This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
It would have been useful to know the answers to the points that you are making before we considered the matter further.However, even if we had that response, I think that we would have to conclude that the petition required further scrutiny.
Are there any other questions? I have a point of clarification. While two people may have deputy chief constable status, only one will have operational powers.
I am happy with that suggestion, but there is another point. Members received a letter from Brian Clarke of Park Lane Palisade Ltd, in which he says that he learned of the petition only by chance.
That is a positive outcome on the specific points that the petitioner made. It is another tick in the box for the Public Petitions Committee, as we have seen some progress.
I do not quite understand how Historic Scotland gets to the point that it reaches in the final paragraph of its letter of 17 November to Mr Wilson, because I understood that Stirling Council was on the point of disposing of the building.
To my way of thinking, a discussion on the details of drafting does not involve the principle but is about the mechanistic way of presenting that principle in a way that takes account of all the different points that are raised by the committee.