Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2026 [Draft]
In considering this request from the Conservatives, it is important that we reflect on the extent to which these matters have already been interrogated, including directly with the Lord Advocate. Any reasonable member—even on the Tory benches such creatures still exist—would surely conclude that that has been substantial.
We had two urgent questions answered by the Lord Advocate, one of which was answered only a few minutes ago. There has been a topical question on the subject, which I answered, and Russell Findlay and Anas Sarwar raised the topic in detail at First Minister’s questions. In addition to that, the Lord Advocate absolutely fulfilled the undertaking that she gave the Parliament to provide more written information, to such an extent that we have a Conservative MSP, who is not with us tonight, for some reason, claiming that he had been the victim of a document dump.
Last week’s urgent question resulted in 14 members having the chance to quiz the Lord Advocate. Tonight’s question resulted in seven members having an opportunity to do so, and on a theme that emanates from the Lord Advocate fulfilling her commitment to provide the examples that she did. I therefore struggle to see where there is a lack of accountability at play here, let alone the cover-up that Murdo Fraser claims.
With four weeks to go until the Parliament rises for the election, a packed programme of business confronting us and perhaps a few unanticipated legitimate asks for additions to that programme to come, how can the Tories reasonably argue a case for a statement?
I ask Parliament to vote against the amendment to the business motion.