Chamber and committees

It was highlighted earlier that there is some debate about the option that has been put forward. Does it frustrate you and the group that you did not feel completely listened to in the making of Transport Scotland’s ultimate decision for a sort of half tunnel and that Transport Scotland did not look again at the other side of the road and the potential for a road through the forestry?

On a wider point, Shan Saba, you mentioned a fiscal problem, meaning the money. A lot of you are very positive about your engagement with Transport Scotland. The interesting issue is that, although such engagement can be quite positive at the beginning, what we have learned from the Rest and Be Thankful, for example, is that it is when you get into the detail that problems start coming in, because Governments start going in different directions.

I do not know whether others would disagree, but the importance of political will is telling. The Government wanted to build the Queensferry crossing. I think that the design work on it started in 2006, and by 2007 we had a decision. The bridge was being constructed by 2011 and was in place by 2017. Wow—that was quick. When we wanted to nationalise ScotRail, we could do that with a click of our fingers and without much discussion. The fact that, for things like the A96, the A9, the A83, the A75 and the Rest and Be Thankful, we are sitting here 25 years later, thinking, “What’s going on?”, has a particularly damaging impact on rural Scotland. I find that really challenging. Ultimately, it comes down to political will. It is not a fiscal issue; it is about the will of Governments to get these things done.

On the point about the economy, I am not surprised that a chamber of commerce is talking about the economic impact. One of the things that has stopped some of these developments in the past—and one of the criticisms—is the question of whether they have an economic benefit. Do you think that any economic impact assessment will ever really highlight the possibilities that could come from a dualled A9, A75 or A96, or whatever it might be?

There is no doubt in your mind that the dualling of those roads could fundamentally change and benefit rural communities in the future.

I have two quick questions. Thank you, John, for those answers. To an extent, most of the questions have been answered and you have explained very well the problems at the Rest and Be Thankful.

I live next to the A96, which Shan Saba talked about. Despite all the problems with its being slow and the frustrations, and wanting a dual carriageway, we have a road—a two-way road that I can get up and down, albeit that it might be slow at different points in time. The problem with the Rest and Be Thankful is that the gateway to Argyll and Bute—you talked about the problems and we have talked a lot in the Parliament about rural depopulation—is effectively a one-way road that is not manageable at different points. I have sat there for more than an hour—I was there for an hour and a half at 11 o’clock one night, waiting to get through on the old military road. It is quite a dark place to be sitting at the roadside at 11 o’clock at night.

Since I have been involved with the Rest and Be Thankful, the frustration for me is that, despite all the years—we talk about 2012 and the task force, but my understanding is that the situation has been going on since as early as 2004-5—and the fact that we are so late on in those discussions, Transport Scotland says, “Yeah, it’s perfectly fine if we take four years for a one-way road.” I reiterate that that is a frustration because it undermines the whole point about trying to grow the economy in Argyll and Bute and making the road work for the people in that area.

Exactly.

Quite a lot of work goes into bringing bills through the Parliament. Why was that issue not picked up initially? Were you involved in the 2025 act?

Good morning, minister. How are you doing? I have only one question, which is about the change from 10 pm to 5 pm in relation to spoiled or lost ballot papers. Our meeting papers just say that the change reflects the fact that few, if any, replacement ballot packs are requested between 5 pm and 10 pm. Do we have any figures on that?

I have a few quick questions. It is always important to understand why we are here. My understanding is that the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, in which I was not involved, changed the law in two ways. First, Scottish Parliament elections under the Scotland Act 1998 were changed to allow those with limited leave to remain to stand. However, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 was not changed, which is why the bill is in front of us. Is that correct?

Okay. We can come on to that in future.

Did we learn anything from the recent Scottish Parliament election about how many people with limited leave to remain chose to stand?

Professor James, do you have anything to add on that? It is always helpful to learn whether something has worked well and whether we could do more. On the practical side, are there any administrative inconsistencies between what we do in Scotland and what would apply to UK parliamentary elections if voting at 16 for the UK Parliament were introduced?