Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

I imagine that the scale of that fiscal risk is such that the Government is unlikely to take it, given the lack of long-term projections over funding.

At the start of the meeting, the convener made a throwaway comment when she alluded to, I think, a relatively modest further commitment to Grangemouth in the light of the recent announcement. There are two sets of £10 million on the table, because the £80 million is for the Falkirk growth deal—for the wider district. What are your thoughts about that £20 million fiscal contribution from both Governments, in the light of the predicted possible closure of the refinery? Is that enough money?

My last wee comment is that, as you know, I was very complimentary about the commission’s “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, because I felt that discussions thus far—without factoring in the wider fiscal considerations—were doomed to failure because of a significant lack of funding. Obviously, there is public and private capital and so on. Do you think that I am right about that? As a result of your report, is there more understanding that how we get there cannot be totally fleshed out until we understand some of the opportunities and risks around the funding? Am I right?

Good morning. I apologise again for not only not attending in person but my connection freezing when it did. If any of my questions have been covered, please just say so.

Professor Roy, I want to finish off the item on the existing fiscal framework. Earlier, you alluded to the fact that there is an anticipated 20 per cent cut in the Scottish Government’s capital budget over the next five years. You also made the worthy point that, fundamentally, the fiscal framework is not set up to deal with the kind of challenge that we face. Have you managed to—or, indeed, been invited to—have any discussions with the UK Government so that it can understand that? You have clearly had discussions with the Scottish Government. If so, do you think that it is understood that the fiscal framework will simply not be fit for purpose when we have funding issues of such nature and scale?

I imagine that the scale of that fiscal risk is such that the Government is unlikely to take it, given the lack of long-term projections over funding.

At the start of the meeting, the convener made a throwaway comment when she alluded to, I think, a relatively modest further commitment to Grangemouth in the light of the recent announcement. There are two sets of £10 million on the table, because the £80 million is for the Falkirk growth deal—for the wider district. What are your thoughts about that £20 million fiscal contribution from both Governments, in the light of the predicted possible closure of the refinery? Is that enough money?

Good morning, everybody. I am so sorry that I cannot be with you in person.

Professor Roy, I will carry on with that theme and dig a little more into your—[Inaudible.]

I apologise if this came up while I was offline, but I know that you made a comment about the critical dependency between Scotland and the rest of the UK and how, frankly, the UK cannot get to net zero without Scotland’s contribution, particularly around land and peat.

Will you give some more flavour of that? If you have already done that, just let me know, and we can move on.

This is my question, convener.

I will carry on.

It is important that we disaggregate revenue and capital. David Melhuish, you commented in the Scottish Property Federation submission’s that the SPF has a “particular concern” about the “reduction in Capital Investment”. ICAS probably has a view on that issue as well. In the light of an anticipated 20 per cent reduction to the Scottish Government’s capital budget over the next five years—which we know is significant if we understand what capital can do for an economy—do you have anything to add on that? That reduction represents real challenges for the Scottish Government.

I also picked up a wee throwaway comment in the SPF submission about a 54 per cent decline in construction activity from July 2023 to July 2024, which seems utterly staggering.

Perhaps you could go first, David, and then Alice Telfer might want to come in on this point on behalf of ICAS.

Given the additional complexity that Alison Hosie introduced, my question about whether you generally see an appetite for this work is even more moot.