Chamber and committees

I could probably go further on that point for quite some time, but I am aware of time. We will have to come back to that as we see the effect of the decision.

Some do. You referred to the racist riots last year, which were sparked by online misinformation, propaganda and racism; they were quite deliberately stirred up in that way. Some people will tell the difference between truth and lies when they see it and some people will understand that social media content is not going to be honest or reliable, but others will not.

On your point about the responsibility of the broadcasters, this week the main regulated broadcasters covering a Reform Party press conference just broadcast its racist film about Anas Sarwar, uncritically and unquestioningly; the cameras turned to the projection of that film and it was broadcast to the nation on regulated mainstream news channels.

Good morning. Sorry, not sorry: I will come back to “River City” for a couple of questions first but then I will move on to the recent announcement on regional production.

You have said clearly that ending “River City” was an editorial decision and I accept that that was the motivating factor, but one thing that has left a bad taste in the mouth for the people who received that distressing news was their strong perception that they had been misinformed that the landlord wanted to sell the site for housing. If we can tie that off and put that issue to rest, I would welcome that. Can you confirm whether the “River City” team were told that? If they were not told that, how has the perception arisen that they were misled?

I am not asking if you personally were responsible for where that suggestion came from.

Was the BBC responsible for that?

It is a more modest change perhaps, then?

I am afraid that I really do not think that the First Minister is even attempting to acknowledge the scale of the anger about the issue—anger that has been demonstrated by people outside Parliament today and by the 44,000 people who have already written to the minister—as a result of an unnecessary, unwanted and destructive development.

However, this is not the first time that he has defended such a development. In 2007, when John Swinney had been in government for less than a year, he overturned a local planning decision to approve another controversial, environmentally destructive project from a greedy, bullying developer. In that case, of course, the decision was made to give Donald Trump his golf course. Even Trump’s project director from those days has made it clear that the Government was hoodwinked.

The First Minister is not standing up for Scotland. Did he learn nothing from his mistake? Why is he still willing to back greedy developers who cannot look at a landscape without seeing an opportunity to bulldoze it for profit?

Outside Parliament today, people gathered to express their anger at the Scottish Government’s intention to approve a resort development by Flamingo Land on the shores of Loch Lomond. The proposal has been opposed by the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and more than 155,000 people, and it was rejected unanimously by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. It is the most unpopular development in the history of the Scottish planning system.

I know that the First Minister is about to tell us that he cannot comment on a specific appeal, but his minister has already made a political decision. It took Ivan McKee just two working days to announce his refusal to act in the public interest and recall the appeal, so he and the First Minister must be accountable for that now. There is still a chance that we can save Loch Lomond—the decision is not set in stone—so will the First Minister listen to all those who have been objecting for years, put the natural environment ahead of corporate profit and recall the decision?

Good morning. I will follow up the same theme that Emma Harper started and that Joe Fitzpatrick continued: the list of treatments that you have made clear is non-exhaustive, not prescriptive and can be changed. Specific issues might have been considered for such a list but have not been included, such as harm reduction. There are those who make a case for heroin-assisted treatment not as a default, but because it has been shown to be effective in certain circumstances and successive UK Governments have allowed it. I am interested in exploring not only that but the question whether any list—even a non-prescriptive, non-exhaustive one—is the right way to go.

You said that the bill would increase the range of treatments that are available. Although you might be strongly of the view that it would increase the pressure on Government and public sector bodies to invest in capacity, it would not actually increase the range of treatments that are available. You also said that it would empower individuals to access the treatment that they believe is right for them, but the bill’s achieving what you have described would not sit well, it seems, with the points that you have just made about clinical judgment in each case.

Surely, any bill that is composed of a list, as this one is, will place an emphasis on the things that are included in the list and risk de-emphasising others. Effectively, providing a list makes a political judgment in place of what should be a clinical judgment. By taking a list-based approach, are we not mistaking a political judgment for what should be a clinical one?

Nicotine can lead to people dying.