Chamber and committees

We are all too used to the secrecy and spin of the SNP Government, but the public are fed up of it. Judging by his letter, so is the commissioner. He highlights factual discrepancies submitted by SNP ministers in this case and says that there was a “misrepresentation” of the facts about their “prospects of success”.

There is a running theme in the SNP Government’s handling of the Salmond saga and its fallout, and John Swinney’s fingerprints are all over it. The Government has consistently tried to dodge scrutiny, conceal information from public view and obfuscate when questions about its conduct have been asked. What is it about the scandal that the Government is trying to hide?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Information Commissioner letter to it expressing “disappointment” in the way that it complied with decision 193/2024, regarding legal advice that it received. (S6T-02254)

The Scottish Information Commissioner’s letter to the Scottish National Party Government is absolutely damning. When a freedom of information request was submitted to the Government about the ministerial code investigation into Nicola Sturgeon’s conduct, the Government refused to disclose it, saying that it did not hold that information.

The information commissioner disagreed with the Government, as did the courts, but, regardless, the Government wasted taxpayers’ money on the legal fight. A subsequent request for information was sent to the Government, asking for the legal advice that it had received in relation to the case. After much delay, the Government finally released it.

The First Minister told the Parliament:

“The legal advice was unambiguous. It supported challenging the commissioner’s decision”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2024; c 10.]

However, the information commissioner states in his letter that the Scottish ministers’ chances of success in the case were “substantially diminished”. Can the minister tell us with a straight face that the First Minister was being fully candid when he told the Parliament that the legal advice was unambiguous?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under the Parliament’s standing orders, written questions about the operation of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths are answerable only by the law officers, as are oral questions on those matters in all but exceptional circumstances.

Last week, I asked a question regarding the provision of forensic pathology services in Aberdeen. I was expecting to hear from the Lord Advocate, as that function falls under her responsibility, but the question was instead dealt with by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Presiding Officer, were any exceptional circumstances conveyed to you regarding why the Lord Advocate was not able to attend the Parliament on 5 December to fulfil her responsibilities?

Since 2021, the words and actions of the Government have demonised the oil and gas industry and condemned steps to secure our energy security at Rosebank and Cambo. Can the minister say that the poisoned rhetoric of Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and Patrick Harvie has been consigned to history, and will his Government act now to secure the livelihoods of 100,000 people and remove the presumption against oil and gas?

I am confused by what Mr Mason is saying, because we have higher taxes and our roads are crumbling. Does he not accept that we have all those things?

What an important debate we have in the chamber today. With the budget, this SNP devolved Government has yet again let down the hard-working people of Scotland. It has let down its young people, the working population, our industry, our business owners and our investment opportunities. That is quite a record after 17 years.

This Government is out of ideas and out of policies, and it is one that I hope will soon be out of office. In the area that I represent, we have seen businesses close down, the oil and gas sector betrayed and growth recede. There is nothing in the budget to give any hope for the vital industries and jobs on which the north-east depends.

Let us look at some of the detail. The SNP Administration has announced funding for offshore wind. That looks good in a headline, but any further scrutiny leaves us wondering exactly what that money will pay for. It is capital funding, which narrows it down, and there is zero detail on where it will be spent, what it will be spent on and what difference it will make to the net zero economy. Chasing headlines is all that this lot are about.

As a party, we are eager to welcome any investment in the future of wind energy, particularly investment that will encourage production and manufacturing in this country, but there is zero detail from the Scottish Government on its net zero aim. There is no climate change plan and there is no strategy. There is an Administration that is making big promises with zero intention to deliver. It gives a whole new meaning to the term net zero. This Government will earn its title of being a net zero Government, but that will be net zero not in terms of energy, but in terms of delivery.

There is no sign of the just transition plan, and there is little mention in the budget of a just transition. That seems to have gone out the window as well. Instead, we are once again talking about a cliff edge of investment in our North Sea oil and gas sector.

We know that both Labour and SNP plans will mean tens of thousands of job losses in the north-east and that this budget will have a major negative impact on economic growth in the north-east. People in our towns and communities, our families and hard-working Scots will see their pay packets penalised simply for living and working in Scotland.

The just transition fund was meant to provide £500 million over 10 years. It is now three years in and where are we on that? It has been given just £15.9 million in this year’s budget. The Government is so far behind in its commitment to a just transition that it is becoming abundantly clear that that was simply a fake promise to begin with. The Government is net zero by name, net zero in action.

Furthermore, we are continuing to make it increasingly difficult for our working rural population to travel to and from work, due to delayed road schemes and a failing rail network. There is nothing in the budget for the A96 improvement or north-east rail improvements. The Government has promised, time and time again, to do something about our roads in the north-east, whether it is the A9 or the A96, yet progress has been continually delayed, stopped and put back with cries of “It wisnae me” resonating around. The north-east has had enough. We want to see action on those dangerous roads. The Government must stop passing the buck and take action. The price to be paid if it does not is too high—more accidents and more deaths. It is no longer acceptable, and it never was, to push the issue into the long grass. We need action now.

This net zero Government also promised £200 million for rail improvements in the north-east by 2026, yet only £8 million has been spent. Why? There has been more buck passing and more obfuscation. That is another broken promise. Our rural communities are sick and tired of warm words and empty promises. The Government is out of ideas, out of policy and out of time.

In closing, I will talk about the businesses in central Aberdeen. I confess that there is not much Christmas cheer among some of the business owners who I have been speaking to. They are facing the triple whammy of a low-emission zone that is impacting their businesses, bus gates that are preventing access to their businesses, and business rates that are sucking the life out of their profits and their ability to continue in business. The Scottish Conservatives are pleading with the cabinet secretary to pass on the business rates exemption to pubs and restaurants, to mitigate that triple blow. It is immoral that the SNP Government received £145 million in Barnett consequentials for that but is passing on only a fraction of it. This budget will sound the death knell for many of our local pubs, favourite restaurants, important industries and valued projects.

We cannot risk the loss of vital resources in our communities, and the budget puts the very heart of our communities at risk. It is a net zero Government for sure—it is killing our industry and entrepreneurship, it is devastating our oil and gas sector, it is an enemy of road development and improvement, and it is against improving our rail network. It is an absolute disgrace. It is out of ideas, out of policy and out of time.

Cabinet secretary, stakeholders were critical of the scope of the review. Scottish Environment LINK said that it was

“a missed opportunity to examine the environmental governance gaps”.

The Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland said:

“The Report is superficial in its analysis, narrow in scope, and appears pre-determined in its conclusions.”

Professor Sarah Henry said that the review was “narrow” and could have been more ambitious. Do you accept that the review could have been wider in scope and could have included more analysis?

Andrew, do you have a view?

Do you have any further comments, Gary?