Rachael Hamilton
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, declaring for me my entry in the register of members’ interests after her statement on non-domestic rates on Tuesday, I failed to do so myself.”
“I am very concerned about this bill. First, the UK Parliament expedited the bill—it was fast-tracked—yet it confers huge powers on UK Government ministers not only to intervene in a business and take operational control, but to make a business’s failure to comply a criminal offence. This is a serious piece of legislation.”
“Time is running out, and some of Scotland’s businesses are being worn to the bone by rising rates. High streets are also being hollowed out. Will the Scottish Government consider a pause on the collection of non-domestic rates while it sorts out the glitch in the software system? What is the definition of “rapid”?”
“Our commitment to the industry is clear through ministers’ ongoing involvement in the UK steel council, as well as our role in and input to the development and publication of the recent UK steel strategy. This has always been—and will continue to be— a Government that takes action.”
“Members will have seen in UK minister Chris McDonald’s recent written statement that the UK Government “is strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.” I suggest that thi…”
“I hope that the member understands that we have sought to act in good faith by keeping the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee informed and by ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to consider, at the very least, the matter of legislative consent through the debate that we are having this afternoon.”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Rachael Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“However, if we speak to any college in Scotland—or, indeed, to universities and the rest of the further and higher education sector—they will talk about Brexit and the impact that it has had on skills, as many members have mentioned, including, I think, Miles Briggs. They all mention Brexit, as well as the financial hit and the number of students from European countries who have been unable to come as easily as they used to to attend not only universities but colleges. The idea that rising energy bills—energy is the responsibility of the UK Government—the Truss budget, which came from the Conservative Party, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions from the Labour Government do not have an impact on the finances of colleges is ridiculous. Of course they do, and that is what we are coping with.”
“As we all know, it has been extremely challenging for the past few years. We have budget negotiations coming up in the next few weeks. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party will have an ideal opportunity to argue for greater budgets for the many different issues that they bring to the chamber for which they want bigger budgets. At the same time, they will be able to outline where they want cuts to take place to ensure that we can fund the increases that they keep arguing for. A number of issues have made life very challenging for colleges over the past few years. Every time that Brexit is mentioned, members of the Conservative Party in particular shake their heads and pretend that it is irrelevant.”
“The minister mentioned that he gained an HNC in business studies and that he had an opportunity. Such opportunities drive the economy; his opportunity found him a job. However, young people in the Borders are unable to get on to courses because they are being limited, and they cannot get jobs. The economy will suffer as a result. Richard Lochhead: The leader of the UK Conservative Party was in the news over the past couple of days suggesting that cuts of £47 billion be made to public spending. The Scottish Conservative Party is here today arguing for more and more spending—in this debate, on further education—at the same time that the party is arguing for cuts to public spending. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. This is a very challenging time for public spending in Scotland.”
“It is up to members whether they request interventions, but if I determine that those requests are simply an attempt to barrack, I will step in. 15:05”
“It says that people have rights by virtue of being human alone, and we should be suspicious of anyone who tries to drag us from it. I move amendment S6M-19252.5, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert: “notes that the suspension of local connection referrals in 2022 did not change the rights of newly recognised refugees to choose where they settle in Scotland, nor did it prevent Scottish local authorities from referring households presenting as homeless to an English or Welsh local authority with which they have a local connection; reaffirms that Scotland is a welcoming nation to people fleeing persecution, seeking safety and who have been granted refugee status, ensuring that they can rebuild their lives in the country through the New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy; highlights action in Scotland to tackle homelessness and destitution, including new prevention measures in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, increased investment in affordable homes and the £4 million investment in homelessness prevention pilots, alongside the extension of rapid rehousing transition plan funding of £8 million into 2026-27, and calls again on the UK Government to urgently uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members, although I do not think that it should be necessary, that it is up to the person who has the floor to decide whether they will take an intervention.”
“You cannot say that. Sue Webber: Will the cabinet secretary take a factual intervention? We are trying to have a debate. Màiri McAllan: It is all those things, because it has no basis whatsoever in fact. Conflating crime with migration, as the Conservatives do in this chamber, is simply not factual. Holding whole populations to account for the criminal actions of one individual is patently absurd. Suggesting that the far right are somehow defenders of the rights of women and children is utter nonsense. We now—predictably—have Russell Findlay following Kemi Badenoch in backing leaving the ECHR, which would make the UK join Russia and Belarus as the only non-signatory countries. The ECHR promotes the rule of law and the protection of individuals. It represents the difference between barbarity and civilisation.”
“Everybody is signed up to ensuring that we can make a success of the 1,140 hours provision and that it is accessible to everybody, but that is not always possible. For example, if a mother and father—or a mother or a father, or whatever the family set-up is—have three children and the nursery of one child is under threat, they then have to move the child to their second-choice nursery and that child then has to go to a different setting from his or her siblings, so the arrangement becomes very disjointed and unsettling. Parents just want certainty, to be able to go to their jobs with confidence, and to ensure that their child is in a safe and nurturing setting. 17:08”
“Families have told me that the nursery is so important in keeping their village vibrant and bringing in new families and that any closure could have an impact on the future of the primary school and the village itself. I would like the minister to respond in her closing speech to those concerns about mothballing, which I have raised before. I know that there is going to be a review of sections of the statutory guidance on mothballing under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. I asked a question just last week about when that will happen, and, if possible, it would be great to have an answer to that for parents. That also speaks to issues in relation to delivering the 1,140 hours of childcare, which have been spoken about today.”
“Those decisions have caused huge worry, and the threats have been felt very strongly by the local communities. Parents and families have been in touch with me. One parent said that she would have to leave her job in a career that she has worked very hard for. We want to encourage women into the workplace, not discourage them. Another parent shared that they feel as though they are being forced out of the village because of the lack of access to childcare. During and after Covid, many people moved to the Borders from cities and settled in rural villages. Some of the attraction was the standard of the schools and the educational offering in the Scottish Borders Council area.”
“Although it is not explicitly referred to in the motion, I would like to speak about the importance of nurseries in rural communities. In places such as the Scottish Borders, nurseries provide much more than childcare: they support working parents, help to attract new families, keep rural primary schools alive and viable, and safeguard the future of our rural towns and villages. Sadly, in the Borders, their future has recently come under threat. Over the past year, amid the national insurance hike from Labour and the SNP’s chronic underfunding of local councils, some families have been faced with proposals to mothball childcare facilities and to create composite nursery classes by combining them with classes in the primary school. That has happened in places such as Cockburnspath, Ednam, Westruther, Yetholm and Sprouston.”
“I apologise for being a couple of seconds late. I thank Jamie Greene for bringing today’s members’ business debate on early learning and childcare provision. I have not ordinarily been involved in education debates, because I have not been on the committee or had that portfolio to speak on. However, I have recently been very involved with this specific issue, because, only last week, a parent contacted me to share their concerns about the lack of affordable and accessible childcare. She said: “It puts Scottish families even further behind those in England” with some “pushed to the limit of affordability each month”. That speaks to the importance of this topic. Many members have spoken about the importance of the accessibility of childcare for young children.”
“The bill is about protection, victims and justice. It is about love, family and protecting our loved ones. I urge everyone to support it. Finally, we should amend the bill so that it explicitly refers to working gun dogs, as requested by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, because it is important that we strengthen that part of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I feel confident that Jamie Halcro Johnston will not be sharing any further pet details with you in the future. 16:13”
“The law fails to consider the emotional value of a dog and does not do enough to collect accurate data, support owners, deter thieves or put victims at the heart of things by dealing with the trauma that they go through. Gathering accurate data will absolutely—100 per cent—give a clearer picture of the problem. Proper reporting is also very important, as is a review of how the law is working. Furthermore, the bill makes dog theft a specific criminal offence, with penalties of up to five years in prison, as we have heard, which will send a clear message to criminals, even though some people have said that we already have a stand-alone offence. The bill has overwhelming support from the majority of animal charities and the police. The Law Society of Scotland was slightly sceptical about it, but it remained neutral on it.”
“Sadly, it was a hoax and an attempt at extortion. That was desperately upsetting, because the family were left heartbroken once again. Many years on, the family still hold on to the belief that their dogs will be returned. Ruby and Beetle would now be 12 and nine. Why does Maurice Golden’s bill matter? Stealing a dog is treated in the same way as stealing a handbag or, as Jamie Halcro Johnston said, stealing £20. However, a dog is not like other material possessions; it is not an inanimate object. Although a handbag might bring joy to some people, a dog brings loyalty, companionship and, for many, independence, security and safety. Working dogs also bring an income. Pet theft is on the rise—we have talked about that in the past. During the pandemic, there was a rise in demand for puppies.”
“When I arrive home, I know that my dogs are there, because, when I drive around the corner of the house, they are barking. To me, that is reassuring. When I turn the key, they are there and they are excited. They give me a warm, unfettered welcome, and it is lovely. That was not the case for my constituents Georgie and Eddie Bell and their two daughters. In 2018, their dogs were stolen. They were two lovely Border terriers, who, if I remember rightly, were called Beetle and Ruby. Georgie and Eddie launched a campaign with lots of posters around the Borders, offering a reward, and Georgie posted daily blogs. They were totally beloved dogs. The family had a bit of a setback because, a couple of months after the disappearance of Ruby and Beetle, they had a mystery call from a gentleman from Galway in Ireland, who said that he had the dogs.”
“What strange conversations we have when we are discussing a bill involving furry creatures—Jamie Halcro Johnston has just shown me a picture of his black cat, Squeaky Biscuit. My brother’s dog is a rescue dog from Ukraine. It is much loved but paranoid and very anxious. I have two dogs: Pippa and Alfie. In fact, Alfie is dead, and I have Olly now. [Interruption.] I know— it is horrible when you lose a dog. My two dogs are pretty unruly. We live in the countryside and, when I take them on an urban walk and they misbehave, I say that they are rescue dogs, like my brother’s dog from Ukraine, but I am working on their behaviour. I want to bring members back to the concept of returning home to find that your dogs are no longer there.”
“Further, if—my goodness—there is to be reform that retrospectively changes the existing schemes, that is a further complication that also justifies a pause. Finally, in the past couple of days, I spoke to a hotelier in Inverness who asked how on earth the Improvement Service platform will be compatible with the multiplicity of IT schemes that are deployed by the likes of Expedia, Booking.com and many other agencies. How will that work? Good luck with that. 17:47”
“Will the member take an intervention? Fergus Ewing: I am very sorry, but I have only one minute left in which to advance my second argument. I believe that the tax, as it currently stands, is unworkable, because the Improvement Service, which is supposed to supply the information technology platform, has paused that work and now says that it will be ready in spring 2026. However, the tax is due to go live on 24 July. If there is slippage, we will move into utter commercial chaos and run the risk of the situation turning into a running sore and the policy becoming a laughing stock. A pause is essential, so I would like to hear a ministerial statement within the next few weeks that sets out how a pause can be achieved.”
“Rachael Hamilton: —and suggested a pilot scheme. I am coming to the question, thank you. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes, but please come to the question now, Ms Hamilton. Rachael Hamilton: Residents and businesses in Eyemouth asked to be part of the summit— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Hamilton, please. Rachael Hamilton: I would like to invite the minister to my own round table to discuss a specific pilot in Eyemouth. Will he come? Jim Fairlie: As I have laid out, I have instructed NatureScot to hold a series of regional round-table events. If Ms Hamilton wants to attend one of those, she is absolutely entitled to do so. The events will be inclusive and collaborative and will work with people across the sector who are looking for solutions.”
“Jim Fairlie called the gull summit a summit for everyone in Scotland affected by the issue, but his statement said that it was restricted to “those who needed to be in the room.” Minister, it was a talking shop in the north for quangos. The minister pretends that he wants to reach common ground, but he will use ministerial powers to bring people into the room. He says that the Government has a record of reaching common ground. How can my constituents trust his Government on its record? It is doing things on its terms. The Government is overreaching. It is not listening to injured people, scarred visitors and affected businesses in Eyemouth and other towns in the Borders. A national approach is thoroughly wrong. Last July, I raised the issue— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We need a question, Ms Hamilton.”
“I move, That the Parliament expresses concern at the cuts proposed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS); recognises the Cuts Leave Scars campaign, which was set up in 2023 in response to a decade of underfunding by the Scottish Government; notes the loss of over 1,250 firefighter jobs across Scotland since the establishment of the SFRS in 2013, leading to pumps being unavailable as a result of too few firefighters to crew them; regrets that, as a result of cuts, call handling times have increased in control rooms and response times have increased from 6 minutes and 51 seconds to 8 minutes and 20 seconds, which risks lives in Scotland; notes with concern the plans to close 13 stations and permanently withdraw 10 appliances, and encourages the Scottish Government to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union Scotland to ensure that there are no further cuts to firefighter numbers or fire cover and that safe crewing levels are guaranteed.”
“I therefore call on the minister to commit today to a debate in Government time, to ensure that Parliament gets its opportunity to have a say on any proposals. I am sure that other colleagues will pick up the many other issues that I could have raised in this debate on fire and rescue services, but I will conclude by thanking Scottish firefighters for their vital work in keeping our communities safe. I pay tribute to all our firefighters, and particularly to Barry Martin and Ewan Williamson—two brave firefighters who lost their lives while on duty. We owe it to them and to all of Scotland’s firefighters to ensure that Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service gets the investment that it needs. I therefore hope that the Parliament will support Scottish Labour’s motion.”
“Let us be clear that those changes to fire cover would lead to increased response times. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board is set to decide on the consultation proposals by late December. Although it is the board that will ultimately decide, we should remember that the board members are appointed by the Scottish Government, and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety is ultimately accountable to the Parliament for the delivery and provision of fire and rescue services. After the board makes its decision in December, MSPs must have adequate time and opportunity to scrutinise and debate any proposed changes, especially as those changes are set to have a negative impact on service delivery if some of the proposals proceed— particularly due to the likely increases in response times.”
“Does the Labour Party believe that rural areas could be disproportionately affected by the proposals from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, because they cover such a large geographical area, and that losing a whole- time service would be so detrimental to anyone who was involved in a road traffic accident or a fire, particularly in rural areas? Katy Clark: Rachael Hamilton makes her point well, and I agree. The plans that have been outlined would further damage the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and add to the negative impact that underinvestment and cuts have already had. Fire cover would change across Scotland, including in rural areas, but also in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Dunfermline. In my region—West Scotland—fire cover would be affected at the Milngavie, Inverclyde and Helensburgh stations, and in many other parts.”
“Previously, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety admitted that the Scottish National Party Government missed a legislative consent memorandum on a rural theft bill that was passed by a previous Conservative Government. In the light of the recent news of the rising cost of quad bike theft in Scotland, which Liam Kerr has referred to, does Jim Fairlie accept that the SNP’s significant oversight on the issue has left farmers and rural businesses such as those in my constituency in the Scottish Borders much worse off? Jim Fairlie: No, I defy that point. The Scottish Government has done everything in its power to ensure that Scotland’s rural communities are protected and supported at every turn. Malting Barley Farmers 6.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with community groups that have raised concerns regarding the proliferation of energy infrastructure, including pylons, battery energy storage systems and wind farms. (S6O-04988)”
“Ivan McKee: I remind members on the Conservative benches that they did not lodge any amendments to the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, which was passed by this Parliament, that would have offered the flexibility that we are now proposing to offer the industry, which local authorities are calling for. Conservative members need to answer the question why, at that time, they did not think that it was a good idea to make the change that we are now considering making.”
“I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. This is an embarrassing omnishambles by the Scottish National Party. It is once again punishing businesses that have already been punished by its not passing on business rates relief, and now it is delivering a botched visitor levy scheme. My colleague Murdo Fraser is absolutely right. Minister, will you admit that you got it wrong, that this is unworkable and that you will call a moratorium on this ridiculous scheme? The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its on-going review of the guidance on the mothballing of nurseries. (S6O-04959)”
“Women in Scotland deserve better. We deserve leaders who are not going to sacrifice our safety and our privacy for reasons of political ideology. We deserve clarity, not confusion. We deserve fairness, not fairyland. 18:08”
“Michelle Thomson is not in the chamber now— she apologised for having to leave early—but I agree with my colleague Douglas Ross that hers was a very brave speech. Like many other women—for example, women in prisons, who are being retraumatised—she talked very bravely about her trauma and about how she feels when she is in some spaces with men. Those of us who have not experienced what Michelle Thomson has experienced in her life will ever feel that. I say well done to her. The minister, Kaukab Stewart, should take that point fully on board and 100 per cent listen to one of her back benchers, who delivered one of the most powerful speeches in Pam Gosal’s debate today. She should get on and deliver the change and the guidance, and make sure that people, particularly women and girls, are protected. We really deserve better.”
“That is the most important aspect of why we are challenging the Government and holding it to account for not delivering the Supreme Court decision. For example, one individual—it may have been the same individual—accused the Supreme Court of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred.” I will move on to other comments that have been made in the chamber. Sharon Dowey, who always stands up for victims, did not mention by name the self-ID rapist, Isla Bryson, who was housed in HMP Cornton Vale, but men are still being housed in women’s facilities in Scotland. We have also heard about trans guidance in schools. Teachers are being accused of transphobia. The guidance is not clear, and it is the Government’s job to deliver that guidance.”
“I would also like to thank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie—Dr Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and their whole team—and other women who are with us today in the public gallery, because those women have given people such as me the confidence to speak with clarity on these issues. In the past, I may have been undermined and intimidated by the comments that people such as my colleague Maggie Chapman MSP make. I want to challenge Maggie Chapman today. What kind of democracy are we living in when those who support sex-based definitions and oppose the views of certain individuals in the chamber who believe that eight-year-olds can socially transition are accused of perpetuating prejudice and being transphobic? The chamber is not the place to be making those statements. Furthermore, it is important that we do not undermine the rule of law.”
“How long do I have, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have up to four minutes. Rachael Hamilton: First, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing this important debate to the chamber and allowing us to demand that the Scottish Government be held to account for its pathetic response to a decision that was made five months ago by the Supreme Court, which, as many people have said today, confirmed the definition of “women” in the Equality Act 2010: “women” means biological women. I also take this opportunity to thank For Women Scotland and the campaigners Trina Budge, Marion Calder and Susan Smith, as well as Sandie Peggie and Leigh Hurley.”
“When trans people are denied dignity, we all lose. When rights are stripped away from any community, none of us are safe. I stand with women, I stand with trans people and I stand with all who refuse to be pitted against one another. Together, we must reject attempts to roll back rights and instead build a Scotland where every person—cis, trans, and non-binary—can live free from fear, with dignity and with equal protection under the law. 17:46”
“However, I think that the member’s use of the terminology was in a wider context; I do not think that it was directed at Ms Hamilton. With that, I ask the member to resume. Maggie Chapman: As one cis woman explained: “Since this ruling I find myself terrified before I dress to go out in public. I’m unwilling to be an unauthentic version of me, but I keep thinking ‘well maybe if I wear this? maybe I’m less likely to be misgendered ... and more likely to be left alone.’” She continued: “this ruling will make everyone a judge of whether you are ‘woman enough’”. That is the reality. The ruling narrows and polices womanhood, reinforcing patriarchal control instead of dismantling it. We must resist the false choice between women’s rights and trans rights. When women are reduced to biology, we all lose.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I personally object to being called a “cis woman”. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Ms Hamilton for her point of order. We are a Parliament and we will debate issues— [Interruption.] I will finish. It is always the role of the chair to protect the rights of members to scrutinise and to debate and challenge each other robustly. I have heard the language that the member used and I do not think that she was referring to any specific member by using that terminology. The member has obviously now heard that, for instance, Ms Hamilton would not regard that terminology vis-à-vis herself as being anything other than personally insulting, and I hope that the member in question would not use that terminology as far as Ms Hamilton is concerned.”
“It is the same pest controller whose idea to control gull numbers was to pick up eggs and chicks and take them to wildlife sanctuaries, but who also said that it would not be possible to implement that approach in the Highlands and Islands, where the summit is being held. My plea to the minister is that the Government should listen to the concerns of business improvement district members, politicians across the political spectrum and members of the public who want next week’s summit to be postponed in favour of a rearranged future summit—one that is open and transparent and that involves listening— at a neutral venue that is open to the public, and that that should be included in next week’s business programme. 16:32”
“In Eyemouth, we have the same issue with seagulls attacking constituents. I asked Jim Fairlie directly what would happen when it came to the representation of Eyemouth constituents at the seagull summit, and he replied that he would share the recommendations from that summit. Therefore, I back my colleague’s recommendation for a statement in the Parliament—by 100 per cent—because this Government is not listening to our constituents about the threat of seagulls in our constituencies. The Presiding Officer: Please conclude, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: The Scottish Government is not listening to anyone who disagrees with it. We have been told that a pest controller will be at Tuesday’s summit to give an update.”
“Antisocial Behaviour (Mid Scotland and Fife) 8.”
“I and thousands of local residents responded to the consultation on the future of Hawick fire station to express our concerns that the proposals would undoubtedly put people at risk. As Jackie Baillie says, the presentations are due to be put in front of the SFRS board for a final decision in mid-December. Will the minister confirm that any decision regarding the future of Hawick fire station will not go against the clear wishes of the community? Siobhian Brown: As I said, no decisions have been made regarding that. There were 23 options in the consultation. I will not comment on individual points of that consultation, but I appreciate and trust that the SFRS will follow the correct procedure in the consultation. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will squeeze in question 8 if I get brief questions and answers to match.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? Kaukab Stewart: I am conscious of my time. Furthermore, local authorities need to be properly funded for the work that they do when pressures are identified, as is the case in Glasgow City Council. We need the UK Government to recognise the impact on public services and to engage with us to develop those solutions. I hope that the new Home Secretary and Home Office ministers will engage with the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities on how we can best deliver asylum and immigration systems that are based in compassion, respect and human rights for all. 17:02”
“The Scottish Government is absolutely right about what more is possible in an independent Scotland. I ask that it sets the example by showing us what is possible, within the powers that we already have, to make Scotland greener and fairer. 15:43”
“They pay less than they should, while far more ordinary households pay much more. It may sound dry, but the council tax is crucial for funding schools, social care, bin collections and other local services. It should never have been allowed to become so completely broken. Those with the broadest shoulders and the biggest houses should be paying more than those less privileged to fund the local services that we all rely on. The reform of local taxation is an opportunity to progress the Scottish Government’s already proposed policy of a carbon land tax. That would raise revenues by incentivising landowners of Scotland’s largest estates to reduce carbon emissions by restoring their degraded peatland and creating more woodland—both key tools to tackle the climate and nature crisis.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: Very briefly. Rachael Hamilton: Ms Slater, will you support the next SNP budget if the SNP does not reform council tax? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Lorna Slater: I will not be in a position to say what our view on the next budget will be until we have seen it, but reform of council tax is very high on our agenda and will always be part of our conversation. The current council tax system was a quick and dirty replacement for Thatcher’s hated poll tax. Everyone has agreed for years that it must be replaced completely. Despite that, the Scottish Government has lacked the courage to make that change. The wealthiest people in the most valuable houses are getting off with an absolute steal.”
“It will be best if the member addresses her question to Scottish Borders Council. Energy Price Cap 6.”
“Will the cabinet secretary address concerns that the Scottish Government feasibility study will concentrate predominantly on multimodal options, rather than looking at what the people of the Borders want, which is a transformational connection by rail, via Hawick, to Carlisle? Fiona Hyslop: It is the project manager who will take forward that work, on behalf of Scottish Borders Council. If the member has any concerns about what Scottish Borders Council is looking at, it would be best for her to take those up with the council. When we are developing transport enhancements, as we did with East Kilbride, multimodal use and encouraging passengers to use buses or cars to reach railway stations is part and parcel of the plans that we expect nowadays, so I will not traduce the use of multimodal transport in combination with rail.”
“I understand the inconvenience, but I recognise that Scottish Water worked hard to ensure that it offered resilience where there was an interruption to supplies.”
“Last week, 6,000 people in Berwickshire, including vulnerable people and farmers with livestock, were left without water. I welcome Scottish Water’s commitment to a full investigation of that issue, but will the First Minister confirm whether Scottish Water will provide full compensation to all the affected customers and will he outline what action is being taken to ensure that Borders residents are not left without access to water again? The First Minister: I understand the inconvenience for members of the public when there are occasional interruptions to water supply. That happens very infrequently, when issues affect individual water systems around the country. I know that Scottish Water worked quickly to restore supplies and provided water to the affected households to ensure that they received an adequate supply during that period.”
“The topic that is before us today is Scotland’s priorities. I am sure that we will all contest exactly what those are. Each party will put forward its own interpretation of the issues that deserve the most attention, but, in truth, the priorities of most Scots have not changed in the 18 years since the SNP came to power. The things that mattered most to people then still matter most to them now. The overwhelming majority of the public do not care about fringe obsessions such as gender, and they do not see independence as a big issue that needs action.”