Chamber and committees

That is of interest too, yes.

I will change tack back to the subject that I raised with the previous panel of witnesses about the implications of article 16 potentially being invoked—this question might be one for Professor McEwen or, possibly, for Professor Weatherill. I am thinking about the diplomatic implications, how unusually it would be regarded in terms of the UK’s political relationship with the EU and what it might mean.

I mean from trade agreements.

Mr Leheny, you mentioned trade with Scotland. I am interested to know what the impacts of the current situation are and what any changes to that situation would be through article 16 and withdrawal and all the rest of it. I am interested to know about the trade that you have with the Republic of Ireland and how that fits into this jigsaw.

As an industry—I am not asking about anything that is commercially confidential—are you having to make contingency plans for what might happen if article 16 is triggered?

So, you feel that they are now able to do that. Again, I am not sure whether this forms part of your remit, but do you see evidence that organisations have been brought together to think about those questions strategically and to look as far ahead as you are looking, to 2050?

Finally, your comments have mainly been about adapting to the new reality rather than hard engineering solutions. Where do hard engineering solutions in coastal communities or, indeed, communities by rivers fit into the plan and costs?

Is it fair to say, given that you have looked at a limited range of things, such as roads, railways and houses, that there may be other costs that local authorities should anticipate? There is an example from my constituency—I know that I always use the same example—where a school had to be moved as a direct result of rising sea levels. Are there other areas in which you anticipate that costs might arise? I know that other areas are not part of the study, but could they be costed?

My question is for Dr Rennie. I am interested in what has been said today and in some of the written evidence that we received about rising sea levels and the need to prepare for that in infrastructure terms. I am keen to hear more about the costs that you anticipate. I have seen a figure of £1.2 billion as the potential cost for infrastructure between now and 2050. Can you tell me a bit more about what that means?

Professor Pittock, you have mentioned a couple of times the role that representing Scotland’s culture to the world can play not just as a good in itself but in the exercise of soft power. Will you say a bit more about how “ithers see us”? How has the way that Scotland is seen culturally developed over the past generation? To what ends might that soft power usefully be exercised?