Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, because the purpose of all the key principles that we are speaking about relates to our attempts to stop double selling. If you were to say that every transaction would lead to more cryptocurrency, that would suggest that there is double selling, and the legislation is designed to avoid that happening.

We are one of many jurisdictions that is trying to modernise property law to take into account digital assets. Some other jurisdictions have passed laws in recent months—the United Kingdom law is pretty fresh—so we are not behind, but we must modernise our law. That is the purpose of the bill. The economy is changing fast and I am confident that we are moving at a reasonable pace.

There is an ability to make regulations in the bill, so that option is open to us in the future. We cannot say in advance what the need for that will be, but the ability is there in the bill.

I noted that evidence, so we will reflect on that. That is all that I can say at this point.

I listened to a lot of the witnesses who you heard from, and a lot of important and pertinent points were made not only about what is in the bill and the purposes of the legislation, but about some of the wider issues that arise from it.

There were legal voices, as well as other voices offering a more technological perspective. It is important to note that those from the expert reference group who gave evidence, as well as those from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, who were focused more on the legal aspects of the bill—the bill has a limited scope and focuses on giving legal certainty to digital assets as property—felt, virtually unanimously, that this is an important bill, that there is a need for it and that it achieves what it is setting out to achieve.

Some of the other issues that were raised were addressed by the witnesses who support the bill. However, there might be a wider debate beyond that. The bill cannot deal with everything, as it has a narrow focus. There were lots of issues to do with blockchain technology and all manner of issues on the margins, and that there might also be debates that arise on the margins of the bill. However, as I mentioned, I think that that was more of a debate around technology and the bill is not an appropriate place to address some of those issues.

That would be a case for the wider legal system. All that the bill is dealing with is identifying what is property. If you sell something to Willie Coffey that belongs to Lorna Slater, Willie Coffey would own the property. You would have sold it when you should not have; therefore, in theory, you could be sued for damages by Lorna Slater. That would be for the wider legal system; it is not for the bill to determine that. The bill simply determines what is property.

Those concerns do not have a direct relationship with this bill, but there is wider development of policy around data centres in Scotland, equipping Scotland for the future and the AI revolution. As you say, the more digital the world becomes, the greater the demand for energy. Our policy is to have green energy data centres in Scotland. We have already seen CoreWeave proposing to establish a data centre in Scotland, and we will see how that develops over time. The company chose Scotland because of our renewable energy potential and has said that publicly.

You are right that a wider digital revolution is taking place and that we must ensure, for environmental reasons, that we deal properly with that big energy footprint. You will be aware that that is a global issue and that a significant percentage of the world’s energy is now being used for data centres. Our policy is to try to utilise our renewable energy potential to have green data centres, because we have that advantage.

I certainly did not.

The bill arises from Scots law, which has been around for centuries as part of our distinctive legal system. The bill will be recognised by the legal profession, at whom it is primarily aimed, and by the courts—it is for the courts as well. The issue that you raise, regarding ensuring that laws are accessible and use language that the public understands, applies to many acts of Parliament. I can sympathise with that, but, at the same time, legislation must be legally sound.

We will ensure that the explanatory notes, which are more likely to be used by the public than the act of Parliament would be, are very clear in explaining what everything means.

I ask Fraser Gough to come in on the point about acquisition.

I read some of the evidence that you got on that, so thanks for raising that. Absolutely—we could consider that issue further. As you say, there is a distinctive Scottish legal system and there may be distinctive Scottish considerations overall. Our position is that we are open minded to that. Clearly, if the committee has a view, we will take that on board. We read that evidence with interest and we have an open mind.