Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a very significant question on any financial implications. Robbie Kernahan, given that you have those powers currently, if there were financial implications, would that mean that article 6 of the ECHR could be violated? It might be the Law Society that should answer this, but do you take the financial implications into consideration, and do you have due regard to any violation of article 6?

But how do you do that?

Do you believe that the frameworks are proportionate?

Today?

It is. I do not know whether my question is for Ian Thomson or David Lynn. Police Scotland said in its submission that giving the SSPCA more powers could hinder some of the stuff that the police do in inquiries into organised crime. I want clarity on the difference of opinion about that. The aim is to ensure that criminal investigations are more successful, so they need to be robust. Why does the RSPB’s opinion differ from Police Scotland’s?

Okay.

Can the panel members give us their views on the distinction that is made between land that is peatland and land that is not peatland for the purpose of muirburn licensing?

I want to pose a question that goes beyond the one that I originally asked. Would there not be circumstances in which NatureScot could differentiate between non-peatland and peatland when issuing a licence, without there being two licensing systems?

Can I make an apology, convener? Did I jump in on Alasdair Allan’s line of questioning? I am sorry.

But—