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 3 of 14.
“Jamie Hepburn: Will the member take an intervention? Liam McArthur: I will take an intervention in a second. I cannot judge where we go from here. However, if we look at other jurisdictions, we see that 18 months to two years is not unusual for the implementation process. Some have taken longer; very few have taken less time. I think that the public would expect the bill to be expedited in an appropriate fashion. Given the track record of both Governments over the past six months or so in taking forward these provisions, there is cause for optimism that that would continue. Jamie Hepburn: Liam McArthur is strictly correct that this is not an unusual process in terms of the implementation of acts of this place, and he cited examples.”
“As a follow-up to Martin Whitfield’s question about the length of time for implementation, does Liam McArthur consider that we would be looking at 18 months for this bill, or does he imagine that the process would be expedited? Liam McArthur: That is not necessarily a question that I feel equipped to answer, other than to point to the way in which the Scottish and UK Governments have approached the issue, recognising the neutrality of both. There was no opportunity to take forward discussions on section 30 and section 104 orders until the Scottish Parliament had stated its will on the principles of the bill. As soon as we did that in May last year, both Governments have worked at pace to put in place arrangements that allow the reserved elements of the bill to be dealt with appropriately and fittingly.”
“A recent example would be the right of celebrants not to participate in ceremonies under the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, which was passed unanimously by this Parliament. Stuart McMillan: I will refer to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee once again. Earlier in the session, two Scottish Law Commission bills came through the Parliament and section 104 orders were required. Those are now the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 and the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024. The point that was consistently put to our committee was that it would take 18 months for a section 104 order to go through the full process in Westminster before anything would come out at the end.”
“Liam McArthur: The question about the implementation of the act relates not only to these provisions, as important as they certainly are. Other aspects of the bill will also need to be taken forward through secondary legislation and guidance. Unless and until those aspects are in place, medics would rightly have a lack of confidence in what is being implemented. A range of factors—systems, processes, training and so on—will need to be in place before such a process can be implemented in practice. That is what the public, patients and medical professionals would expect. As Stuart McMillan alluded to, section 104 orders are regularly used to make consequential modifications to reserved law in relation to acts of this Parliament.”
“The expectation that either the UK Government or the Scottish Government, which have operated in good faith throughout the process, would somehow divert to a different course of action after the Parliament has decided to support the bill is not backed by any evidence. Martin Whitfield: Amendment 133 is more specific than that, in that, if the section 104 order does not deal with the question of conscientious objection and opting out, the bill cannot come into force. I will reiterate the question that I put to Michael Marra. This bill will potentially be passed by this Parliament. If it is, does Liam McArthur have any understanding of how long it would be before it came into force? That question is also being asked outside the Parliament.”
“I do not think that that is the normal way in which the commencement of an act would be written. Am I right in saying that? Liam McArthur: In response to that, I say that there are commencement provisions in the bill as it stands, as Ross Greer indicated when he intervened on Jeremy Balfour earlier in the debate on this grouping. My amendment 133 in the group would ensure that any commencement of the provisions of the act could not take place unless and until the section 104 order had been passed. The section 104 order that I am talking about— which would embed the no duty, no detriment approach, and the training, qualifications and experience requirements—is entirely in keeping with standard practice in medicine. We are not looking for anything that deviates from that.”
“The process is an illustration of the way in which the Scottish and UK Governments, working together, can work for the betterment of the Parliament. Pauline McNeill: I am trying to understand how Liam McArthur sees this working. He will forgive me, but I am sure that he is familiar with the commencement provisions in section 32, which says, “This section and sections 14A, 14B, 22A, 28, 29, 31 and 33 come into force on the day after Royal Assent” and “The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.” Was section 32 designed and written in that way so that it would work in tandem with the section 104 order that Neil Gray was talking about? It would be helpful to know how it pieces together.”
“In relation to section 18: “We wrote to the UK Government on 10 February 2026, requesting an in-principle commitment to a Section 104 Order, and received a response on 3 March 2026. This response indicated that the UK Government is content, in principle, to take forward a section 104 Order.” In relation to the training, qualifications and experience provisions, Mr Gray stated: “Having given this careful consideration, our view is that the route of seeking to make provision in a section 104 Order, perhaps to give Scottish Ministers power to make directions about such matters, is the appropriate one here also.” I quote those comments simply in response to the intervention from the First Minister about the UK Government’s response.”
“The safest route is a constitutionally precautionary one. Both the Scottish and UK Governments have agreed that the best way to achieve the protections that are currently provided though section 18 is through an order at Westminster under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. I refer to correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which confirms that. Pauline McNeill: Will Liam McArthur take an intervention? Liam McArthur: I will, in a second. I will quote from the letter from the cabinet secretary.”
“However, because of the legislative competence issues to which I have referred, amendment 107 would remove section 18 from the bill, to ensure that all aspects of the bill are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the final vote. I am aware of the concerns over that removal, which have been articulated this evening. I fully agree that the protection of health professionals and others who have objections to being directly involved in the assisted dying process, for whatever reason, is of the upmost importance. So, too, are the employment protections for those professionals, as was set out at stage 2. Equally, I wish to ensure that all provisions in the bill are within the legislative competence of this Parliament; otherwise, they cannot have the legal effect that the Parliament intends.”
“Liam McArthur: The Scottish Government set out its view in a memorandum to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in September 2024, that provisions within the bill may be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That includes the provisions in section 18, which the Government has indicated may relate to the H1 employment reservation of the Scotland Act 1998. As members are aware, section 18, as amended at stage 2, provides in essence that “An individual is not under any duty … to participate directly in anything authorised by this Act.” It includes a series of provisions that are aimed at ensuring that an individual, or organisation, must not be subject to any detriment for not participating or, as the case may be, for participating, in anything that is authorised by the act.”
“This Parliament must send a strong message that it will not allow any staff member, volunteer or practitioner to be coerced into participating in a process that they conscientiously object to. To do otherwise would undermine both individual rights and the democratic authority of the Parliament. Amendments 228 and 230 are not about theoretical protections; they are about protecting people, preserving accountability and defending the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament. Disagreeing to them would be a step backwards for the Scottish Parliament, Scottish democracy and the ethical treatment of our healthcare staff. That is why I am happy to speak to amendments 228 and 230, in the name of Fergus Ewing.”
“I remind members that I am speaking on behalf of Fergus Ewing, who would want me to reiterate this point: for anyone who believes in the principle of Scottish self-government and anyone who supports Scottish independence, that should be unacceptable. [Applause.] That will be the only time that I get applause from members on the benches in the middle, I am sure. [Laughter.] Seriously, however, we have seen from correspondence and engagement with medical professionals that clarity and certainty on conscientious objections are not optional but essential. Staff must have absolute confidence that they can refuse to participate in assisted dying without fear of reprisal or coercion, and amendments 228 and 230 would make that crystal clear.”
“They make it explicit that no one may be coerced, pressured or threatened into participating in assisted dying, whether through employment consequences, contractual threats or undue influence from colleagues, supervisors or external bodies. It is deeply concerning that the sponsor of the bill, Liam McArthur, seeks to remove section 18 entirely, which would, in effect, strip away any critical safeguard. Worse still, he proposes that the rules on conscientious objection be determined not by this Parliament but by United Kingdom civil servants without any scrutiny from the Scottish Parliament. That is more than just a technical matter of employment rights; it is a fundamental attack on the authority of the Scottish Parliament that would shift power from elected representatives into the hands of officials who are not directly accountable.”
“Without having the information before us, unless the cabinet secretary can say that all the amendments are competent and we can vote for them, I do not believe that we should leave it to both Governments to make choices that we will ultimately have no say in. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to speak to amendment 228, in the name of Fergus Ewing, and other amendments in the group. Douglas Ross: I will speak to amendments 228 and 230 on behalf of Fergus Ewing, who cannot be in Parliament today. Those amendments are vital because they seek to strengthen section 18 to protect the right of conscientious objection for medical staff and others who are involved in healthcare.”
“John Mason: Thank you, Presiding Officer. To answer Mr Balfour’s question about why this is happening, I do not know whether he will agree with me, but I think that it is happening because Westminster wants to keep us in our place. As it did on gender recognition, it wants to keep a veto over anything that we do. Jeremy Balfour: Funnily enough, I do not agree with Mr Mason. I agree with him on lots of what he believes in, but I do not want to make this—and I do not think that we should make it—a constitutional argument. We should be asking what the best thing is for the people of Scotland.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Stuart McMillan: Will the member take an intervention? Jeremy Balfour: We have to consider where we are in reality. Again, it is a matter of timing. We are being asked to make decisions without having the information before us. I give way to Mr Mason. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please be brief, Mr McMillan. Mr Balfour has been very generous with his time, but he will need to conclude shortly. Stuart McMillan: On the point about— Jeremy Balfour: Sorry—I said that I would give way to Mr Mason. Stuart McMillan: Oh, sorry. I thought the Presiding Officer called me. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am sorry. I thought— John Mason: The member did say “Mr Mason”, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am terribly sorry. I did not hear that and I saw Mr McMillan rise. I call Mr Mason.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions have taken place with football authorities concerning the recent deplorable fan behaviour after the match between Celtic and Rangers. (S6T- 02941)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the joint review with the United Kingdom Government regarding the potential removal of ptarmigan from schedule 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. (S6O-05582)”
“Therefore, we need to consider expert chairs or panels, in appropriate circumstances. The Government broadly agrees, which is welcome. In conclusion, this is one of the most worthwhile pieces of work that the committee has carried out, and I trust that future public inquiries will take less time and cost less money.”
“That is a good precedent for setting up an inquiry with a defined budget and timescale. That is the committee’s key recommendation, in my opinion. Another angle is whether there could be a halfway house between an all-singing, all-dancing, gold-plated, judge-led public inquiry on the one hand and nothing at all on the other. We heard that other countries, such as Sweden, are able to conduct similar types of inquiries but do them much more quickly and cheaply, and it seems that they also have broad public acceptance, which is, presumably, one of our aims. The committee also heard that there is a knock- on effect on the judicial system if the chair is a senior judge. We have only 36 senior judges in Scotland and every time we appoint one as chair of an inquiry, we slow down the whole judicial system.”
“If I remember correctly, the second line went ahead before the inquiry had even finished. We also need to remember that the Scottish Government has a relatively fixed budget, so £50 million on an inquiry is £50 million less for front-line services such as nurses, social workers or the police. However, when I suggested to Lord Hardie that we might have a public inquiry with the remit of doing the best that it could in 24 months, he was clearly horrified and said that he just would not do it. For once, there has been a glimmer of light coming from the direction of Westminster. As the convener said, Westminster is going ahead with a public inquiry on group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation—please let us not use the term “grooming gangs”—and it has been given a time limit of three years and an indicative budget of £65 million.”
“Public inquiries can go on for as long as they want and run up almost any cost that they want—all because, allegedly, they must be independent. Inquiries should be independent, but lots of people are independent and still work to fixed budgets and tight timescales. The Auditor General does that, and as does His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, to mention only a couple of examples. Here are examples of costs from recent or current inquiries: £45 million for the Covid inquiry, £26 million for the Sheku Bayoh inquiry and £102 million for the child abuse inquiry. Those are not even the full costs, because police time is added on. As has already been mentioned, the Edinburgh trams inquiry took more nine years. What use is that if we are trying to learn lessons?”
“We know that the Scottish Government, local authorities, health boards and the rest of the public sector are tight for money, so we have to keep tight control of costs across the sector, and that includes the costs of public inquiries. As others have said, when it comes to public inquiries, what do we get? We get no timescales and, in effect, no cost control. Who else operates like that? The Deputy First Minister and I have experience of being auditors. Auditors have to complete complex audits of organisations such as banks within a very limited number of days of the year end. Cleaners have to get their work done in a certain amount of time. Normally in the Parliament—although perhaps not today—we have very tight time limits on our speeches.”
“He has moved on slightly, but to go back to his previous point, does he also consider that there is a risk that campaign lawyers could stumble on the fact that a public inquiry is a potential good revenue generator and use it for that purpose? Does he consider the possibility that some campaign lawyers might choose to use that as a mechanism because it gives them a clear line of sight to funds? John Mason: It is a combination of things. There has to be some kind of case to start with, and then the lawyers jump on board. We all know phrases such as “ambulance chasers”, but just because I am an accountant does not mean that I am totally against lawyers.”
“I do not think that a public inquiry adds very much in a case of that sort. There seems to be an increase in demand for public inquiries in recent years, as Liz Smith and others have said. Some colleagues have suggested that that is because more things are going wrong these days. However, I suggest that it is perhaps also because people are less willing to accept that human beings make mistakes and more ready to challenge the authorities than they used to be, and there is an increased desire to find somebody to blame. We all know that the Scottish Government, local authorities, health boards and the rest of the public sector are tight for money. Michelle Thomson: It is very kind of the member to take an intervention.”
“He knows that I agree with some of the comments that he has made, but does he accept that, sometimes, when we are genuinely trying to get to the truth we cannot, because we keep getting told, “We cannot answer that question”, and the inquiry goes round in circles for a long time, which delays the process? John Mason: There is a problem on both sides. On the one hand, there is a lack of transparency and openness, and we need to improve on that across the board. On the other hand, the committee met in private session with some of the victims who have pushed for public inquiries, and I am afraid that I came to the conclusion that nothing would have satisfied some of them. That does not apply in every case, but certainly in a few cases, it does not matter what happens—people will not be satisfied.”
“I am keen to speak in today’s debate because I feel strongly that something is far wrong with the present public inquiries system. As I have said, I agree with other speakers that public inquiries might be necessary at times. However, the committee got the impression that sometimes the facts of a case, what went wrong and why are all well known. Therefore, there is little need for a public inquiry, but because the victims or their families want to pursue things further and are looking for heads to roll, they push for a public inquiry, so politicians—both Government and Opposition—consider it easier to give in rather than refuse the request. Liz Smith: I thank the member for taking an intervention.”
“I move, That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 14th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Report on the Cost-effectiveness of Scottish Public Inquiries (SP Paper 943). The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister. You have a generous seven minutes. 14:34”
“We urge the Scottish Government to establish a robust, transparent system for tracking and public reporting on the implementation of inquiry recommendations. Members can learn more about the Scottish Government’s response when the deputy convener winds up for the committee. Our findings and recommendations were designed to strike a balance between allowing flexibility to meet the unique circumstances of individual public inquiries while strengthening financial control and promoting fiscal sustainability. I welcome the Scottish Government’s generally positive reception to our report, but I am disappointed that it has fallen short of accepting many of the concrete, practical and evidenced actions that our committee recommended.”
“The Scottish Government should establish a central budget for public inquiries to avoid further strain on specific public services. For example, the Scottish Police Federation was very clear in evidence about the impact that inquiries can have on front-line policing, so we disagree with the Scottish Government’s position that the administration of public inquiries should be funded via the sponsoring ministerial portfolio, and we do not accept that moving to a central budget arrangement would risk reducing incentives for public bodies to manage costs and be the most efficient manager, as the Government suggests. Where is the evidence for that? Finally, but importantly, we are concerned about the serious lack of transparency in how public inquiry recommendations are implemented, if at all.”
“We further ask for enhanced guidance on drafting terms of reference and better support for chairs once they are appointed. Chairs sometimes reinvent the wheel, so there is a clear need for proper induction and training, adoption of best practice and adequate support for both inquiry teams and the public bodies that are impacted by public inquiries. The Scottish Government’s response is positive on reviewing guidance and on improving transparency, but it does not commit to making the specific changes that we seek. That includes carrying out a short research project on drafting and amending terms of reference in advance of the next parliamentary session. Redirecting funds to inquiries can impact on public service delivery.”
“Evidence has shown that trusted policy experts have successfully chaired inquiries in the UK and internationally. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government strengthen its guidance to ensure that all options—legal chairs, expert chairs and expert panels—are considered when launching an inquiry. Although we welcome the Deputy First Minister’s openness to appointing inquiry chairs who are not serving members of the judiciary, that has not been the practice of the Scottish Government to date. We ask that, when establishing future inquiries, ministers clearly set out the reasoning behind their choice of chair and the criteria and alternatives considered, which should reflect the purpose of the inquiry and the skill set that is required.”
“We ask for better information and greater transparency around the running of public inquiries and the decision‑making processes that lead to their establishment, including a clear framework that requires alternatives to be considered first. The committee is also concerned that the current practice of appointing serving judges to chair public inquiries places significant strain on Scotland’s civil and criminal courts. If three or four of our 36 judges are taken out of circulation to preside over inquiries, 10 per cent of criminal cases are likely to face delays. When one considers that a judge handles, on average, 34 criminal cases a year, that is a substantial number of cases that will not be heard when they should be. Therefore, greater consideration of an inquiry’s opportunity costs is essential, and I will touch on that again shortly.”
“In the longer term, we have asked Scottish ministers to work with the UK Government to update the Inquiries Act 2005, to make that a primary legislative requirement. It is disappointing that our recommendation has not been accepted. Instead, ministers will continue to consider on a case-by- case, ad hoc basis whether terms of reference need to be explicit on anticipated timescales. The Scottish Government’s response suggests that there is a statutory duty for the chair to avoid unnecessary costs and to ensure that the running of the inquiry is adequate. Our evidence is clear that current rules are insufficient to contain spiralling inquiry costs.”
“Indeed, it appears to be the only area of public expenditure in which costs and timescales are of little importance. International examples show that that does not have to be the case. In Sweden, since 1982, public inquiries have been expected to conclude within two years and within a set budget. That includes very detailed inquiries—not least, for example, the inquiry into the MS Estonia ferry disaster, in which 852 lives were lost, and, of course, Sweden’s own Covid inquiry. We therefore asked the Scottish Government to amend the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 to require defined budgets and timescales for inquiries, and for Parliament to be notified, with justification, of any extensions that are provided.”
“The member suggested that we should be learning lessons, but if an inquiry such as the Edinburgh trams inquiry takes nine years, it is too late for those lessons to be learned, is it not? Kenneth Gibson: John Mason makes an important point. That is one of the reasons why we are looking to have public inquiries on shorter timescales and with defined budgets. As I will go on to say, that happens in other countries. We have asked the Scottish Government for clear guidance to set out the core purpose, scope and limitations of public inquiries and to inform defined timescales and budgets at the point of establishment. Ministers have limited ability to control expenditure and limit spiralling costs once an inquiry is up and running.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 aligns with fair trade principles for imported food and drink. (S6O-05566)”
“The SNP’s mishandling of non-domestic rates sums up its approach of half measures and gimmicks rather than hard work to face up to the difficult decisions that Scotland faces. It is invested in the status quo and managed decline in defending a record of failure. It will never take the bold action that is needed to fix what it has broken in our country, and it is long past time for change. 16:31”
“Fergus Ewing: Does Mr Marra agree that the Scottish Government is so muddle‑headed in its thinking, particularly in failing to account for businesses closing as a result of high tax burdens, that it may end up receiving even less money than it would have received if it had granted the postponement that we all argued for? Michael Marra: I agree with that. I apologise to the cabinet secretary—I had more time than I thought. On that basis, Scottish Labour supports an immediate pause of the revaluation. We believe that a fundamental overhaul of the non-domestic rates system is required in order to better support our businesses, which are the life-blood of our high streets and communities.”
“Since July 2024, the Scottish Government has received an additional £10.3 billion from the UK Labour Government. The SNP always had the funds to deliver 40 per cent relief, so why on earth did it not do so in the first place? It was willing to let vital hospitality businesses across Scotland go to the wall rather than giving them the reliefs that they needed to survive. There is also still no answer from the SNP on the looming challenge of revaluation, which will cause the rateable values of many businesses to double or even triple. Fergus Ewing: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: Yes, sir. Shona Robison: I thought that the member did not have time.”
“To allow councils to balance their books, perhaps the cabinet secretary can suggest how many teachers will need to lose their jobs, how many swimming pools and libraries will need to close and how many vulnerable people will not get the care that they need as a result of her plans. What the SNP has willingly done to local government is symptomatic of its approach to government, which is to always find someone else to blame. On non-domestic rates, data that was published yesterday by the Scottish Fiscal Commission shows that the additional measures that the cabinet secretary announced to bring reliefs for licensed hospitality and music venues up to 40 per cent will cost £9 million. In a budget of £60 billion, that is a drop in the ocean.”
“In this budget, it has tried to get away with claiming that it is uplifting the real living wage for social care workers while neglecting to say that money has been allocated only for the discretionary element and not for the statutory amount, leaving overstretched local authorities to pick up the pieces. Shona Robison: Will Michael Marra give way on that point? Michael Marra: I am afraid that I do not have time. The U-turn on that play was as welcome as it was inevitable, but it begs the question as to why SNP special advisers thought that they could get away with it in the first place. However, it gets worse. The spending review told us that, if the SNP gets back into Government in May, it will slash local government budgets by nearly £500 million. It is hard to fathom where councils will be able to make such swingeing cuts.”
“Is it Mr Marra’s argument that we are giving too much to the national health service? Should that funding be switched to local government? Michael Marra: Local government needs a sustainable budget that can be taken over the long term. As Mr Mason knows well, the spending review will lead to £500 million in cuts over the spending review period. Even the SNP’s councillors—including Ricky Bell, the resources spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—are biting back. The SNP has never been a party to ignore the chance to have financial sleight of hand.”
“Of course, those things will be discussed and agreed to accordingly in the terms of reference. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the statement. I apologise to the member I was unable to call—I have to protect the time for the afternoon’s business that was agreed to by the Parliament. Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill: Stage 3”
“Tomorrow afternoon, we will debate the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the cost of and time taken by public inquiries. We have had public inquiries that have cost £50 million and £100 million; one took nine years. It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary to say that this inquiry will be done “at pace”. Surely there has to be a timeline and a cost—because the money that goes into the inquiry is taken away from the police, social workers and the national health service. Jenny Gilruth: I recognise the challenge in the points that Mr Mason raises. He will recognise, too, the limitations that are put on the Government by the Inquiries Act 2005 in relation to costs and stipulating timescales. However, to give assurance, I have discussed those matters with Alexis Jay, who is keen to move at pace.”
“I agree whole-heartedly with John Mason’s central point that Scotland should be able to make all its fiscal decisions as an independent country. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical questions. Business Motion 14:38”
“Is the fundamental problem here that the fiscal framework is flawed in that we do not have the flexibility to save or borrow in the way that we should have, and that is why the ScotWind money is having to be used in this way? Gillian Martin: It is only right that when ScotWind money is used, it is used for things that benefit the people of Scotland. I hope that I have illustrated some ways in which it has been used in the current budget. As the cabinet secretary who is associated with climate action, I think that it is a good use of money to involve ScotWind licensing revenues in things that ensure that we have a just transition and improve the skills in our country that enable us to adapt to the opportunities that we have.”
“It is for those reasons that I urge members to support amendment 24, to make a clear statement about the value of faith schools in society and to affirm our commitment to their long-standing place and their future.”
“There would need to be strong assurances that it would not be used as a pretext to constrain or interfere with the ethos of faith schools. I am conscious of time so early on in the debate, but I might just reflect on some of the information that was provided by the Bishops Conference of Scotland, which said: “The inclusion of denominational schools in the state system in Scotland continues to be an example of a diverse, pluralistic, democratic education system in action.” The statement also pointed out: “Religious Education gives knowledge of faith, while Religious Observance is the living expression.” That points to how those two things are interlinked in the denominational sector.”