Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have said before, yes.

I noted the points that the witnesses made, but they also said that they felt that the approach was satisfactory. Clearly, that is linked to avoiding double selling—there must be safeguards in place to avoid double selling and therefore the systems that are used must be immutable so that records cannot be changed.

Ultimately, it will be for courts to decide, should they have to look at the matter in detail. However, anyone who is reading this will know what is being asked of the legislation and what it means with regard to not tampering with records and the fact that we cannot allow a system that permits double selling.

We will reflect on that, and in particular on the point about the explanatory notes and so on. Some witnesses said that they would be reluctant for guidance to be issued because they are content that there is certainty in the bill. They said that they wanted the bill to be technology neutral, and pointed out that the world will change and that we cannot predict what those changes will be, so the more prescriptive we are, the more issues that could cause in the future.

I am happy to reflect on the evidence. Again, I noticed that there was a slight differentiation between the evidence from those who were coming at this from a legal perspective and the evidence from those who had a wider technology interest. Those who wanted the law to be clear as to the property status of digital assets were content. Obviously, however, there is a wider debate about some of the issues that other witnesses mentioned.

I am happy to consider that. The committee will publish its report, and we will treat its recommendations very seriously.

There is a whole debate about providing more certainty on what is excluded from the bill—perhaps through carve-outs, which have been mentioned. Some witnesses said that we should not go down that road and that they were content that what was in the bill was defensible and that it achieved the right balance.

I cannot give you a categorical answer, but we will reflect on what the committee says about the need for further clarification.

I will reflect on that. Whether carbon credits or anything else will be identified as property will come down to how the bill is interpreted. The bill is there to lay down the key principles of what would define digital assets as property, so the consideration of carbon credits or anything else will depend on the definition of property in a digital world.

With regard to future proofing, some witnesses—perhaps Lord Hodge or Professor Fox—made the point that, to a certain extent, we can deal only with the here and now. Technology is changing quickly, and we cannot really future proof something when the world is changing so fast and we do not know where we will be in 10 or 20 years’ time. I think that there was an acceptance that Parliament might have to deal with that once it becomes clearer, but the bill is really about dealing with the here and now.

I know that this is an open-ended debate and people will have their own views on it, but the witnesses made some good points in that regard.

My understanding—from the expert reference group and from the evidence that was given to the committee—is that the tight definitions that you referred to were in order to differentiate between types of electronic documents, as not all electronic documents are defined as property. We have to define property, as well as other types of electronic documents.

Examples that were given to the committee, and that were given by the expert reference group, include that a digital image or an electronic document—such as an email—is not defined as property in Scots law. We therefore have to differentiate between types of electronic documents, and that is why definitions such as “immutable” or “rivalrous” come into play. They are to differentiate between what can and cannot be easily copied and what is and is not property.

The bill’s purpose is not to solve disputes; it is to determine what digital property is. Other legislation deals with all those issues, but the bill identifies or classifies digital assets as property.

I will bring in Fraser Gough to explain the legal background.

As you are aware, all developments are subject to environmental assessment, and that applies to data centres as much as to any other infrastructure for AI or for the digital revolution that is taking place. As the policy evolves, we will have to have more answers to those questions, because, if the demand for energy is going to get bigger and bigger as the years go on, we are going to have to calculate what that demand will be and what impact it will have on Scotland, and we will have to look at the environmental assessments to ensure that we are working within our limits.

I am going to bring in colleagues. I know that Kieran Burke was keen to come in on your previous point, so if I can bring him in to talk about the policy perspective, we will come back to your point on tokenisation.