Chamber and committees

Professor Roy, given divergence and differences between the two Governments—for example, you highlighted the differences between investment in peatland and in forestry—how do we ensure that there is clear signalling from both of them? Does the UK Government have to allow flexibility in the fiscal framework to ensure that we get a bigger bang for our buck in the move to net zero, UK-wide, by investing in Scotland, so that we can achieve some of the things that the rest of the UK cannot?

There is, of course, another alternative, but you will not be able to comment on that either.

Thank you very much, Professor Roy, I will not take the opportunity, on the 10th anniversary of the independence referendum, to talk more about the other pathway.

Thank you, Professor Roy. You are selling Aberdeen very well—better than some of the folk from the area, who often take a much more pessimistic line.

Professor Bell, I want to concentrate on planning, policy and data, because it is extremely important that we get those aspects right. Earlier, we discussed the transferability of skills. Aberdeen and the north-east are awash with immensely skilled people. However, you said that skills development in the area has come too late. How do we change that at UK level, as far as investment is concerned? How can we also get it right at Scotland level, so that we manage the just transition and do not put folk from the oil and gas industry, and others, on the scrap heap, as happened to the miners a number of years back?

Both of you have highlighted in your answers to earlier questions that attracting the right people requires investment by not only the Government but the private sector. If we do not have such planning, and do not get it absolutely right, will not the private sector be much more averse to making such investments?

Rachel, should there be a three-year, a five-year or a 10-year spending review?

Should that include a multiyear spending review, rather than an annual budget, which is what we have seen far too often of late?

I have a devil’s advocate question for Euan Leith about his commentary on the different forms of application in Government and how the cake is split. Let us take some examples that Euan will be aware of. In relation to capital regeneration funding, the Government is in agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that it has a major part to play in the allocation of funding. The Corra Foundation has done a huge amount of the legwork in some of the scenarios that have come about of late, such as funding for health and social care for addiction. There are scenarios in which the Government has agreed that others become involved in processes. I take it that you are not arguing for universality of decision making—or perhaps you are, I do not know. Could that be streamlined, or do we just need to communicate better how those things are done?

It is one directorate, basically.

I could probably go on at length about things like the national care service in relation to that, but I will forgo that.