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 6 of 9.
“That has had an effect on our schools, where free school meal provision has been expanded and where the pupil equity fund has enabled 3,000 additional staff to be employed—staff who can work with children to ensure that they have more of the support that they need to thrive.”
“Thanks to choices made in Scotland, the child poverty rate is now lower than it has been for a decade, despite UK Government actions that have pushed more children below the poverty line. Indeed, if Scotland had the same rate of child poverty as the rest of the UK, an additional 90,000 Scottish children would be in poverty. Progress has been delivered because of innovative policies—made-in-Scotland policies such as the Scottish child payment—and because of our prioritisation and hard work in bringing people together to ensure that we delivered lower levels of child poverty in Scotland.”
“The latest statistics confirm our progress, with planned care activity up, the number of operations performed in July 2025 at the highest level in more than five years, the child and adolescent mental health services waiting time standard met for the third time in a row and the lowest number of eight- hour and 12-hour waits for A and E since September 2023, despite the highest July attendance level for six years. It is not a broken national health service; it is an NHS that we can be proud of. It is an NHS that, after Covid and after the Government’s decision to put record investment into the NHS—record investment, of course, that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives in the Parliament supported—is getting better once again. Much has been achieved, but there is much more to do to strengthen the NHS in Scotland.”
“I totally believe that John Swinney is just making up what he has been saying. There are 900,000 people on waiting lists, which is one in six people in Scotland. What has he got to say to my constituents and everybody else waiting on lists who are in pain? The First Minister: I am very happy to reinforce the point that I made a moment ago about the extra capacity that means that, right now, in- patient waiting lists are falling in Scotland. I am happy to put that on the record once again for Rachael Hamilton’s benefit.”
“Working through those issues will be a priority for me when I engage with health boards and other partners during the summer. Part of the work will involve enhancing the capacity in the system to support treatment and care in community settings. I recognise the need for in-patient capacity and the work that we have to do to ensure that there are age-appropriate settings for all children and young people who need to be seen as in-patients.”
“It is a heartbreaking and tragic case that should not have happened. As I said previously, it is a matter of deep regret and I apologise, because no one should have to experience what Harris experienced. The case underscores the importance, when in- patient mental health treatment is required for children and young people, of that treatment being provided in an age-appropriate setting. There has been investment to increase the capacity of CAMHS, and we have seen improvement. We also recognise that the overwhelming majority of CAMHS engagement takes place in a community setting. Rachael Hamilton’s point, which she has raised previously, about the number of young people who are not being seen in a dedicated adolescent setting is cause for concern.”
“The statement recognises that early intervention is key. However, following a fatal accident inquiry after the tragic death of my 18-year-old constituent Harris Macdonell, Sheriff Paterson stated that it was wholly inappropriate that Harris was placed in Huntlyburn adult psychiatric ward. As a result of an FOI request, we know that, since 2007, 107 young people have been placed in inappropriate adult care settings. There are just three such facilities for young people in Scotland, but the statement does not accept that there are issues from diagnosis through to appropriate mental health care for young people. Will the minister react to that, please? Tom Arthur: I thank Rachael Hamilton for raising the matter. I have read the FAI report— indeed, I engaged with the media and was interviewed yesterday about it.”
“When I highlighted last week— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude— Rachael Hamilton: I highlighted last week that, within 24 hours, NatureScot had U-turned and granted two licences. That happened only because I had highlighted the issue to the minister in Parliament. A lot more needs to be done. We need to support the people who are having trouble with the gulls. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the minister to respond to the debate—around seven minutes, minister. 13:39”
“We suggested a pilot, which would have been absolutely perfect and would have dealt with the bespoke issues that affect each and every town across Scotland that has problems with gulls. I will give a snapshot of where I am and how I have tried to represent the views of my constituents. In December, I hosted a site visit with NatureScot to show it the worst-affected areas around the harbour. I have held multiple meetings with NatureScot to explore and seek advice on the licence application. I secured NatureScot’s endorsement of signage to discourage the public from feeding gulls. I have also convened discussions with Scottish Borders Council, which is now preparing a draft gull management plan. Much more needs to be done on this. I do not believe that the issues are being taken seriously.”
“Dogs can be an effective tool to disturb ground- nesting gulls and dogs are used in every licence application response as a possible means of deterrent.” NatureScot gives people across-the-board deterrents, not just deterrents for use in a specific instance. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you some of that time back, Ms Hamilton. Rachael Hamilton: We have been working closely with local residents, and my point is that the licensing scheme is both bureaucratic and unrealistic, Mr Fairlie. I would appreciate it if you could look at— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair. Rachael Hamilton: I would appreciate it if the minister could look at the red tape that is associated with businesses and at the timescales.”
“The document says that the applicant intended to try some solutions but that other solutions that had not been tried included disturbance by dogs. The reason why people have not used dogs is because gulls do not have nests on the ground. I made the point last week: do we expect spaniels to scale scaffolding or dogs to go up on drones? Jim Fairlie rose— Rachael Hamilton: I will take the intervention. Jim Fairlie: When Rachael Hamilton raised the issue last week, I was absolutely appalled to hear that it had been suggested that dogs should be used on roofs. I made an inquiry to NatureScot. The response that has come back says: “We have not suggested or provided instructions that dogs should be used on rooftops to scare gulls and prevent nesting.”
“One resident described people being “scared, attacked and traumatised”, and said that the problem is “actively deterring customers” from her business and the town. We found ourselves trying to plan ahead. The community got together with supportive councillors—Councillor Carol Hamilton, a Conservative, and Councillor James Anderson, an independent—and NatureScot to try to do something about the situation. However, the can was kicked down the road and nobody took it seriously. NatureScot made some suggestions. Jim Fairlie shook his head when my colleague Liam Kerr said that the use of dogs had been suggested. That is absolutely in this— The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity (Jim Fairlie) rose— Rachael Hamilton: I will say what is in this document first, if Mr Fairlie does not mind, and then I will take the intervention.”
“I thank my colleague Douglas Ross for bringing forward this important debate. As many members have said, we have been talking about this issue for years, but absolutely nothing is getting done. The Government is not listening to us, so the problem continues. In Eyemouth, in my constituency, aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause concern to businesses, tourists and anybody who is doing anything along the harbour. It is not just a seasonal nuisance; it is a serious and growing health and safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents, as Fergus Ewing said. In September last year, we were told that, in one month, seven children in Eyemouth had been attacked, with one girl left with gashes to her scalp and blood running down her face.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with local stakeholders regarding the protection of wild goats in the Scottish Borders. (S6O-04850)”
“We would give Scottish taxpayers a better deal by cutting taxes to 19 per cent for all taxable income up to £43,600. That would be worth £444 to ordinary working Scots. We believe in restoring value for money, and we would introduce a taxpayer savings act. Tomorrow, we will hear from Ivan McKee about public sector reform, so SNP ministers clearly agree that there is blob and bloat in their Government. We believe in rebuilding trust with the public. We believe that Scotland can do better. The SNP should be listening to the Scottish Conservatives. 15:25”
“Scotland is now the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, which is not something to be proud of. The SNP should be ashamed. Workers here are unfairly penalised and pay more tax than those who do the same jobs elsewhere in the UK. In my constituency, which is in the Scottish Borders, residents told me last week that they feel like they have been paying more but getting less, which is something that we have heard many times in the chamber. People see local services in decline, despite SNP claims to the contrary. We must offer people a different path for Scotland and a better path to economic prosperity. The Scottish Conservatives have put forward positive and practical policies that would improve people’s lives. We believe in a smaller and more efficient state that delivers better value for money and better services for lower taxes.”
“We do not want them to be held back in the way that the Scottish Government is holding back the economy. I point out to Shona Robison that even the Scottish Fiscal Commission has told us that Scotland faces an £851 million income tax black hole due to the rising costs of benefits, public sector pay and new policy commitments. Beyond the fiscal mismanagement—although Shona Robison does not seem to accept that the SNP is mismanaging the economy—the SNP has a bloated public sector that now accounts for the second-highest share of employment of any region or nation in the UK, and the bureaucracy continues to grow. Scotland now has 130 quangos, with more on the way. Then there is the tax system, which has been described as “daft” by one of the SNP’s own MSPs.”
“We believe in empowering people to succeed, not holding them back. However, the SNP, the Greens and Labour want to keep people stuck in the doldrums in perpetuity. Although the Scottish Conservatives support vulnerable people, the SNP is handing out hard- earned taxpayers’ money, with the cost of the welfare state expected to reach £9 billion by 2030. The cosy left-wing consensus that has held Scotland back for decades is dumbing down Scotland rather than lifting it up. Shona Robison: Could Rachael Hamilton specify who those handouts are being given to? Who are we talking about? Rachael Hamilton: We have identified many tax-saving policies that the Government could implement. We agree with the Scottish child payment, but we want people to be lifted up, not knocked down. We want people to have jobs and to be supported into work.”
“My colleague Craig Hoy outlined a commonsense vision for Scotland’s economy—a vision that is rooted in fairness, ambition and opportunity. We fundamentally believe that Scots deserve a better deal than what they are currently getting under the SNP Government. After 18 years in power, the SNP is presiding over a stagnating economy, a ballooning civil service and an economic performance gap of £1.1 billion, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted on pet projects—money that should have gone to front-line services instead. The list of SNP failures is too long to go through this afternoon. The impact is simple: people are paying more and getting less—I agree with Michael Marra on that. One key difference between the Scottish Conservatives and other parties in the chamber is that we believe in small government.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. I had tech issues. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Hamilton. Your vote will be recorded.”
“That leaves an astonishing £1 billion gap between what Scotland’s higher income tax might have added to the Scottish budget and what it is actually projected to deliver. This is what the SFC has referred to as the “economic performance gap”, which is made up of slower aggregate earnings and employment growth in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK alongside the effects of Scottish and UK policies and taxpayer behaviour.”
“When I talk to people in the business community and in sectors such as finance, I find it interesting that, although higher income tax continues to be an issue, increasingly, they talk about the higher levels of LBTT for those wishing to purchase larger homes as being a real and significant problem in terms of the attractiveness of Scotland to those in that higher earner category, which affects the mobility of labour. We know from last week’s report from the Fiscal Commission that those higher tax rates are not, in fact, delivering. According to the SFC, the income tax hikes implemented by the SNP should be raising a net sum of £1.674 billion for the Scottish Government. However, the actual projected income tax net position, compared with what it would have been prior to the devolution of income tax, is just £616 million.”
“Neither the Scotland or UK governments have chosen to use these levers to their full potential.” I agree with what Sir Tom Hunter says about the UK Labour Government, especially the ruinous decision that it took to increase employer national insurance contributions—a literal tax on jobs that will damage economic growth. However, issues around tax are also under the control of the Scottish Government, and the differential rates of income tax, together with the higher rates of land and buildings transaction tax, are undoubtedly causing problems for businesses that want to recruit above-average earners.”
“I had intended to be at Mr Johnson’s CBI Scotland reception last night, but the event that I was at previously overran, and I was therefore not able to make it. I apologise to him for that. The Hunter Foundation report highlights the importance of pro-business policies and the need to provide stable governance, a transparent legal system, low red tape and low taxation. It is not rocket science; those measures would help to provide the focus on long-term growth that Scotland needs. Sir Tom Hunter has said: “The status quo is completely unacceptable. Change needs to come and it needs to be radical—tinkering will only yield further decline. The most important lever available to incentivise entrepreneurs and business is tax.”
“Last night, I was at Daniel Johnson’s sponsored event with the Confederation of British Industry. Many people were talking about the flexible workforce development fund, which is delivered through colleges but which did not have any funding for the previous financial years. That has become a real problem. The digital skills gap is becoming evident, which reflects the conversation within the Hunter Foundation. Does Murdo Fraser agree that we should reinstate that funding? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Mr Fraser. Murdo Fraser: I absolutely agree with my colleague about that funding programme. The Economy and Fair Work Committee, which Mr Johnson and I both sit on, heard a lot of evidence that it was of great value to business.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it will meet with the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding its recently published consultation on updating the code of practice for services, public functions and associations, following the recent Supreme Court ruling. (S6O-04732)”
“Those examples show that the problems are not just about replacing meters, but about ensuring that they work properly and that suppliers provide accountable and timely support. The transition to smart meters should be an opportunity to modernise and improve energy access, but it is being mishandled. Constituents are being moved on to unsuitable tariffs, facing connectivity issues and encountering long waits for engineers. We cannot let vulnerable people and rural communities, such as the people in the Borders whom I have given examples of today, bear the brunt of this national failure. 18:31”
“Does she agree that many other vulnerable constituents will be facing the same issues? Rachael Hamilton: That is why it is so important that Beatrice Wishart has brought the debate to the chamber. I hope that it will almost be an awareness campaign for those who have not understood what is required of them. Another constituent based in Coldingham received a replacement smart meter in December after her original RTS meter failed. Despite that, technical issues persisted. Her new meter is still not sending readings to her supplier, and months of chasing emails and phone calls have brought no resolution. With no accurate billing and no clear fix in sight, that constituent remains stuck in a broken system.”
“The failure to communicate effectively on such a significant national transition is simply unacceptable. The real impact of the issue is being felt behind closed doors across the Borders. One elderly constituent of mine is from Duns. He is 97, blind and profoundly deaf, and he has been left in limbo while his family has tried since February to secure a replacement RTS meter. Despite repeated attempts at communication with the energy supplier, they have received only mixed messages and no confirmed date for the meter replacement. My constituent now faces the real risk of disruption to heating and hot water—and entirely avoidable stress. Emma Harper: Rachael Hamilton has just highlighted the challenges that some really vulnerable people are facing, especially the 97- year-old person in Duns.”
“Those homes are frequently off grid in hard-to-reach areas, and the issue often affects elderly people and vulnerable residents. Although urban areas have greater infrastructure for swift meter replacement, rural households, as we know, face barriers in accessing appointments, resolving technical issues and receiving timely follow-ups. In those communities, delays mean not just inconvenience but cold homes and unaffordable bills. A further concern is the lack of clear and widespread communication from Ofgem and suppliers. Many people have not received adequate information about the RTS switch-off and what it means for them. Even when communication has been issued, it has been vague, overly technical and simply too late, leaving constituents confused about whether they will be affected, what action they need to take and how to get support.”
“I thank Beatrice Wishart for securing this important debate. The urgency with which we need to deal with the issue is growing with each passing day. Scheduled to happen in weeks, the switch-off is not just a technical adjustment but a looming crisis for thousands of households across Scotland, particularly those in rural areas such as my constituency in the Borders. It is clear that rural communities are being disproportionately affected. It is estimated that, as of early April 2025, around 5,000 households in the Scottish Borders were still using the RTS electricity meters. Many of those homes rely on RTS meters to regulate their heating and hot water, and they often use legacy electric storage systems and off-peak tariffs, such as total heating, total control.”
“I was in the chair and heard the remarks that were made, and I did not deem that any intervention was required. However, I stress that courtesy and respect are required from all members in the chamber. That concludes portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio, to allow members on the front benches to change over. Justice and Home Affairs”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek your advice. Emma Harper stated that my colleague Tess White’s question for the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture was anti-trans. That was not the case. In her question to the cabinet secretary, she asked legitimately about the obligations that fall under his remit for organisations such as Historic Environment Scotland to be compliant with workplace regulations, the law and the public sector equality duty. We must all strive to be respectful in the Parliament. Can the Deputy Presiding Officer share with members in the chamber whether there is a mechanism for Emma Harper to apologise and correct the record? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I suggest to Rachael Hamilton that that is not a point of order.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent report by Scottish Borders Council on the future of Live Borders, regarding any impact on cultural services, community engagement and libraries across the Borders. (S6O-04641)”
“I also reject Michael Marra’s argument that poorer people would be detrimentally affected by the bill, because, if that argument were to stand, poorer people who support assisted dying would be excluded from having the choice of dying in that way. We must pursue the best outcome with compassion and comprehensive legislation that respects individual autonomy and embeds robust safeguards. I will support the bill tonight. 17:37”
“To Alex Rowley, I say that I am confident that, with the safeguards that we have in place, I would vote for this bill and its general principles at stage 1. If it was not so robust, I would not be so comfortable voting for it. To Jeremy Balfour, I say that I am a person of faith and I find it objectionable that I might not be considered to be religious because I have chosen to support the bill. I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy, who made an impassioned speech as always, that the bill must strike an appropriate balance between providing a right for terminally ill adults to access assisted dying and the requirement to protect vulnerable groups of people.”
“My grandfather had vascular dementia and, because of his mental capacity, he would not have been able to choose how he died. He did not have a good death. It was prolonged. It was undignified. Objectors say that palliative care has to improve, but even if every person had universal access to hospice care in Scotland, more than 600 would suffer with unrelieved pain as they died. I have been heartened by the way in which individuals have made their case today, but passing the bill would allow us to continue the conversation about how we die and how we can improve end-of-life care. With the time that I have left, I would just like to acknowledge some of the contributions of individual members.”
“Last week, a constituent visited my surgery to tell me about her sister, who died of a rare cancer in 2002 after enduring huge suffering with sickness, pain, faecal vomiting and bleeding. Her sister was in a desperate situation, which is sadly not unusual. In the UK, 650 terminally ill people end their own lives each year, and there are up to 10 times as many attempts. Like other members, I have received hundreds of emails regarding assisted dying, most of which are supportive and chime with two-thirds of the public opinion. Around the world, 300 million people have access to some form of assisted dying, and we can learn from three decades of evidence in other jurisdictions about how to craft law with safety at its core. My final thoughts are of being with my own family at the end.”
“Some members of the Scottish Parliament will remember a video from Richard Selley in which he urged us to support the legislation that is before us today. The bill is too late for Richard and might not have been the right option for him, but a change in the law will give others who are in a similar situation a choice, not in another country but where they live. My own reflection of the actions that are taken by those individuals is that travelling to Dignitas or having to take matters into your own hands should not be the status quo. Going to Dignitas was traumatising for Richard Selley and his family, and it was expensive and risky for his loved ones—it should not be that way. I listened to Dame Prue Leith speak in the Parliament about her brother’s very painful death from bone cancer.”
“My late husband, a retired GP, died as I nursed him at home, with his pain not fully under control. My sister, who died of cancer aged 45, attempted to take control by placing a plastic bag over her head. She was transferred from a hospice under a section to an acute psychiatric ward. We were both traumatised by these events. I need assisted dying for myself to feel much less anxious about the future and have that freedom of choice. I would be concerned that I could resort to an unsafe option.” The second person is Richard Selley, the former head of Loretto junior school, who was diagnosed with MND in 2015. Richard’s health declined quickly and he lost the ability to walk, talk and swallow. In September 2019, Richard, his wife Elaine and his brother travelled to Dignitas to end his life through assisted dying.”
“Today is not about what is right or wrong; it is about choice and dignity. I thank Liam McArthur for expertly and respectfully navigating the bill to this point and speaking so engagingly to all colleagues across the chamber. I also thank everybody else who is involved in the bill, whether they are for or against. I have engaged with academics, clinicians, constituents and many other people, but in my short contribution I will speak about most of the people who have shaped my thinking on assisted dying. The first is a constituent who visited me only this month. Judith is a senior nurse and midwife who has been a nurse teacher for 40 years. Some of what I am about to share is distressing, but Judith wanted me to share her words. She said: “I have witnessed many times end-of-life suffering. Not all pain and awful symptoms can be controlled.”
“I am clear that I want all boards to move as quickly as possible to a break-even position, and more boards are now in that position than was the case in the past. NHS Grampian is in particular difficulty, which is why we are putting in support and scrutiny to turn that board around. As I set out, we want that financial sustainability to happen in a way that is not detrimental to front-line services, which is why we need to provide additional support through escalation to level 4. Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“A letter from Alan Gray, the Scottish Government director of health and social care finance, confirmed that brokerage would not be available for 2025-26 and that NHS boards would be expected to work towards a break-even trajectory in their three-year financial plans. If breaking even is not possible and no deficit is permitted, how much flexibility is there with brokerage repayments, and will the Government consider a different funding formula for NHS boards that are struggling? The Presiding Officer: I remind the cabinet secretary to answer only in relation to the substantive question. Neil Gray: NHS Grampian has been provided with brokerage in two consecutive years, and everyone has been able to see the public scrutiny of that.”
“I thank my friend for the compliment. In the light of the news that we have heard today about the Redhall walled garden in Edinburgh, which is at risk of closure due to Government cuts, I would just note that when Jim Fairlie kindly visited the CPG, he said that he would work with the health minister to ensure that a preventative agenda and working with horticulture to promote wellbeing were high on his agenda. What has the minister done in relation to those conversations? Jim Fairlie: As I have just said, I have written to all ministers. Given the time constraints, I will write to Rachael Hamilton with all the details on the points that she raises. I am sorry, but I know nothing of the details of the walled garden issue. If the member wants to give me those details, I will follow up the issue. Food Security 4.”
“The SNP way has failed. It is not working and, on the basis of today’s statement, it never will, because it is just, as I said, more of the same. My party is setting out an alternative to the left- wing consensus of the SNP, Labour, Greens and Liberal Democrats. We are putting together a different way of doing things to deliver the change that Scotland desperately needs—positive commonsense Conservative policies that would improve people’s lives. First, bills need to be brought down so that people can control more of their hard-earned money and how it is spent. Scotland has the highest tax rates in the United Kingdom. Workers here pay more than people in the same job south of the border, while businesses pay sky-high rates and a litany of other taxes.”
“My colleagues will talk about that later. Those are the top issues that matter most to people in the real world. By not focusing on those issues year after year, the Scottish Parliament has left voters across Scotland feeling that politicians are disconnected and detached from reality. I am sure that the SNP will claim that it is focusing on people’s priorities, but the evidence shows that it is not. It never delivers. We just have to look at public services and at our economy to see that. If it were delivering, waiting lists would be lower, schools would be providing brilliant opportunities for all of our children, potholes would be fixed and good jobs would be available all across the country. However, people need only open their door and look out along the streets where they live to see that that is not the case.”
“It speaks a lot about the economy, but it is lacking any tangible new ideas or proposals to deliver the growth that we desperately need. It is a document that does not live up to its ambitions. After 18 years in power, this SNP Government is out of ideas, out of energy and out of touch with mainstream Scotland. Most people want the focus to be on the bread-and-butter issues that really affect their lives, daily concerns, hopes and needs. They do not want the usual nonsense from the SNP; they want a commonsense approach to improving their lives. We believe that the public wants there to be a laser-like focus on several key issues. The SNP should have made the programme for government about bringing down bills, speeding up access to GP appointments, fixing the roads, raising school standards and delivering better value for money.”
“Today’s statement includes some commitments that we would welcome if we thought that they would ever be delivered, but they will not be. The goal to reduce child poverty is a laudable one, but the SNP regularly makes such big pledges with no clue how they will happen. Kate Forbes: I wonder who the member thinks is responsible for Scotland having a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the UK and being the only part of the UK to see child poverty fall? Rachael Hamilton: Kate Forbes is in charge of the economy. She will know that the Conservative Government made the UK one of the fastest- growing countries in the G7. I am surprised that she does not know that. The programme for government speaks of reducing NHS waiting lists, but it has no clear and credible plan to do so.”
“Today’s programme for government is more of the same from the Scottish National Party. For 18 years, the SNP has broken promises, let people down and failed to deliver for the people of Scotland. John Swinney’s Government looks like a Nicola Sturgeon Government or a Humza Yousaf Government. Old dogs cannot learn new tricks, and John Swinney has spent two decades around the Cabinet table. He is not doing anything new here. This is nothing that we have not heard before. It is simply another series of SNP pledges that are not worth the paper that they are written on, and yet another paper on chasing the Loch Ness monster—a proposal on independence, to gather dust with the other 13 papers that he has already published.”
“We are the only party that is defending the fishing sector in Scotland. 17:11”