Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am interested in the reasons why you would end up at that conclusion.

That would be helpful, yes.

I have another couple of quick questions. Patrick Harvie raised a point on protests and so on. You can tell by the tenor of the questioning that the very heavy presence that UEFA insists on, whether it is crushing indigenous entrepreneurs, which is one way of looking at it, or the monopoly that it has on merchandise—I understand the point George Adam made—seems very heavy-handed sometimes. It seems to be the price that you have to pay. This time, however, is it not the case that the UK was willing to step forward to host when others were not, so perhaps that is a bargaining position? Perhaps the question is for Rachael McKechnie.

This has been a really interesting discussion, even though it is probably not completely aligned with the nature of our inquiry.

I first came across the Alice and Humpty Dumpty quote in A level politics, not in literature. I do not think that that means that Humpty Dumpty was a politician, but perhaps Lewis Carroll was. The quote is something like, “When I choose a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean,” or words to that effect.

If we have to choose how we regulate, surely one of the fundamental things is that we should take a rights-based approach. We should all know when AI is being used, and we should have some explanation of how it is being used—in theory, even if we do not understand it—at the point at which we consume it. I realise that that is more difficult in the security space, but it applies generally.

I should say that the convener mentioned that she and the deputy convener are on the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and I am on the Council of Europe, and those bodies discuss the issue quite a lot.

Especially if we have platforms that are produced elsewhere and we are trying to overlay a regulatory system on those, surely individuals must have the right to know when and how AI is being used.

In addition, I want to go back to something that Lisa said about Scotland being too small a country to sustain whatever it was—I did not catch the rest of it. It would be useful if we could have your views on that and if you could say how Ireland seems to manage to sustain whatever it is, while we cannot. Colin, will you answer that first?

I have a very quick final question that follows on from what Professor Basiri just said. I do not know whether you will have views on this, too, Professor Schaffer.

On the point about losing personnel—I note that University College London was mentioned—it seems to me that, because AI is going to dominate in so many areas and because it will be so crucial to the economies of different countries and their future, we should really be a bit more assertive about how we get it. You have mentioned the absence of Erasmus+, and we are not getting what we need currently—because of Brexit, in my view.

However, the fact is that UK Governments past and present have been pathologically opposed to immigration of any kind. When the US did the same thing a number of years ago, they immediately had to reverse it, because they were losing some of the best minds in the world, who could no longer go to universities in the States. Is there a case or any scope for the UK Government to look at either exemptions or special cases, for example, to encourage the best brains to come here?

Moreover, when I was in the military a long time ago, you could get training to be what was then called a telecommunications technician. It involved a year-long course, with a lot of investment from the Government, and anybody who undertook it was obliged to stay in the armed forces for five years. Is there a case for saying that somebody who benefits from a special visa to come here has to pay it back by staying for a period of time? Might that stop the dispersal of personnel elsewhere?

I am just interested in hearing your views on that. Do you want to start, Professor Schaffer?

Thank you.

It is not dissimilar to the use of ethical hackers, who are used in Dundee in particular.

You talked about data; there is a lot of discussion about where Scotland and the UK stand on that. From reading between the lines, it seems that you are suggesting that we—both Scotland and the UK—sometimes big ourselves up to be bigger than we actually are.

You said that we are lagging behind in some areas, especially in recruitment and personnel, but that we are perhaps at the leading edge of technological development in some cases. Is that hampered by the fact that, as far as I know, Scotland does not have a supercomputer? That has been discussed a lot recently in relation to the University of Edinburgh; the supercomputer is going to the Oxford-Cambridge corridor instead. I do not know what you would call it—I do not even know if it relates to AI, to be honest. You have talked about data and storage of data. Is not having that computing power in Scotland a big constraint?

I have a final question, and I ask you to give a yes or no answer if possible. A lot of people predicted that Brexit would lead to a cultural cul-de-sac, so the issues are not a surprise to people. However, is it more accurate to say that nobody talked about abolishing freedom of movement during the Brexit referendum, and the loss of that is causing the bulk of touring artists’ problems?

We are all gutted about that. Thank you.

I have two questions, one of which is for the entire panel. I will ask it first, but if you could answer it second, that would be great—if that makes sense. This might have been implicit in what you have already said, but is it possible for you to give us one ask that you have for the Scottish Government and one ask that you have for the UK Government?

Before you give us those asks, I do not know whether Lisa Whytock is still with us—