I would like to say that I fall into that category, as a veteran. I always struggle with saying that, because it makes me feel old. [Interruption.] I am old—okay. I hear some members saying that. I perhaps prefer to be called an ex-soldier.

Those of us on the Conservative benches are happy to support the motion. We were also pleased to contribute to and feed into it as the minister was drafting it. We, too, share the view that veterans bring a huge amount to society in Scotland.

Before I say any more about veterans, I pay tribute to our armed forces. We should never forget that veterans have probably served in conflicts around the world and that they allow us to sleep safely in our beds at night. They have never, as far as I am aware, as soldiers, sailors, airmen or whatever, challenged the fact that they might have to make the ultimate sacrifice.

I also acknowledge those who will always remain on duty, having paid that price. I have to say that I am slightly disappointed that there are no Greens in the chamber to contribute to the debate. They are quick to accept the safety that our service personnel bring, and it would be better if they were here to participate.

I note Christine Grahame’s position. In the 12 years that I was a soldier, I did all sorts of things. A lot of them were about supplying food to refugees and looking after refugee camps, which was not all about active soldiering. I pay tribute to Mr Brown for the work that he did in the services, too. Some of us contributed in other ways, and I believe that is why the armed services are vitally important.

I thank the veterans commissioner for all that she has done since she was appointed, and all the veterans commissioners who preceded her. Their job is incredibly important. I support the 81 recommendations—as, I know, the Government did—and I am pleased to see that 35 have been achieved. I think that it is perhaps a wonderful euphemism to say that 21 have been “absorbed into other outcomes”. I am not sure that I understand that, but it means that there are 25 still to be delivered, which we should work on.

I welcome the veterans fund that the Scottish Government created. However, as the minister would expect me to say, I had expected and hoped that it would be bigger. In return, the minister would turn around and say, as they always do, “And where should that money come from?” My answer would, of course, be that veterans are vitally important and that we ought to consider them before we consider overseas trips and doing things overseas.

Nonetheless, the Government has done a lot of good things. The recruiting website is a great idea. It talks about the skills that soldiers bring and that we can use. We can also talk about the leadership that they bring and the fact that they are used to making decisions and quietly getting on with the job. The recruiting website will allow that to come across. I also like the “Welcome to Scotland” guide and the approach to stopping social isolation. Truthfully, I also like the fact that an additional 40 military skills have been taken into account and recognised in the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. It is really important to remember all those things.

In relation to where work is still required, however, I will say a little bit about resettlement. Be under no illusion that leaving the armed forces is unsettling. It can be very difficult. As the report says, there needs to be claimed ownership by the people who are leaving. They are, in many cases, leaving their family, the organisation that they have worked with day and night, and their friends, whom they not only work with but socialise with. There is a huge need for people to do a lot before they leave and during the time that they are leaving, and to be helped to settle into the communities they move to afterwards.

You mentioned that you think that the land acquisition could have been speeded up. I tend to agree with you. Compulsory purchase orders could have been issued relatively quickly and served at minimum cost. Why did that not happen as soon as you got them into the plan in 2011?

I did a bit of research before I came to the committee and, interestingly, I think that there were nine cabinet secretaries after you who were responsible for the matter, including one member of the Parliament who is at this table today. Under the connectivity remit, Mr Ewing, did you not have an input?

Okay. There were nine cabinet secretaries and 11 ministers, I think, which is quite a trawl. If each one had managed to achieve 6 miles of dualling, they could have achieved an awful amount.

Mr Neil, when you left office and, in your words, you had your foot on the accelerator, would you have expected something to happen in the next two years?

I kind of hoped—

It now appears that we will have to do this at a rush and get it done sooner rather than later, which is the right thing to do. Apart from the cost implications of doing it in a rush—the constructors know that you are doing it in a rush and can charge whatever they think is reasonable—could you give me an assessment of the other implications for connectivity to the Highlands? It is going to slow us down, isn’t it?

The Caithness Health Action Team has been around for a long time and has been instrumental in helping to resolve issues of inclusion, in relation to health concerns, for people in the Highlands. It is a strong advocate. I have supported Rhoda Grant and the Caithness Health Action Team in delivering their request to NHS Highland. There is a very simple answer, as Rhoda Grant has suggested, which is for NHS Highland to accept CHAT as a community organisation under the process.

I urge the committee to keep the petition open and to push on NHS Highland’s door to see whether it will include CHAT, because, by excluding it, NHS Highland is doing itself and Caithness no good at all.

I have no declaration of interest to make on that. I do not own any of the land. As a highlander, however, I think that we would all benefit from the dualling of the A9. At the outset, convener, let me say that it is really delightful to see Mr Neil back in the Parliament and speaking up so eloquently for people in the Highlands and Islands. Sadly, that is often lacking in other areas of Government.

It is interesting to hear you stress the importance of manifesto commitments, Alex. They are something that, I believe, politicians stand for, are elected on and should stand to. My first question, therefore, is on Transport Scotland. You used the expression that you were going to “nail down” the advisers in Transport Scotland. That suggests that they might not have been very happy with being nailed down. When did they break the nails? Was it in your successor’s time or beyond that?

That is good to hear. You remained in the Cabinet until 2016. The issue must have been discussed at Cabinet meetings, and you must have wanted to follow up on it, on behalf of the Highlands and Islands, to see where the project was going. Did you raise the matter between the time that you left your portfolio and when you left the Government in 2016?