Official Report 597KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20791, in the name of Clare Haughey, on the closure of Bank of Scotland branches. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Clare Haughey to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the reported decision by the Lloyds Banking Group to close 11 Bank of Scotland branches between June and July 2026, including the Rutherglen branch; understands that this is the latest in a series of bank closures across the UK; believes that these closures will have a significant impact on local residents, businesses and organisations that depend on high street banks for cash access and essential banking services, particularly older people, disabled people, small businesses and charities; considers that the closure of banks is hugely detrimental to the viability of local high streets, and notes the calls on the Lloyds Banking Group to reconsider its decision.
18:22
I thank colleagues who signed my motion on the closure of Bank of Scotland branches so that the debate could be brought to the chamber.
From Tain in the north to Castle Douglas in the south, 28 Bank of Scotland branches have been closed or are set to be closed this year. However, for many—probably most—of those communities, that is far from the start of the story. In my Rutherglen constituency, Burnside, Cambuslang and Blantyre have all lost their bank branches, and several banks in Rutherglen have closed their doors. Each time, I have worked with affected communities, met with and written to banks, organised petitions and stalls against proposed closures, raised awareness through social media, and highlighted closures in the chamber. I have sought meetings with senior banking representatives and have relayed to them my constituents’ concerns. In particular, older people, disabled people, local businesses and organisations, charities and places of worship, and people with no access to the internet have told me that they really struggle without locally available banking services.
When the news broke about the Bank of Scotland branch in Rutherglen facing closure, therefore, there was an understandable outpouring of public anger. At least part of that anger was due to our town’s previous experience with a bank in almost exactly the same location. Another bank, a few doors down from the Bank of Scotland, closed its branch in November 2024. That bank had published a document stating that “only 20 personal customers” used the branch each week. Its doors are visible from my constituency office, and on one afternoon we counted 27 separate groups of people going through those doors within a 20-minute period. It turned out that the bank’s definition of a “personal customer” was very selective, so it was no surprise that the bank’s customers felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes.
I have met with both Nationwide and Virgin Money in recent months, which both confirmed that they will maintain their Rutherglen branches until at least the start of 2030. During those meetings, it struck me how valuable staff find face-to-face contact with customers, especially more vulnerable customers, who are at increased risk of being targeted by scammers and fraudsters. That confirmation from Nationwide and Virgin Money is therefore welcome news, although it is little comfort to the people who have told me that they have held accounts for decades with Bank of Scotland—a bank that used to market itself as “A Friend for Life”.
Within a few short weeks, nearly 700 people signed my petition against the Bank of Scotland closure, with many also popping into my constituency office, which is across the road from the branch, to share their views. Along with Scottish National Party colleagues who are also facing branch closures in their constituencies, I requested a meeting in Parliament with Bank of Scotland to discuss its decision making. Regretfully, however, the bank declined, saying that it would prefer to meet us individually. That is very unfortunate, because although some of the issues are contextual, other issues are universal, which is another reason why I am pleased that this debate is being held today. I will have a meeting with Bank of Scotland next week to discuss the Rutherglen closure, at which I will present my petition and share the concerns that local residents, organisations and businesses have shared with me.
I thank Age Scotland for providing MSPs with an excellent briefing note that perfectly summarises some of the challenges that people face when a branch closes. Those challenges range from community groups struggling to bank the cash donations on which they rely to a lack of easy access to expert support with transferring money and understanding bank statements and support with fraud and disputing charges, as well as reduced levels of high street footfall affecting local businesses.
I pay tribute to the dedication of Cambuslang community council, in my constituency, which successfully campaigned for Cambuslang to be included in the community access to cash pilot. One of the first two banking hubs in the country opened in the town in 2021. The banking hub in Cambuslang was an immediate success, quickly generating high levels of use and receiving excellent customer assessments for the services offered, which include dedicated times when customers can meet staff from their own bank, with staff from a different bank based there each weekday. It was great to welcome the Minister for Public Finance to the hub to see how it is benefiting the local community. Its success has been replicated elsewhere, and there are now 24 banking hubs in total across Scotland.
However, a hub is not a like-for-like replacement for a bank branch. Banking inquiries that are more complicated than withdrawing cash, checking balances and paying bills need to take place on one of the days when a community banker is present. Furthermore, not all banks are represented in local hubs, and when there is only one bank left in an area—which is the case for many Bank of Scotland branches—there may not be enough accounts held with other banks to sustain a hub that is open most days.
That aside, the success and popularity of banking hubs such as the one in Cambuslang show us something very important. They completely refute the notions that high street banks have been trying to sell us: that all banking has moved online and that people do not value or wish to use local branches. That is simply not the case. As Age Scotland pointed out, 25 per cent of older adults in Scotland do not have internet access and 36 per cent do not have the skills or confidence to use the internet successfully. The way that high street banks have abandoned their customers—and, indeed, abandoned towns and villages across Scotland over the years—has been shameful.
I will continue to champion the presence of high street banks in my constituency, and the fight for Rutherglen’s Bank of Scotland branch continues. Ultimately, it is the United Kingdom Government at Westminster that holds the levers of power to regulate banks. Westminster Governments have it in their power and responsibility to intervene to prevent more closures, but, sadly, they have never done so. Yes, there are some legislative commitments that are intended to ensure that provision remains within a certain distance of a community, but that distance often does not factor in very practical considerations such as the availability of public transport.
The trend of bank closures, which ramped up during the Tories’ time in office, is continuing under the current UK Labour Government. It is imperative that vulnerable people and those who lack the means to bank over the internet are able to bank safely and securely and to seek financial advice and support. That has to be addressed by the UK Government. If it will not do that, the Scottish Government must be given the powers to do it.
Before I conclude, I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Business and Employment, who will make his final speech in response to the debate. He has been here since the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament, in 1999, and he has made significant contributions to my party, to this Government and to the people of Scotland. I wish him well for the future.
18:29
I congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on bringing this important and timely debate to the chamber and on all the work that she is doing to save the Bank of Scotland branch in Rutherglen.
I, too, pay tribute to Richard Lochhead, the minister who will respond to the debate and a colleague I have known and respected for decades. This will be Richard’s final speech after 27 years here, having spent 19 years in the Government, including nine in the Cabinet. Richard was very ill with sepsis just a couple of years ago. I wish that diligent and unassuming public servant all the best in whatever he does next.
When I last spoke here about bank branch closures, on 30 October, I remarked that high street branches were disappearing “at an alarming rate”. Unfortunately, there is no sign that that trend is being reversed. As Clare Haughey mentioned, Lloyds has announced that another 11 branches will close this summer, and I am sure that, every time such announcements are made, colleagues across the chamber anxiously check to see whether their constituency will lose yet another valued branch that local people and businesses rely on.
It is fitting, from my perspective, that we are debating the issue today, because the final bank branch in Largs was set to disappear from the town’s main street tomorrow. In December, it was given a stay of execution until 29 July, to allow time for a new cash hub to be set up in the town. Although that is welcome, it does not change the fact that Largs—a town with more than 11,000 inhabitants, including many elderly residents—will soon be without a bank branch. That will also impact customers from the neighbouring communities of Millport, Fairlie, Skelmorlie and West Kilbride. The decision leaves my constituency with only one remaining mainland bank branch, the Bank of Scotland in Saltcoats, which shows the decline in the number of bank branches across Scotland’s towns in recent years.
Cash hubs are undoubtedly welcome, and I have been assured by Link that the services available will be the same as those at a Post Office, including the ability to deposit and withdraw cash and to pay utility bills. However, that is no substitute for the high-quality, face-to-face advice provided by bank employees, who can offer complex mortgage discussions and give investment, financial and business advice.
Banks argue that the industry has changed and point to their online services, but many people feel safer and more confident with in-person banking, not least due to understandable fears about online scams and fraud. Customer behaviour has changed in recent years, prompted by the banks themselves, which is why banking hubs that offer easy access to cash and basic banking services are often seen as a solution. Those hubs also provide a private space where customers can talk face to face with staff about more complicated banking inquiries. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a banking hub in my constituency, despite, for years, having made the case to Link for establishing such a hub. When I met Link’s chief corporate affairs officer here, at Holyrood, he explained how Link defines an area by mapping the high street to understand who is likely to rely on a hub for cash services and which businesses would be affected by any gap in those services. The remit is limited to whether access to cash is guaranteed and does not consider wider banking services.
The UK Tory Government’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 gave the Financial Conduct Authority responsibility for maintaining access to cash deposit and withdrawal but, crucially, not access to banking services. At the time, Labour argued that that was wrong and that access to banking services, and not only to cash, should be available; yet, in 20 months of a Labour Government, there has been very little to suggest that that omission will be rectified—surprise, surprise. When asked about that in the House of Commons last month, Lucy Rigby MP, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, vaguely promised to
“keep these issues under review”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 February 2026; Vol 781, c 111WH.]
It is clear that banking decisions taken at Westminster are inadequate for Scotland’s needs and especially, but not exclusively, for the needs of rural communities, which have endured bank branch closures at an alarming rate. The FCA will undertake a post-implementation review of the access-to-cash regime later this year. I ask the next Scottish Government to urge its UK counterpart to change Link’s inflexible rules, which prevent Largs and other towns from having a banking hub, and to extend the FCA’s powers to access to wider banking services.
18:33
I, too, thank Clare Haughey for bringing this important debate the chamber.
Decisions to close Bank of Scotland branches, including the one in Rutherglen, have a profound impact on communities, as Ms Haughey explained very well. Any decision is not just about one building closing; it is about local stores, too, and about what that building represents to the people. High street banks are more than a place to withdraw cash or check a balance; they are a cornerstone of community life. They are where small businesses are supported and older residents can speak to a real person they trust, and they are where local charities manage the funds that keep vital services running. In towns such as Rutherglen, and in Springburn, where I live, those things really matter to people. There is a real sense of identity, pride and community spirit, and local services such as banks are part of that fabric. When they disappear, something much bigger is lost.
We have seen this pattern play out far too many times: closures are announced, communities are told to go online, and those who cannot, or should not have to, are left behind. Let us be honest—not everyone can simply switch to digital banking. For many older people, including my own mother, who has a disability, and for those without internet access, face-to-face banking is not a luxury—it is essential. For small businesses, particularly those that operate on our high streets, access to cash services is critical. Removing that infrastructure risks undermining the very local economies that we should be working to support. I recognise the commercial realities that banks face, but we cannot ignore the social consequences of these decisions.
I agree with all that Annie Wells has said about the impact on the community. There is also an impact on local charities, churches and community groups, such as scouts and guides, that take in their fees or collections in cash. They are concerned about how they will be able to function with no access to a bank.
I completely agree with Ms Haughey. That is what I am trying to say—that banks are the cornerstone of communities and we value them. Scouts, girl guides and churches that put their collection money into banks value them so much that banks should not be allowed to hollow out their services piece by piece. If we are serious about supporting our town centres and our high streets, restoring pride in our communities and ensuring that no one is left behind, access to basic banking services must be part of the conversation.
There also needs to be a broader rethink of how we protect access to cash. Ms Haughey has spoken about banking hubs, which I, too, welcome. However, we need to send a clear message that communities deserve investment from, not abandonment by, banking businesses.
The people I speak to are not asking for the world, only for fairness. They are asking to be listened to and that their communities be treated with the respect that they deserve. The closure of the Rutherglen bank risks doing the opposite of that. It risks accelerating decline in a place where we should be supporting growth. It also risks isolating those who are already vulnerable and sending a message that towns such as Rutherglen and places such as Springburn can be left behind. That cannot be acceptable.
I urge Lloyds Banking Group to reconsider its decision before the closure in the summer. I also urge Parliament to recognise that, if we truly care about our communities, our high streets and restoring pride in places, we must stand up and say that enough is enough.
18:38
I must thank Clare Haughey for bringing this debate to Parliament, as bank closures have also been a big issue in part of my constituency. I will also mention Councillor Ricky Nelson, who has worked closely with me on the issue.
In January, the Bank of Scotland branch in Larkhall closed. As that is in a rural part of my constituency, the branch provided banking services not only to Larkhall but to all the surrounding villages and farms, covering a population of roughly 25,000 people.
For many months prior to that, I had meetings with the representatives of Lloyds Banking Group to urge them not to follow through with closing the branch, which I deemed to be a vital service to the community. However, my pleas fell on deaf ears. They were committed to the closure, apparently in the interests of shareholders, while putting the interests of vulnerable customers at the bottom of the pile. That was regardless of the fact that, when they had made a sow’s ear of their banking finances, we the taxpayers bailed them out to the tune of millions—sorry, I mean thousands of millions—of pounds. In hindsight, it is jail that we should have given those so-called big bankers.
I have since spoken with businesses in Larkhall that report the problems that they have had—wasted time travelling to Hamilton to get to a bank and then find parking, make deposits, collect change and access credit. However, it is only in the longer term that we will see the full extent of the economic impact to Larkhall’s high street, which has always punched well above its weight—similar to Rutherglen, to be fair—as an independent hub for retailers. When I pointed out to Lloyds Banking Group officials that banking is not the same as selling luxury cars or package holidays because, for quite some time, it has been impossible to live life without access to banking services, they simply glossed over the issues that I raised. The Bank of Scotland is immune to the notion of responsibility. We should not assume that it is interested in the customers that it provides services to—only profit and bankers’ bonuses get its attention.
I urge members to visit a Bank of Scotland branch—in fact, any bank—early in the morning. I promise them that the customers they will see are those who are vulnerable in our society. They may be older or have a disability. They might want to send money abroad or they might be desperate to seek a line of credit or forgiveness for being overdrawn, while they are being punished by penalties that they cannot afford to pay. I have no doubt that vulnerable groups of people are not profitable customers for the banks, but supporting vulnerable customers is part of the social contract that banks have entered into and have had for hundreds of years.
That aside, the bank has many customers with broad shoulders. In one way or another, one of those customers is the Scottish Government, which I hope will consider its future relationship with the Lloyds Banking Group. More than that, I hope that the Scottish and UK Governments will be prepared to work together to come down on retail banking conglomerates like a ton of bricks if banks will not independently curtail their detrimental closures of high street branches. Their actions to close high street branches—11 in the Bank of Scotland’s most recent announcement and dozens more to come, if it gets its way—will betray hundreds of thousands of loyal customers.
A bank operator that puts profit before its customers does not deserve to make a profit. Maybe we should introduce a profits tax, similar to the tax that applies to the oil industry, for banks. The public should think about whether the company has its long-term interests at heart. We should note its uncaring, callous business model and the fact that the group made £6.7 billion in profit last year. I think that many constituents would find that those billions of pounds would be better spent on the national health service, schools and lowering energy costs, rather than rewarding shareholders and awarding bankers bonuses. The bank’s motto should be “Didn’t care, didn’t listen, won’t care, don’t care”.
I have one more thing to say. I have been here for only a short time, but I wish everyone who is leaving a safe journey through the rest of their life.
18:43
I, too, congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber. I said earlier during the debate on animal welfare that that was my last speech—well, that was a wee porky. This really is my last speech and, appropriately, it is about my constituency
By email on 11 February, the Bank of Scotland advised me that its branch in Penicuik would close on 4 June. The reason that was given was that its customers are increasingly choosing mobile banking as their preferred way to bank. One could argue that they are given no other choice. Options that have been offered by the bank are helping people with online or mobile banking via their app—whatever that is—or, recognising that not all customers bank digitally, particularly those who are older or have a vulnerability, it has offered telephone banking and the services that are available at the post office. That is all very well, but the post office in Penicuik, which is excellent, is always busy and probably does not have the time, staff or facilities to provide what is being lost: face-to-face meetings.
By return, I wrote:
“I recognise you will have had a flurry of contacts and while I note your alternative proposal , the nearby Post Office is frankly insufficient. I have already had contact from constituents on behalf of elderly and vulnerable adults for whom that ‘solution’ is not sufficient but require the personal service you once provided so well. Indeed, one might say many, including myself aged 81, use online because there is no alternative—local banks having closed down, and even ATMs, right, left and centre. At one time, banks offered a mobile service, perhaps only weekly for a limited time, in some rural areas, and that would be a much better alternative. Is this something the bank would consider?”
I have yet to receive a reply.
Penicuik has a population of 16,500, according to the 2022 census, and it has no doubt expanded a lot since then. Around 20 per cent—that is, some 3,000—are over 60. Of course, some can go online or use an app, but there will be many who cannot, and for them, it is essential that they speak to a real person at the bank, not a chatbot.
Therefore, I would impress upon the Bank of Scotland the need for it to take up my suggestion of reintroducing mobile services, which I understand it abandoned in 2024. There should, at the very least, be such facilities; after all, £137 billion of our own money was paid over to bail out the banks in 2007-08 because of their self-made economic mismanagement.
One thing that we can do is move our accounts from the Bank of Scotland. It is the very least that we can do to show it that we mean business on behalf of those who cannot access it locally any more.
Finally, I, too, give my best wishes to Richard Lochhead. We came together in 1999. Wait for it—there is praise coming. He is a thoroughly able and unassuming politician who quietly got things done—and that is high praise indeed.
18:46
I intend to make just a short speech this evening on a particular closure in my region. However, I begin by thanking Clare Haughey for lodging the motion and securing the debate. I also want to thank all colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and who have expressed many similar issues and themes about the dearth of face-to-face banking services in their communities.
Similar to what happened in the areas that Christine Grahame and Clare Haughey represent, Barrhead’s last remaining Bank of Scotland branch closed earlier last year. That had a significant impact, given that it was the last remaining bank in a town of that size. It also caused significant concern, particularly for older people in the community who required face-to-face banking.
What happened then was similar to what we have heard from other colleagues: a community campaign was mounted to try to make the Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group consider their position and think again. Five thousand people signed the petition, and numerous entreaties were made by me, my council colleagues, the local independent councillor Danny Devlin and our member of Parliament, Blair McDougall. However, all of that fell on deaf ears as far as Lloyds Banking Group was concerned.
That just speaks to the wider approach that Lloyds, and other banks, are taking in devaluing face-to-face services and not having them present in communities. Christine Grahame made an interesting point about mobile services; there also seems to be a shying away—or a moving away—from such services, which I know have been beneficial in other parts of my region.
Lloyds chose not to respond or meet us. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that, when I took the 5,000-signature petition to the Mound, the man on the door took it and it just disappeared into the system. The community was then faced with a stark choice about what it did. LINK, as we have heard from other colleagues, refused to bring a banking hub to the town, because, according to its criteria, the town was adequately served in terms of access by the post office and cash machines.
The community campaigners, the council, the MP and I then came together to think of other ways of getting some level of service into the community, and the credit union movement was very much at the forefront of those considerations. Barrhead—and, indeed, East Renfrewshire more generally—had been without a credit union for a number of years, since Pioneer Credit Union left the town, and we were able, in partnership with Pollok Credit Union, to bring a credit union presence to the main street for the first time in several years.
Of course, what a credit union does is allow people in a community to save, and it then pools those savings to guarantee loans and investments for its members.
I have been banging on about credit unions in here for years, and I am pleased to hear that the member managed to get one on his main street. I have only another day to go, but I ask that he emails me about that, because it is something that I would like to see set up in Penicuik, failing our getting a mobile service. Credit unions are much underrated; I am a member of one myself. It is a great thing for people to save and then borrow responsibly.
I would be more than happy, in my last act of service to Christine Grahame, to ensure that those details are passed across to her, because she is completely right. What can also happen through a credit union is that people’s benefits, including social security and pensions, can be paid to them, in cash, on the day that they come in. That vital service is now being offered to those who require it.
Of course, there is more to be done to get other services back on to the main street, but I am glad that, out of a negative experience, the credit union movement can play a very strong role in the community of Barrhead and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country. I would be keen to hear what the minister has to say about that and about support for the credit union movement.
Before he makes what will be his final speech in the chamber, I pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for all the work that he has done over my five years in Parliament to help to move these issues forward. I am very grateful.
I ask the minister, Richard Lochhead, to respond to the debate.
18:50
I thank Clare Haughey for bringing the debate before Parliament. The closure of high street branches and all the changes that that means for people in our communities have been a feature of the past few years. Clare Haughey is an outstanding constituency MSP who always looks out for the vulnerable. I thank her for her kind comments and wish her the best with her petition and the best for her future.
I assure Parliament that the Scottish Government is concerned about the speed at which high street bank branches have been closing. We engage with the Financial Conduct Authority on all those issues; of course, many of the issues that we discuss are reserved to the UK Government. Scottish Government officials met the FCA in October to discuss access to cash on high streets in many of our communities in Scotland. The FCA has committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of its access-to-cash regime, and we will ensure that many of the issues that have been addressed in tonight’s debate are part of that review.
I also say to Clare Haughey that, as one of my last actions as minister, over the next 24 hours, I will write to the UK Government to bring to its attention her concerns and those raised by other members who are looking out for the interests of their constituents. The closure of high street bank branches and the changes that we see in how we access our money is just one of the many changes in society that are due to changing technology.
With the permission of Clare Haughey and the Parliament, I will use my remaining few minutes to reflect on my time in Parliament over the past 27 years.
When I delivered my first speech as a rookie MSP, as we all were then, my colleagues Shona Robison, Fiona Hyslop, Kenny Gibson and Christine Grahame were there. We met up the road from Holyrood in 1999 to reconvene our Parliament. Thinking of that, it is difficult for me to grasp that this is my last contribution to Parliament. Indeed, after 17 years in Government, I find myself at the end of a long but rewarding road. To have been returned at every election since then is a debt that I can never repay.
I pay tribute to my colleagues who are here for the debate and who are also standing down for their massive contributions. Christine Grahame, who spoke in the debate, has been a force of nature and has contributed so much to Parliament. Natalie Don-Innes, who is sitting by me, is also retiring from Parliament, as is Bill Kidd, who is sitting at the back. I wish them all the best for the future and I thank them for their contributions to Parliament.
I depart with profound gratitude. I am all too aware that thousands of our fellow citizens step forward to seek elected office. Not all of them make it on to the ballot paper, and even fewer are elected. Public service—in saying this, I know that I speak for many of us who are departing—is more than a career. It is an absolute privilege.
I owe a debt of gratitude to those who have supported me on my journey over the past 27 years and allowed me to hold a front-row seat for experiences from the birth of devolution to where we have got to today. I am sure that my colleagues have similar thoughts about what we have witnessed over so many years.
My heartfelt thanks must go first to my family: my wife, Fiona; my son, Angus, who is in Brisbane and is probably watching this speech at some ungodly hour; and my younger son, Fraser, who is about to turn 18 and is in the chamber’s gallery, seeing his dad speak for the first time in Parliament. Of course, he was not even born when I first entered the Government in 2007.
I also thank the people of Moray, who placed their trust in me and whom I have represented to the best of my ability for the last 20 of my 27 years in the Parliament. My constituency staff have been incredible—all of us in here know that they are the real engine; they are the people who do all the real work. I thank the current and three previous First Ministers, who entrusted me with the responsibility of being in Government; the Parliament staff and the civil service for their advice and support; and my private office staff. I thank my friends and colleagues—past and present—in my party group and on all sides of the chamber. We are often defined by division, but we all share the burden of public office and we have that in common.
Deputy Presiding Officer, I know that you are retiring at the election—I pay tribute to you for your service as PO and as MSP for your constituency over the years. When you leave, it will bring a particular clarity that comes with departure from this place. The partisan noise will begin to fade, and the fog of daily argument in which we all involve ourselves will also begin to evaporate.
We in this Parliament have spent nearly three decades building the foundations of a better country and navigating big events, such as the financial crash, Brexit, a global pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Now, we are witnessing a tide of populism across the world, in which people offer deceptively simple solutions to what are often complex problems. As a Parliament, we must look forward. Despite all those uncertainties, we have much cause for optimism. Our country is known for inventing the world; now we are shaping the future as well.
There are many points of light across our country. Science and technology are generating solutions to our big problems in our universities, colleges, laboratories, burgeoning tech hubs and all our companies. We have world-class life sciences; a growing space industry; deep tech and critical technologies; a great and growing financial sector; an abundance of energy resources; and—one of my favourites—an amazing tourism sector, underpinned by the world-class brand Scotland. Of course, I must mention the global icon that is Scotch whisky, which is always close to my heart and to my lips. I hope that the next Parliament will have a laser-like focus on generating wealth and revenues from all those strengths.
One thing is for certain: the next Parliament is going to experience profound change. More economic and societal change will be compressed into the next five years—certainly compared with the past 25 years and probably compared with our entire history. Artificial intelligence and all the other developments will change how we raise and spend taxes, how we buy things and what we buy. Everything will be impacted by the changes that are taking place before our eyes. Automation will displace labour and it will do other things as well. If we do not address some of those issues, we will end up importing tech and exporting profits, so there will be big challenges for the next Parliament to face.
I joined the Scottish National Party when I was at school, so my views on Scotland’s future are clear. We have no time to waste, because all democracies have a need for speed. If we do not act quickly in the next five years, we will fall behind as a country. There are massive opportunities, but we must grasp them and be agile in prioritising and deploying them to make our country a better place.
Across the parties, we all know what needs to be done. I hope that, in the future, we can build a consensus to make sure that that happens—with respect, grace, and good, robust arguments. If we do that better, perhaps we can set an example to other Parliaments in countries around the world.
I wish everyone who is retiring from this Parliament well; I wish the best of fortune to everyone who is standing again; and, to every new MSP who will have the honour of sitting on these benches, I urge them to relish every single moment. I can tell them from personal experience that the first 27 years will go by in a flash.
Finally, I say to the Parliament: farewell, and goodbye.
Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Previous
Point of Order