Chamber and committees

It is perhaps a bit out of character for me to say that an amendment in Stephen Kerr’s name seems reasonable but, on first reading, I did not see anything in amendment 8 that appeared particularly harmful. However, having thought about it a little more, the rights that it sets out could, in some circumstances, be problematic. For example, the right to observe searches might cause unnecessary disputes in situations in which an individual is being disruptive or posing a threat to others around them. The minister referred to the point about reporting entry to Glasgow City Council, and I am a bit worried that that would raise expectations that the council would always have the ability to do something about that. I am not entirely clear how that would be helpful, so I do not feel that amendment 8 should be supported.

For the reasons that the minister set out, I have problems with amendment 9 because of the risk of the opportunity that could be taken to destroy evidence.

I can understand why Jamie Halcro Johnston thinks that, in specific instances where traders have made a loss, that loss might be compensated, but I point out that there will also be significant circumstances in which traders gain additional opportunities. They might well be in other places, but there will be opportunities that would not have been there if the tournament had not been happening. Can he say, either in an intervention now or in his closing comments, whether it is his view that the Government ought to try to establish a situation in which there are no losses and no benefits—and if so, tell us how he intends to recoup the additional benefits that will be gained—or is he trying to suggest that losses should be compensated and benefits pocketed?

I welcome the fact that there is clear agreement across the committee and the Government on the need to draw a distinction between commercial activity and social or political expression. I welcome George Adam’s amendments and the Government’s support for them.

Good morning. In previous sessions in our inquiry, we have ended up in a conversation about whether particular ideas, such as the referendum being “once in a generation” and the settled will of the Scottish people, are merely political rhetoric or whether they have any substance as principles that can be relied on.

I want to explore that question in relation to the point that several of the witnesses today have made, that everyone accepts that it is the right of the people of Scotland to make a decision about their future. Several witnesses have mentioned that there is consensus on that, and that consensus was written down as recently as the Smith commission, when all five political parties that were involved, and both Governments, accepted that. Well, the commission phrased it by saying,

“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose”,

which is a little more nuanced, but it clearly frames that right as sitting with the people of Scotland and not with anybody else.

Is that simply a piece of political rhetoric that just happens not to have been contested by the political parties that are prominent at the moment? Alternatively, does it have any status as a principle in the UK’s unwritten constitution? Is it something that can be relied on in any sense? I am aware that I am asking that at a time when there is a genuine threat that a UK Government could be led by a far-right party, which we should be afraid of for many reasons, including because it was not involved in that process and would presumably argue that it cannot be bound by a principle that was agreed by other political parties.

Is there any sense in which the UK Government’s acceptance of that principle has status and can be relied on, or is it as much rhetoric as talking about “once in a generation” is?

Do any other witnesses want to comment on the extent to which the principle that Scotland has the right to make the decision could be relied on in circumstances in which a political party that disagrees with it comes to power in the UK?

Although I agree that lodging an amendment of this kind without taking it through the business bureau is clearly performative and has been done as a wheeze rather than as a serious proposal for a serious debate—

Having made that comment, I would like the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and his Government colleagues to be aware that others—not those who want a debate based on doubling down on the fossil fuel industry or chasing the votes of climate deniers—want a serious update on the energy strategy. We want an update to be given not just to the petitions committee, but to the Parliament.

Those of us who want to see an energy strategy that is based on serious climate policy also expect to see that brought to the chamber, although not as a result of a short-term proposal for a debate at the last minute. I think that the entire Parliament expects such a debate to happen in the new year, because the Government will not be able to go into the next election without making clear whether it supports doubling down on the fossil fuel industry or maintaining the presumption against new oil and gas extraction.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It may have been my hearing, but I thought that I heard a mental health slur from a member who has just chastised other members about respect to others. Presiding Officer, in your judgment, was that language respectful?

I do not want to step on their toes.

Thank you.