Chamber and committees

How was the panel picked? That was my question.

I want to press this point. The comment was made that

“subsidiarity should be the guiding principle and that better decisions will be arrived at, and better investments delivered if the fund was devolved to local level.”

You have mentioned the panel members and stated why they were chosen by the SFT and Scottish Government officials, but you have not addressed the concerns of locals. Would you do things differently if it was done again?

Thank you. If I had known that, I might have asked about the resource support from the SFT—that would have been useful.

Is that the case for the islands plan—yes or no?

Was there ever a consideration that private funding could have been leveraged with regard to the islands funding?

I am okay. Were you bringing me in for a supplementary question?

You might be able to put this in writing, but will you give the committee a progress report on the SFT’s involvement in national planning framework 4?

Obviously, one of your roles is to leverage private funding alongside public funding. Was it ever considered that the national islands plan could be modelled in that way?

Could you quickly talk about the aspect of leveraging private funding?

Without being as dramatic as lodging a motion to annul, would there be an opportunity at the point of voting to ask for clarification in terms of a statement? Could that be done?

It was about Salmon Scotland asking for investment to be made in coastal communities using rent revenues from Crown Estate Scotland.