Questions and answers

Question reference: S6W-38003

Asked by: Martin Whitfield, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Angus Robertson on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, whether it has undertaken any internal economic modelling of the potential impact on trade of introducing customs checks at Gretna and Berwick in an independent Scotland, and, if so, whether it will publish this.

Question reference: S6W-38009

Asked by: Martin Whitfield, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Angus Robertson on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, what estimate it has made of the number of staff that would be required to operate any customs or border posts along the Anglo-Scottish border in an independent Scotland.

Requirements for border staff will be subject to the trade arrangements agreed between the EU and the UK at the time, and negotiations following independence.

As detailed in Building a New Scotland: A stronger economy with independence (October 2022) an independent Scotland could draw from best practice around the world, seeking to agree and develop the form of border that works best for our circumstances and needs and those of our partners in the EU and in the rest of the UK.

Scotland already has infrastructure and processes in place to operate its current border, including, for example, customs processes at airports, and Trading Standards Officers who may check at the point of sale that non-compliant goods are not being placed on the market.

Question reference: S6W-38007

Asked by: Martin Whitfield, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Angus Robertson on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what its policy is on what the arrangements would be for residents who commute daily between Dumfries and Cumbria or the Borders and Northumberland in the event of a hard border between an independent Scotland and England.

There is a long-standing Common Travel Area (CTA) in these islands. This allows for free movement between the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for citizens of those territories. The Scottish Government is committed to the protection of the CTA and the associated reciprocal rights for British, Irish and Scottish citizens after independence. Maintenance of the CTA would mean that there would be no new passport or immigration checks at any of an independent Scotland’s land, sea of air border points with the UK and Ireland and British, Irish and Scottish citizens would have the right to move freely within the CTA.

Further information can be found in Building a New Scotland: citizenship in an independent Scotland - gov.scot.

Question reference: S6W-37999

Asked by: Martin Whitfield, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Angus Robertson on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, what economic modelling it has undertaken of the potential impact on Scotland’s GDP growth of introducing a hard border with the rest of the UK.

With Independence, Scotland, like all independent countries, would control its borders. Details of how this would impact on movement of people and trade were published in Building a New Scotland: A stronger economy with independence (October 2022).

There is a long-standing Common Travel Area (CTA) in these islands. This allows for free movement between the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for citizens of those territories. The Scottish Government is committed to the protection of the CTA and the associated reciprocal rights for British, Irish and Scottish citizens after independence. Maintenance of the CTA would mean that there would be no new passport or immigration checks at any of an independent Scotland’s land, sea or air border points with the UK and Ireland and British, Irish and Scottish citizens would have the right to move freely within the CTA.

It should also be noted that the nature of the border between an independent Scotland as an EU member state and the UK will depend on negotiations between the UK Government and the EU. For example, the UK and EU are currently negotiating an SPS Agreement which would reduce border checks.

Building a new Scotland: Independence in the modern world. Wealthier, happier, fairer: why not Scotland (June 22) looks at the potential impact of Independence on GDP. The paper sets out that comparable European independent countries to Scotland have higher national income per head than the UK. Across the ten comparator countries GDP per person in 2021 was on average £14,000 higher than in Scotland. The case of Ireland is used as an illustration which shows greater trade diversity coincided with substantial growth in the Irish economy.

It should further be noted that the Office For Budget Responsibility estimates Brexit will reduce UK GDP by 4 per cent in the long-run compared with continuing EU membership.

Question reference: S6W-38737

Asked by: Stephen Kerr, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 17 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Ivan McKee on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S6W-37224 by Ivan McKee on 13 May 2025, what the average desk occupancy was for each of its offices from January to December 2024.

The Scottish Government can only provide data on those buildings where its own data systems are in place. Some locations have landlord data systems in place and the Scottish Government does not have access to that data.

Average occupancy levels are shown in the following table for the buildings where we hold this data, these are taken as an average of attendance levels for a full day every second Tuesday for January - December 2024. Bothwell House closed for use by SG core staff in April 2025.

Building	Average occupancy for Jan - Dec 2024
Aberdeen University	48.96%
Atlantic Quay 5 (Glasgow)	48.25%
Bute House (Edinburgh)	63.71%
Bothwell House (Hamilton)	6.25%
Cadzow Court (Hamilton)	51.30%
Compass House (Dundee)	61.73%
Denholm House (Livingston)	27.82%
Alexander Fleming House (Elgin)	26.09%
Hadrian House (Falkirk)	36.56%
Tankerness Lane (Kirkwall)	55.13%
Longman House (Inverness)	5.57%
Marine Scotland (Aberdeen)	29.50%
Marine Scotland (Eyemouth)	62.50%
Marine Scotland (Peterhead)	26.25%
St Andrews House (Edinburgh)	38.95%
Saughton House (Edinburgh)	21.42%
Scotland House (Brussels)	55.72%
Scotland House (London)	36.17%
Strathearn House (Perth)	29.05%
Thainstone Court (Inverurie)	11.90%
Thurso (RPID)	92.31%
Tweedbank (RPID)	14.34%
Victoria Quay (Edinburgh)	22.54%
Total	28.67%

Question reference: S6W-38013

Asked by: Martin Whitfield, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Angus Robertson on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, whether it has (a) sought and (b) received any legal advice on its potential ability to allow an independent Scotland to avoid any border checks with the rest of the UK while applying EU single market rules, and, if so, whether it will publish any such advice.

Building a New Scotland: A stronger economy with independence (October 2022) provides details on trade with the rest of the UK following Independence.

The nature of the border between an independent Scotland as an EU member state and the UK will depend on negotiations between the UK Government and the EU. For example, the UK and EU are currently negotiating an SPS Agreement which would reduce border checks.

Question reference: S6W-38014

Asked by: Martin Whitfield, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Angus Robertson on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, whether it will commit to publishing a full impact assessment of the potential (a) economic and (b) social implications of any hard border between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, in advance of any future independence referendum being held.

The Scottish Government is committed to providing people with what independence would mean for them. As a result, we have now published thirteen papers in Building a new Scotland series, with a final overview paper to follow in due course.

For additional information I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-37999 on 25 June. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers.

Question reference: S6W-38607

Asked by: Miles Briggs, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 11 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenny Gilruth on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government how much has been spent on counsellors in schools in each year since 1999, broken down by local authority.

The mental health and wellbeing of children and young people is an absolute priority for the Scottish Government. Since 2021, we have continued to support our local authority partners with £16 million in funding to ensure that all school pupils aged 10 and above and all secondary schools in Scotland have access to school counselling services.

Funding for school counselling services was established in the 2019-20 financial year and therefore the table below outlines the distribution and allocation of funding since 2019-20. The funding for the years 2019–20 to 2022–23 was ring-fenced for the provision of counselling services. From 2023–24 onwards, this funding has been baselined in the overall local government settlement.

The following figures represent funding provided to local authorities for the provision of counselling services. The Scottish Government does not hold information on how much has been spent on counsellors in schools as local authorities are responsible for the delivery of education. Local authorities may hold this information.

Funding distribution and allocations - Scottish Government funding for delivering access to counsellors in schools

Local Authority	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25	2025-26

Aberdeen City	350,000	466,000	466,000	466,000	466,000	466,000	466,000
Aberdeenshire	574,000	774,000	774,000	774,000	774,000	774,000	774,000
Angus	264,000	346,000	346,000	346,000	346,000	346,000	346,000
Argyll and Bute	286,000	377,000	377,000	377,000	377,000	377,000	377,000
Clackmannanshire	131,000	164,000	164,000	164,000	164,000	164,000	164,000
Dumfries and Galloway	385,000	514,000	514,000	514,000	514,000	514,000	514,000
Dundee City	299,000	395,000	395,000	395,000	395,000	395,000	395,000
East Ayrshire	287,000	378,000	378,000	378,000	378,000	378,000	378,000
East Dunbartonshire	308,000	407,000	407,000	407,000	407,000	407,000	407,000
East Lothian	242,000	317,000	317,000	317,000	317,000	317,000	317,000
East Renfrewshire	311,000	411,000	411,000	411,000	411,000	411,000	411,000
Edinburgh City	705,000	955,000	955,000	955,000	955,000	955,000	955,000
Eilean Siar (Western Isles)	140,000	177,000	177,000	177,000	177,000	177,000	177,000
Falkirk	352,000	468,000	468,000	468,000	468,000	468,000	468,000
Fife	738,000	1,000,000	1,000,000	1,000,000	1,000,000	1,000,000	1,000,000
Glasgow City	955,000	1,300,000	1,300,000	1,300,000	1,300,000	1,300,000	1,300,000
Highland	754,000	1,022,000	1,022,000	1,022,000	1,022,000	1,022,000	1,022,000
Inverclyde	195,000	251,000	251,000	251,000	251,000	251,000	251,000
Midlothian	220,000	286,000	286,000	286,000	286,000	286,000	286,000
Moray	208,000	270,000	270,000	270,000	270,000	270,000	270,000
North Ayrshire	329,000	437,000	437,000	437,000	437,000	437,000	437,000
North Lanarkshire	765,000	1,037,000	1,037,000	1,037,000	1,037,000	1,037,000	1,037,000
Orkney Islands	146,000	185,000	185,000	185,000	185,000	185,000	185,000
Perth and Kinross	328,000	436,000	436,000	436,000	436,000	436,000	436,000
Renfrewshire	389,000	519,000	519,000	519,000	519,000	519,000	519,000
Scottish Borders	263,000	345,000	345,000	345,000	345,000	345,000	345,000
Shetland Islands	197,000	255,000	255,000	255,000	255,000	255,000	255,000
South Ayrshire	253,000	332,000	332,000	332,000	332,000	332,000	332,000
South Lanarkshire	709,000	961,000	961,000	961,000	961,000	961,000	961,000
Stirling	262,000	344,000	344,000	344,000	344,000	344,000	344,000
West Dunbartonshire	226,000	294,000	294,000	294,000	294,000	294,000	294,000
West Lothian	429,000	574,000	574,000	574,000	574,000	574,000	574,000

SCOTLAND	£12,000,000	16,000,000	£16,000,000	£16,000,000	16,000,000	£16,000,000	£16,000,000

Question reference: S6W-38634

Asked by: Tim Eagle, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Submitting member has a registered interest.
Date lodged: Wednesday, 11 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Mairi Gougeon on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what work it has undertaken to assess the interaction of section 20 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill with deer management powers in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

The two Bills have different provisions for deer management. Part 2 of the Land Reform Bill contains provisions for compensation for agricultural damage caused by game, including deer. The Natural Environment Bill has a different purpose, it aims to improve the management of deer.

Table of provisions in the Land reform Bill and the Natural Environment Bill

Bill Name	Topics	Impact of Change
LR Bill	Indirect damage added to scope	The addition of indirect damage in Section 20 entitles tenants to compensation for significant agricultural damage caused indirectly by game or game management. Eg the introduction of high tick numbers caused by an uncontrolled deer population. This damage must be evidenced.
LR Bill	Deer control	Maintains that tenants are not entitled to control deer over all of the land on the holding, eg not in woodland or cliffs. They are also not entitled to control deer on hill ground.
LR Bill	Game management	The Bill changes current legislation to enable tenant farmers to receive fairer compensation for direct and indirect agricultural damage caused by game birds or deer to crops, fodder, grass for livestock, grazing land or damage to trees or fixed equipment. This will leave tenant farmers no better or worse off then had the damage not occurred.
NE Bill	Aims and purposes of NatureScot in relation to Deer Management	The Bill updates section 1 of the 1996 Act to make explicit that the general aims and purposes of NatureScot include safeguarding the public interest as it relates to the management and control of deer, which could include factors such as improvements to the natural environment.
NE Bill	Deer Advisory Panels	Section 11 of the Bill amends section 4 of the 1996 Act to allow NatureScot to sit on Deer Panels as members. Currently, NatureScot are able to observe deer panels but do not attend as members. This change allows NatureScot staff to actively contribute to the reports produced by any panel, which could include staff who hold specialist interests or skills.
NE Bill	NatureScot Reviews of compliance with Deer Management code of Practice	Section 5B of the 1996 Act currently requires NatureScot to review compliance with the code of practice on deer management on a three-year cycle. Section 12 of the Bill changes the approach to such timescale for these reviews. The Bill requires that NatureScot must carry out a review if requested to do so by the Scottish Ministers, at an appropriate time after a change to the code of practice and at least once every 10 years.
NE Bill	New grounds for NatureScot intervention for nature restoration	Section 13 of the NE Bill inserts new sections under 6ZA and 6ZB to the 1996 Act. 6ZA (grounds for intervention: damage by deer) largely replicates the existing grounds for intervention found in the 1996 Act (section 6A(1) to (3) for deer management plans and section 7(1) and (2) for control agreements) 6ZB is a new ground entirely, intended to provide for circumstances where deer management is necessary to enable the enhancement of the environment. This is different from preventing damage.
NE Bill	Deer Management Plans	Section 6A of the 1996 Act allows NatureScot to give notice to a landowner or occupier to require them to prepare and submit a DMP. The changes made by the Bill will give NatureScot greater flexibility, including the ability to require DMPs on a shorter timeframe than is currently possible, and for a wider range of circumstances, which could allow for preventative measures to be taken sooner.
NE Bill	Control Agreements	Section 7 of the 1996 Act allows NatureScot to enter into control agreements with land owners and occupiers. The Bill amends this to allow control agreements to be made in relation to the new nature restoration ground for intervention, in addition to the existing purpose of damage prevention, and streamlines the process of developing control agreements. Where non-compliance is found, the Bill requires that NatureScot must either proceed with making a control scheme or advise the Scottish Ministers why it is not appropriate to do so.
NE Bill	Control Schemes	Section 8 of the 1996 Act allows NatureScot to make a control scheme, which sets out the compulsory deer management actions a land owner or occupier must take. the Bill amends section 8 to allow control schemes in relation to the new grounds for intervention for nature restoration, in addition to the existing purpose of damage prevention, clarifies some of the existing language and makes some procedural changes. NatureScot must also register the control scheme in the Land Register of Scotland or record it in the General Register of Sasines.
NE Bill	NatureScot Investigatory Powers	Section 15(1) of the 1996 Act allows NatureScot to enter land at all reasonable times for the purpose of exercising their functions, the Bill shortens the minimum period of notice that NatureScot is required to give before entering land from 14 days to no less than 5 working days
NE Bill	Cost recovery	Section 9 of the 1996 Act currently allows NatureScot to recover expenses incurred for carrying out functions under section 8 where those expenses exceed the proceeds of the sale of any of the venison. The Bill extends this principle to costs incurred to NatureScot for carrying out emergency actions under section 10, and to costs associated with the registration of a control scheme.
NE Bill	Authorisations, Competency and Training requirements	The Bill will amend the existing delegated power in section 17A of the 1996 Act which currently allows the creation of a register of persons fit and competent to shoot deer in Scotland. Through this register, baseline competence for everyone shooting deer in Scotland will be required. Details of the register will be set out via secondary legislation following the Bill’s passage. The Bill will also enable individuals to apply to be registered as authorised to undertake specified activities for which they would currently need a general or specific authorisation. These activities include night shooting, where individuals will be required to display a higher level of competence than the baseline, evidenced via a certificate or qualification relevant to shooting deer at night, in order to be considered fit and competent. Anyone wishing to undertake another specified activity (shooting female deer during the close season, using a vehicle to drive deer or use of a shotgun to shoot deer) will also need to apply to NatureScot to be registered as authorised to do so, however, these activities will require NatureScot to consider if the activity should be authorised
NE Bill	Preventing or stopping damage by Deer	The Bill amends NatureScot’s emergency powers to enable them to take action to prevent damage by deer to the natural heritage or environment on the same basis and following the same process as is set out in section 10 (damage, injury or are a danger to public safety).
NE Bill	Stray farmed deer	The Bill makes it an offence for a person to fail to report the taking or killing of a stray farmed deer to Police Scotland where the person has taken or wilfully killed a deer, the deer is a stray farmed deer and section 25A of the 1996 Act does not apply. The report must be made to Police ”cotl’nd within five working days beginning with the day on which the deer was taken or killed. The purpose of this offence, is to provide a defence where someone kills a stray farmed deer.
NE Bill	Venison Dealers Licences	Currently, a licence is required to deal in venison. Licence holders have to retain records including purchases and receipts of venison. Records must be kept for a period of three years. The Bill removes the requirement related to licensing to deal in venison. Venison placed on the market for human consumption will no longer be subject to this additional regulation, and will be regulated in the same way as other wild game

Question reference: S6W-38703

Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Friday, 13 June 2025
Current Status: Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 25 June 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the alternative green route, along the other side of the glen, for the A83 Rest and Be Thankful section should be re-evaluated to assess whether it would be a more proportionate or cheaper alternative route for the road to take.

The Scottish Government is committed to delivering a long-term solution to the landslip risks at the A83 Rest and Be Thankful and in December we made further progress by publishing draft Orders for the long-term solution and also for future phases of the medium-term solution to provide an improved diversionary route along the Old Military Road. Publication of draft Orders marks the start of the statutory authorisation process.

Transport Scotland carries out a rigorous assessment process to establish the preferred option for a trunk road improvement, like improvements to the A83. The three-stage assessment process, based on standards and good practice set by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), covers environmental, engineering, traffic and economics.

Public engagement and meaningful dialogue with directly affected communities and other stakeholders is also at the heart of the development and delivery of our projects.

Following the detailed assessment of the options under consideration, including the Green Option, the preferred route option for the long-term solution to the landslide challenges at the Rest and Be Thankful, a 1.4km long debris flow shelter along the route of the existing A83, was announced in June 2023. This option will reduce the impact of disruption for travel to, from and between Argyll and Bute and the central belt of Scotland, had the greatest potential to be delivered quickly, was the most favourable across a broad range of environmental criteria and had the greatest opportunity to encourage active travel.

It should also be noted that the latest estimated cost for the preferred debris flow shelter option is £409 million to £510 million at 2024 prices; while the estimated cost of the Green Option as assessed during the route options assessment process was £821 million to £932 million at 2023 prices, significantly more than the debris flow shelter preferred option.

Further detail on the assessment work undertaken during the route options assessment process is set out in the DMRB Stage 2 Route Options Assessment Report, a copy of which is available on the Transport Scotland website (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) stage two route options assessment report - A83 Access to Argyll and Bute | Transport Scotland).

Transport Scotland continues to progress the preferred option through the statutory authorisation process. Revisiting the route options assessment process would introduce significant delay to delivering a long-term solution to the landslip risks at the Rest and Be Thankful.

Seòmar agus comataidhean