurs, Christians and Falun Gong; Myanmar with Muslims; and North Korea with any religious group.”
“That is the role that I would like the UK or Scotland to play. We have plenty of people cheering on either side, and we do not really need any more of that. Norway has shown in the past what even a small country could do by way of moving negotiations along. The present Israeli Government faces considerable opposition within Israel, not least from those who want the release of the hostages—there is no real progress in that regard. I do not believe that Israel can actually defeat Hamas. Even if it did so, a new group, backed by Iran, under a new name, would likely arise. I know that the situation in Northern Ireland was different, but it showed us that, however much we detest the other side, eventually we need to hold talks and negotiate.”
“If we could get all parties to agree on a longer- term plan, even if only in broad outline—be that a two-state solution or something else—it might be easier to achieve short-term improvements such as the release of the hostages and a ceasefire. Essential to that is that all parties must accept each other’s right to exist. That includes Iran and Hamas, or any replacement for Hamas that Iran might put in place, recognising Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. The UN is often known for peacekeeping—with, I fear, mixed success historically. However, what we need now are peacemakers rather than peacekeepers. We desperately need international statesmen, such as former President Jimmy Carter, who would be respected by all parties and who might seek common ground and a space for compromise.”
“War is seldom the best way of solving problems, and, undoubtedly, there have been far too many deaths in all three of the current major conflicts— in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza. However, to say that any of those three amounts to “genocide” is a step too far and does not help to resolve the present situation. Apart from anything else, genocide requires intent, and I do not see evidence of intent on Israel’s part to destroy the population of Gaza. Where we see intent to commit genocide is when people use phrases such as “from the river to the sea”, which implies genocide with the removal of all Jews from Israel. We need a longer-term plan and we need peacemakers. Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? John Mason: No—I am sorry. I have only four minutes.”
“Most recently, as others have mentioned, First has announced that it is dropping the number 65 route because of poor patronage, although it is a vital route for some people and places, including Bridgeton Main Street in my constituency. We also face the challenge that many people still want to use cars. That can be for a variety of reasons, including convenience, starting or finishing work when there is little public transport, feeling safer, working out of town, and location. Finally, there is the question of the cost of a franchise system. I understand that the subsidy in London is about £700 million per year, which is about £80 per head of population. Yes, I support the direction of travel, but someone will have to pay the bill. 17:33”
“We definitely need both trains and buses but, to some extent at least, they are competing with each other. That competition has been a particular challenge for the village of Carmyle in my constituency. The train service improved dramatically when the Whifflet line was electrified, and services now run through the Argyle line. Partly as a result of that, bus usage to and from Carmyle has declined. Not surprisingly, the bus service has been reduced, too, and that leads to complaints from those who really need the bus for more local journeys, which the trains cannot provide. Bus usage in the west of Scotland has been in decline for many years, and it is not exactly clear how that can be changed.”
“Buses in Edinburgh have a virtual monopoly on public transport—together with the trams, obviously—whereas, in Glasgow, we have an excellent local rail system that, for many people, is much faster and more convenient and comfortable than buses will ever be. Glasgow has some 72 rail stations, including 15 on the subway. In my constituency, we have 11 rail stations. A train from Easterhouse to the city centre takes about 15 minutes, whereas the number 2 bus, which does a similar route from Baillieston, takes 40 minutes. I admit that the bus is cheaper—free, in fact, for those of us who are over 60 or under 22—but, with a rail card, the return train fare is £2.95, which is not bad. However, buses stop much more frequently and are therefore more convenient for going to local shops, the general practitioner, chemists, schools and so on.”
“Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? John Mason: Yes—if it is brief. Paul Sweeney: Mr Mason makes an important point. It is important to recognise that about 45 per cent of bus company turnover is already public subsidy. The issue is that we cannot visualise where the money is being made and where it is being lost, so we cannot cross-subsidise in a coherent way. That could be done through control of the farebox. Does the member agree that that would be a logical solution? John Mason: I certainly agree that we need more information. For example, I have asked First how many passengers the 65 bus has. As far as I am aware, we do not get that information. We have to be cautious about comparing Glasgow and Edinburgh.”
“However, they might not always have the biggest social need. John Mason: If the member’s point is that there is a risk under public ownership, too, I certainly agree with that. ScotRail might have marginally improved under public control, but there has not been a sudden dramatic increase in services or staff pay or a reduction in fares. All those improvements, which are desirable—even necessary, as other members have said—cost money, no matter who owns and operates the bus network. I support the desire for buses to run through the night, to be more frequent in rural areas and to do circular routes in the cities, but we need to be realistic and accept that all of that would take more taxpayers’ money, which I presume would mean higher taxes. I personally support that, but I realise that not everyone does.”
“Broadly speaking, I support public ownership and, potentially, franchising, but neither of those is a magic bullet. I grew up with Glasgow Corporation operating buses in the city and SMT and others running services outside the city boundaries. The system was not perfect at the time. There were regular complaints that areas that voted strongly Labour, such as Castlemilk, got a better bus service than areas that voted in different ways. Therefore, public ownership does not guarantee major improvements. Bob Doris: I will not take the bait on whether Labour areas get better bus services but, in my speech, I made the point that those with the loudest voices and the most organised campaigns may get better services because politicians are quite attuned to representing constituents who make the strongest case.”
“I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion. I certainly agree with the bulk of it and especially the point that we should have “high quality, affordable and reliable bus services” and integrated ticketing. I just say to him that, for knowing when a bus is coming, the First Bus app for Glasgow is very good—it can actually show where a bus is at a particular time. As a councillor, I was a member of SPT for a number of years, and I am a strong supporter of it as an organisation. It is good that we can look at public transport from a wider perspective than just that of individual council areas, especially in Strathclyde, where so many people travel into Glasgow for work, study, retail and leisure purposes. However, we need to tread a little cautiously on public ownership of buses and franchising.”
“I will await the outcome of today’s university and auditors meeting and further advice from the SFC. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement on the initial response to the Gillies review of University of Dundee finances. I will allow a brief moment for front-bench members to reorganise before the next item of business. Provisional Outturn 2024-25”
“Both the internal and external auditors appear to have given the university’s July 2023 accounts, which would not have been completed until about the end of 2023, a clean bill of health. Does it surprise the cabinet secretary that the auditors do not seem to have picked anything up? Jenny Gilruth: I have read some of the auditors’ commentary in the press. I am advised that the activity and cost of the audit process is currently being undertaken by the SFC, but I understand that the university is meeting auditors today, if that gives Mr Mason some comfort. EY has also stated that it is unable to give an audit opinion without knowing the outcome of the investigations that the university has been subjected to, which I think Mr Mason was alluding to.”
“That allows us to move faster and to use the experience and skills that are already there without everyone going through the pain of a big reorganisation. Adding another layer to that complexity would take us in the wrong direction.”
“Workstream 7 is headed “Simplification”, which I very much agree with. Can the minister absolutely rule out the idea of introducing mayors? They are the last thing that Scotland needs, because they would be a waste of money by taking money away from front-line services. [Applause.] Ivan McKee: That is the first clap of the afternoon. The member has made a very important point: the strategy is about having fewer processes, not adding other layers of complexity. The mechanism for that is the regional model, in which local authorities come together—either in city region deals or regional economic partnerships—and the work that we are doing in the health service to allow health boards to collaborate more closely across different parts of the country.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the proposed establishment of Great British Railways and any potential implications for devolved responsibilities over rail services and infrastructure in Scotland. (S6O-04816)”
“I move, That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Government’s failure to grow Scotland’s economy has led to an economic performance gap worth £1.1 billion in 2025- 26 alone; believes that there should be a crackdown on wasteful expenditure from the Scottish Government through the tightening of spending rules in the Scottish Public Finance Manual, reducing the number of highly paid senior executives within the public sector, and reversing the recent ministerial pay rise, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the proceeds of a crackdown on waste to cut income tax by up to £444 for every person in Scotland by abolishing the 20% and 21% rates of income tax, so that everyone earning up to £43,662 pays 19p for every £1 earned. 14:59”
“A billion pounds has been wasted on Barlinnie prison, which was meant to cost just £100 million; £500 million has been wasted on two out-of-date ferries; £50 million has been wasted on malicious prosecutions; and £30 million has been wasted on a national care service that was scrapped before it even started. That is the reality of the SNP’s casual disregard for taxpayers’ money. In contrast, we would deliver tax cuts for workers, wage a war on waste right across government, and tackle head-on the SNP’s bloated client state. Those are the policies, based on sound, common-sense Conservative values, that Scotland so badly needs. Sadly, it will never get them from the SNP Government.”
“There are two sorts of SNP waste—the sort that, rightly, angers people, and the sort that, rightly and roundly, outrages them. Take the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care’s use of a taxpayer-funded limousine to meet his friends in the pub for a pre-match pint prior to going to the football. It is to Neil Gray’s discredit that he has not resigned, but it is to the public’s dismay that John Swinney has not sacked him. Such is the level of SNP contempt for hard- pressed taxpayers that that kind of behaviour goes unchecked in SNP Scotland. The SNP says that it will change, but the past is the best guide to the future. The SNP’s credit score with the country is seriously impaired.”
“He says that we should reduce reporting requirements, yet his colleague who is next to him always asks for more transparency. Surely he cannot have both. Craig Hoy: I will gladly give to John Mason the two papers that I have that detail everything that we can do to cut the horrendous waste across the Scottish public sector. We need to do more work to dismantle the SNP’s secretive and inefficient client state. We would remove the smoke and mirrors around public sector decision making by extending lobbying laws to organisations that are funded by SNP ministers just to tell them what they want to hear. We would also create a new accountability and transparency dashboard, which would provide clear information about how taxpayers’ money is spent and who signed it off.”
“We would also slash the cost of government, making efficiencies in public relations and human resources departments. That would mean more doctors, fewer spin doctors and more shared service hubs across government. We would make sure that every public sector worker is focused on delivering for taxpayers. We would ban woke roles in equality, diversity and inclusion. We would end once and for all the Scottish Government’s obsession with gender issues, and ban the production of all non-statutory guidance that relates to gender identity or trans issues across the public sector. John Mason: Craig Hoy has given some examples, which is what I was going to ask him for. He says that we want to save on railways. Does that mean that safety goes down?”
“We would introduce a new taxpayer savings act to cut the number of quangos by a quarter, through closing down and merging unnecessary bodies such as the Scottish Land Commission and Community Justice Scotland and creating a Scottish agency of value and efficiency—SAVE—a short-term, business-led body that is designed to mount a war on waste to claw back £500 million of misspent public money. We would introduce tighter public spending rules that would clamp down on the frivolous use of taxpayers’ money and introduce sanctions on individuals who breach those rules. We would apply a zero-based accounting system to the annual budgetary process of the Scottish Government, and we would go on to reduce red tape on public services such as the national health service by reducing their statutory reporting requirements.”
“That means taking the SNP’s client state head on. When we brought forward our fully costed plans for tax cuts this year, Shona Robison said that they would be impossible. However, on Monday, John Swinney finally admitted that she has got it wrong, announcing that, this week, the SNP Government will reveal £1 billion of SNP waste that the SNP itself has identified. However, when the SNP talks of public sector reform, we do not expect much action. We would deliver it, however. We would reduce the size of the civil service back to pre-2016 levels within five years.”
“The Fiscal Commission is being characteristically diplomatic in describing it as an “economic performance gap”. I call it the deep and corrosive economic effect of 18 years of an anti-growth, anti-business SNP Government. Every independent forecaster, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the SFC and the Fraser of Allander Institute, warns that the SNP Government cannot continue on the fiscal and spending path that it is on. A benefits bill that is set to soar to £10 billion by the end of the year is £2 billion more than the Government can afford. The number of senior civil servants is soaring, and quango after quango is spewing out bizarre and costly recommendations and regulations. John Swinney’s high-tax, low- growth Scotland simply cannot continue.”
“Will the member give way? Craig Hoy: I have a lot of waste to identify, so I will give way later if I can. The SNP is costing Scotland £1 billion a year in lost growth and countless billions more through incompetence and waste. The SNP Government boasts that its so-called progressive taxation—a system that taxes nurses and teachers more—is bringing in £1.7 billion a year, but the Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that there is an economic performance gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom of £1.1 billion in this year alone. We know what is really going on: the impact of the SNP’s tax rises on Scots feel very real indeed, but the benefits are simply another SNP false promise. That missing billion, in black and white, is the true cost of John Swinney.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice as to what the Education, Children and Young People Committee should do, because the convener of the committee, Douglas Ross, repeatedly bullies witnesses who come to us, especially female witnesses, but this morning, a male witness. It is embarrassing for the committee—the committee has discussed it, and Mr Ross refuses to listen to the committee. I seek your advice as to what we should do.”
“Therefore, I whole-heartedly endorse both Rhoda Grant’s motion and Ash Regan’s bill, and I express my frustration at the lack of progress in Scotland when other countries have been taking real steps forward. 17:29”
“The phrase “routes out” was frequently used at that time, in recognition of the fact that we needed not only to come down more heavily on the purchasers of sex but to give more support to women who wanted to escape from the trap in which they had found themselves. However, here we are, in 2025, and very little seems to have changed. A number of other countries have moved against CSE, but, so far, we have not, despite the fact that the Scottish National Party supported Ash Regan’s position and the fact that, as the motion states, the Scottish Government recognises prostitution as violence against women. I have to say that there has been a certain timidity on the part of successive Governments.”
“I would not argue that changing the law would, in itself, sort everything, but we understand from the Nordic countries that such a change, along with education, is part of achieving more respect for women and promoting more equality for women in all parts of society. I have to say, however, that we are making very slow progress on the subject. I became a councillor in Glasgow 27 years ago, in 1998, and I was a councillor there for just over 10 years. The subject was on the agenda then thanks to excellent Labour councillors such as Jim Coleman, and Glasgow City Council, the police and the health services were all on board.”
“How can we say that we are serious about tackling male violence against women when, at the same time, we allow women to be bought and sold by men? We all accept that there is a gender pay gap, that women still get overlooked for promotion in some jobs and that misogyny happens, as does domestic abuse. All of that is broadly accepted to be happening, and the vast majority of us are signed up to tackling those interrelated sets of problems. Surely we also have to accept that being able to buy sex is not unrelated to those other issues and that it devalues women in the eyes of boys and men. Similarly, we are all signed up to ending human trafficking, yet we need to remember that one of the drivers of human trafficking, whether that is from Nepal to India or from eastern Europe to Scotland and the UK, is commercial sexual exploitation.”
“However, as other members have said—and as we have heard repeatedly at the cross-party group and in other meetings—in the vast majority of cases, the women involved are clearly victims and do not want to be involved in the trade. We have often heard from survivors about how they were treated as men’s possessions to be bought and sold, and about how they were expected to take part in various weird sexual activities just to satisfy the warped desires of some men. Most women who are involved in prostitution are there only because they are in the direst of circumstances, whether they are being exploited by a partner or, as is very often the case, in financial need and debt. We see that in the Ken Loach film “I, Daniel Blake”, from 2016, in which Katie turns to selling sex only because of her need to feed her children.”
“I, too, thank Rhoda Grant for bringing this important issue to the chamber. I wanted to speak in the debate in order to be sure that at least a few men would be taking part. The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation tends to have mainly women attending, both among MSPs and other members and speakers. That is understandable, as women are by far the main victims of CSE. However, men are the main perpetrators, as we have heard, and we need to hear some of them speak in favour of the motion and Ash Regan’s bill. I can accept that a very few women see prostitution as a glamorous career, can be choosy about whom their clients are and are largely in control of what happens.”
“At the start of the session—this also happened when I chaired the 2011 to 2016 Finance Committee—the FPA Committee agreed that it did not want the Scottish Parliament information centre or our clerks to provide pre- scripted questions that would be divided among members. Instead, we have background briefings and summaries of evidence to prompt our own questioning. Those documents are always published, for openness and transparency. That sink-or-swim approach encourages members—”
“Our committee has sought to continuously identify where improvements can be made to parliamentary scrutiny, including through our current inquiry into the budget process and focused work that is aimed at strengthening the content of the Government’s medium-term financial strategy. It has helped to maintain our committee’s collective approach that the churn of members has been low—five members have remained in place since the early days of the current parliamentary session. That makes a huge difference, as it enables members to build up expertise, pursue issues over a period of time and identify links between the range of topics across our remit. We also pursue lines of questioning until we get answers, even over months or longer. As members know only too well, committees take different approaches to questioning witnesses.”
“Should we not look to reduce the number of ministers in the Scottish Government? Kenneth Gibson: First, you make me blush with that compliment. Secondly, I think that you have a point. I realise— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please speak through the chair, Mr Gibson. Kenneth Gibson: I realise that the Scottish Government’s remit has increased over the years. However, in 2007, there were six members of the Cabinet and 16 ministers, and we know for a fact that the numbers have increased considerably since then. That puts an increased workload on back-bench members—who, for example, have to cover two or more committees.”
“That has allowed us to shine a light on new issues such as the effectiveness of Scottish Government decision making and to embed public administration in all areas of our work, including budget scrutiny, the commissioner landscape, the cost-effectiveness of public inquiries and the Government’s public service reform programme. Stephen Kerr: The member is undoubtedly—I have said this to him privately and I am going to say it publicly—an excellent example of what a convener in this Parliament should be. He mentioned the size of the FPA Committee. However, given the size of the Parliament, is there not an issue with the size of the Government? There are nearly 30 ministers, which means that the committee workload of a back-bench member from the Government party will be that much greater.”
“Our workload includes a mix of referred items, such as pre-budget and budget scrutiny, and consideration of bills and Scottish statutory instruments, and we undertake one or two self- initiated inquiries a year. It is crucial that all committees have balanced workloads, and, in carrying out our inquiries, we have chosen subjects on which we feel that we can make the most impact and effect real change. Our remit in the current session broadened our scope to do just that. It is the first time that public administration has been specifically included in a Scottish Parliament committee’s responsibilities.”
“To point to our successes, the FPA Committee has improved the transparency of the budgetary information published by the Scottish Government, created the conditions for an open debate about the need—or not, as the case may be—for commissioners, secured a full review of the national performance framework, sought to protect and enhance the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish budget and achieved much-needed improvements to the consistency and presentation of financial memoranda. I note that the SPPA Committee is looking into the Parliament’s current committee structure, the optimum size of committee membership and the number of committees, and I believe that our committee is exactly the right size.”
“Would Mr Gibson say, as I would, that it is an advantage for a committee to have only seven members? Will he also mention the fact that we have to read all our papers, because we are not given questions by the Scottish Parliament information centre? Kenneth Gibson: You have jumped the gun, John, because I am going to touch on that as I progress through my speech.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on Scotland’s labour market of the Prime Minister’s recent statement on immigration policy. (S6O-04674)”
“Some figures suggest that 79 per cent of the population support assisted dying. However, when we dig a bit deeper into such figures and when some of the arguments and counterarguments are put to people, we find that support can drop to as low as 19 per cent. What starts as a question of an individual’s right to choose may not end there. It seems highly likely to me that there would be a drift away from the position of free choice to an expectation that individuals should not be a burden on wider society and that they should actually have a duty to end their lives prematurely. That is not a position that I want to see in Scottish society. As a result, I will be voting against the bill. 17:42”
“That has to be a worry. However tight we make a system to start with, experience shows that it becomes looser and looser. At this point I would add my voice to those arguing that we need to look more seriously at how palliative care and hospices are funded. I am a huge fan of third sector organisations such as Marie Curie and the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice. However, supply is not matching demand for enough people, and much end-of-life care is currently carried out in care homes. There is also a question about whether GPs are willing to prescribe sufficient painkilling drugs to properly manage pain. This is not an easy subject. There are definitely arguments on both sides. Having free choice is something that we all want in our lives, and that sounds like a strong argument in favour of the bill.”
“However, it does show that, once you start down that particular slope, you may not be able to stop things going further than you had intended. Of course, we would want to start with a tightly controlled and apparently well-safeguarded scheme here in Scotland. I was struck by this part of the briefing from the Nuffield Trust: “Of the systems we reviewed, we found no examples where eligibility became more narrow or restrictive over time, though some, such as Oregon in the US, have remained relatively consistent. Among some systems where assisted dying has been legal for over five years, eligibility criteria have expanded, notably in Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands.” Even where they have not expanded, other changes in some places, such as the reduction or removal of waiting periods, have made the system more permissive.”
“Of course, it might not be done blatantly, but it could still be done in a more subtle way. I would encourage anyone who has not seen the excellent Japanese film “Plan 75” to do so. It is set in the not-too-distant future in a country that, much like ours, has an ageing population. Like here, many older people in Japan do not want to be a burden on their families, on younger folk and on wider society. Should those older people be holding on to their jobs and homes, which could be needed by the next generation? There is a subtle pressure to consider if it is perhaps their duty to take part in assisted dying as they approach the age of 75. Is the film far fetched? Maybe a little. It does not come down strongly on either side.”
“The UK Government has estimated savings to be £36 million per annum on average—savings on pension costs, benefits, hospital costs, and on care at home—but it does not include housing costs, which I find a little surprising. I suggest that those figures are somewhat on the low side for the UK, and obviously in Scotland they would be a proportion of that. There is definitely scope for a fair amount of savings for the UK, and for national and local Government, as well as potentially for families themselves, if assisted dying is permitted. At a time of financial pressure that might last for a number of decades, given our ageing population and other factors, there could well be an incentive for future Governments at all levels to save money by encouraging premature deaths.”
“Yet now, this person, who has a really lively and positive personality, holds down a highly responsible job, enjoys sailing and is involved with the care of several elderly relatives. Would we want to open the door to such a valuable life being cut short? I do not think so. Today, as members might expect, I also want to look at some of the financial aspects of assisted dying. There has been some discussion about whether the costs of introducing the scheme are understated in the financial memorandum, but the financial memorandum is meant to estimate the savings as well as the costs, and there is virtually no mention of that. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee reported: “We ... found a lack of information on estimated savings that could arise from the Bill.” What might those savings be?”
“Presiding Officer, thank you for the opportunity to speak in today’s important debate. On Friday, I had coffee with a friend and they were telling me about their experience when they were younger that I had not known about previously. Having been a very active young person up to the age of 16, they contracted a series of viruses that led to virtual paralysis for seven to 10 years and to them being housebound for about 12 years. During that time, they had some really low spells and they also realised the toll that it was taking on their mother and other family members. They told me that, if they had been offered assisted dying during one of those low times, they might well have taken it.”
“It is our responsibility today to consider the general principles of the bill. It is careful, credible and compassionate, and it reflects the values of a country that believes in dignity, autonomy and evidence-led policy. We have a chance to show the Scottish Parliament at its best: progressive and profoundly compassionate. It is time: it is time to listen to the voices of dying people and it is time to vote for the general principles of the bill. 15:15”
“Polling consistently shows that most Scots, across all demographics, support the bill. Liam McArthur has drawn on the expertise of Scottish organisations such as Friends at the End, Dignity in Dying and the Humanist Society. Those groups speak for thousands of their members. Their voices are not abstract; they are rooted in real grief and love and united by a powerful determination to spare others the same heartbreak. We are in a fortunate position. What sets the bill apart from previous proposals is that many of the concerns that were historically associated with assisted dying can now be addressed with robust evidence. Nearly a decade on from our most recent debate, we are no longer relying on theory—we have substantial international data to inform our decision.”