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.
Although that model is foreign to our traditions, it is not unworkable—it certainly works in many other jurisdictions and in central Government in the UK and Scotland.
As always, we welcome the Prime Minister to Scotland and hope that he comes back many times before the election.On 7 December 2006, the First Minister said that he supported a new Trident nuclear weapons system based on the Clyde.
I have tried to keep it short, because it is not helpful for an incoming committee to get reams of paper that it does not examine in detail. The committee has learned many lessons along the way that would be valuable to a successor committee.
There are any number of industries and companies across the country facing various difficult and complex issues. Many of them throw up legitimate policy issues for the committee to consider, but it is always worth pausing for thought about how a parliamentary committee such as this one can best consider such issues.
It would give me cause for concern if we were to say that we want a rule change that would introduce new days without discussing the issue with anybody or considering its implications, how many days would be required and what it would mean for the parliamentary timetable at this point in the session or early in the session.We have not considered the matter ...
We still have to find out the Commission's response to the proposal and member states' views on it, but I know that the European Parliament is incredibly sympathetic to many such initiatives and will probably replicate some of them in its report, which has not yet been produced—our report is the first out.
Is it intended to seek out research evidence before the proposed evidence session takes place? There are many research papers out there. I am a wee bit concerned that a verbal presentation of the arguments for and against the proposition would not give an indication of the breadth and depth of the research that has been done.