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.
Even the House of Lords accepted the matter although—goodness knows—many peers are old enough to suffer from age discrimination if any of them could get a job in the outside world. Everyone has blandly accepted the matter, but we should not just accept it.
Before we go any further, and before we get to question 4, I advise members to look at section D4 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, where they will see exactly where the division lies.
As a number of members have said, the programme is significant and, if the committee is to have a purpose in scrutinising the work of the Executive, it needs to get the information well in advance.
As a number of members have said, the programme is significant and, if the committee is to have a purpose in scrutinising the work of the Executive, it needs to get the information well in advance.
I also hope that at that time the Taoiseach will be able to conduct the visit that he had planned for this weekend. I hope that that will get the support of the chamber in what John Swinney recognises as a delicate and sensitive matter.
Do we really mean putting the matter away until such time as we have an answer, bearing in mind the fact that we may not get one, or do we mean that in a couple of weeks we will discuss what to do if we have still not received a letter?
Do we really mean putting the matter away until such time as we have an answer, bearing in mind the fact that we may not get one, or do we mean that in a couple of weeks we will discuss what to do if we have still not received a letter?
How can clinical standards be raised in Scotland when the man who invented keyhole surgery cannot even get a reply to his letters, let alone the recognition that would allow advances in technology in that field?