The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 6 May 2021.
Glasgow Southside is the most diverse and multi-cultural constituency in Scotland – one of the many things that makes it so brilliant. I am confident it will unite today to utterly reject these fascists.
The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 2 May 2021.
Over the past year, I’ve done my best every day to steer Scotland through this difficult and heart-breaking time.
I have asked a lot of you, and we’ve all asked a lot of each other, to keep the country as safe as possible. I can never thank you enough for the sacrifices you’ve made.
By working together, lives have been saved and the NHS has been protected.
We have made progress and there is now light at the end of the tunnel. Having come this far, it is vital that we stay the course.
This Thursday, there is one more thing you can do to help keep the country on the right track.
To continue our progress and keep Scotland in safe hands, I’m asking you to use both your votes for the SNP.
The SNP is the only party with a clear plan to support the NHS, protect jobs, help our young people get on, and build a better future for Scotland.
And I am the only candidate for First Minister offering tried and tested leadership to guide us through the crisis and into recovery.
Your votes can give me, and a re-elected SNP government, the strength we need to keep Scotland safe.
That means voting SNP on the constituency vote. And voting SNP on the regional list vote.
Both votes are necessary to secure experienced leadership with Scotland at heart.
I’m ready to get on with the job.
Please help me to do that, by using both your votes for the SNP on Thursday.
The statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 9 April 2021.
On behalf of the people of Scotland, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to Her Majesty the Queen and the rest of the royal family.
Our thoughts are with them at this difficult time and their grief is shared by people across the country.
The Duke of Edinburgh had deep and longstanding ties to Scotland, attending school here at Gordonstoun and regularly holidaying at Balmoral Castle.
From his patronage of The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme, to his close association with the University of Edinburgh as Chancellor for over 50 years and his commitments to countless charities and organisations, Prince Philip’s long contribution to public life in Scotland will leave a profound mark on its people.
Online Books of Condolence will open in the coming days to allow people to pay their respects. In line with current restrictions, the royal household has requested that members of the public do not leave floral tributes or gather at the Palace of Holyroodhouse of Balmoral Castle at this time.
The Palace has suggested that people could donate to charity instead, if they wish to do so.
The article written by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 30 March 2021.
This is the most important election in Scotland’s history.
So much hangs on its outcome, but at its heart it comes down to one very simple question – who should decide our country’s future?
Should it be a Scottish Government at Holyrood, elected by the people of Scotland – or should it be Boris Johnson and the Tories at Westminster?
The last few days have shown us just how important that question is and just how much it matters.
That’s because the last few days have shown everyone the respective priorities of Holyrood and Westminster – and when it comes to how different those priorities are it is not so much a gulf as a vast and ever widening chasm.
In Scotland, the SNP Government has made our priorities clear, with a four per cent pay offer to NHS staff – people who are deserving at the best of times but who, over the last 12 months, have truly gone above and beyond the call of duty as they have battled on the front line of the Covid pandemic to try to keep us all safe.
At the same time, Boris Johnson’s Tory government has not only failed, so far at least, to come anywhere near matching that pay offer for health service staff – they have almost gone out of their way to show how different their priorities are.
How else can anyone explain the bizarre and frankly grotesque decision to lift the cap on the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads.
At a time when the world should be looking to solve common problems and challenges like climate chance and recovery from the pandemic, the Tories are intent on rolling the clock back 30 years or more to a Cold War mentality.
So while they claim to be struggling to find the money to pay nurses, they have no qualms about spending billions of pounds on the obscenity of new nuclear weapons of mass destruction – weapons which will be stored right here in Scotland, barely 40 miles from our biggest city and centre of population.
Boris Johnson’s priorities are clearly not Scotland’s priorities.
But this election can be the one in which Scotland, overwhelmingly and decisively, shows that it is choosing a better path for all our futures.
Over the coming weeks, the SNP will set out the most positive, upbeat and optimistic case ever made for the future of this country.
It will be brimming over with policies, ideas and initiatives for how we rebuild from the pandemic and create a fairer, more prosperous nation.
Policies like John Swinney’s plan to put a laptop or Chromebook in the hands of every pupil in Scotland’s schools. Just as teachers used to hand out jotters to all, in the years to come, every pupil will receive the device they need, putting the internet in the hands of every pupil, in class and at home.
Over the last couple of days we have already started to outline some of that vision.
On Friday, as I addressed local government leaders in COSLA, I confirmed that one of the first acts of a re-elected SNP Government will be to begin work on a National Care Service.
I also made clear that we plan to scrap charges for non-residential care, to help ease the financial pressure on those accessing care. And we will bring in a National Wage for carers so that the value of the pay received by our social care workforce better reflects the huge value of the work they do.
Meanwhile, we have announced that if re-elected we will deliver 100,000 new homes across Scotland in the next decade.
We have already delivered nearly 100,000 homes since 2007, but our plan for the next 10 years seeks to double that, in a move that will support up to 14,000 jobs a year as we rebuild from the pandemic and generate investment of around £16 billion.
That makes our plan the largest home building and investment programme since the start of devolution – and at least 70 per cent of the new homes will be for social rent.
We’ll also introduce a new single standard for housing quality to help make sure homes are more energy efficient, more spacious and of better quality overall.
These are just some of the policy ideas we are bringing to this campaign – but as I said, at its heart this election is about who gets to decide Scotland’s future.
If re-elected, an SNP Government will take forward plans for an independence referendum, and if those plans have the backing of a majority of MSPs at Holyrood then we propose a referendum should be held once we are through the pandemic.
The question of who is in charge of the rebuilding that is needed is a crucial one – and independence means we can focus on priorities like homes, health and education and not the wasteful priorities of Boris Johnson.
To make that happen we need the strongest possible SNP vote – that means giving both votes to the SNP on May 6th.
The statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 3 March 2021.
The spotlight shone on historic workplace harassment in late 2017 was long overdue.
It was right at that time for my government to review its processes, consider any weaknesses and gaps in them, and put in place a Procedure that would allow complaints, including those of a historic nature, to be investigated.
When complaints were made about Alex Salmond it was also right that the government took them seriously and subjected them to investigation.
An individual’s profile, status or connections should not result in complaints of this nature being ignored or swept under the carpet.
That in this case it was a former First Minister does not change that.
The Procedure that was adopted in late 2017, in the wake of the MeToo concerns, was drafted by civil servants, largely independently of me.
However, I was kept abreast of its development and I signed it off.
As a result of a mistake that was made, a very serious mistake, in the investigation of the complaints against Alex Salmond, two women were failed and taxpayers’ money was lost.
I deeply regret that.
Although I was not aware of the error at the time, I am the head of the Scottish Government, and so I want to take the opportunity to say sorry to the two women involved and to the wider public.
I also accept – without reservation – that my actions deserve to be scrutinised.
Two years ago, I volunteered for such scrutiny by referring matters relating to my contact with Alex Salmond to the Independent Adviser on the Ministerial Code, Mr James Hamilton.
Mr Hamilton is conducting an independent investigation and I await his findings.
His investigation is not being conducted in public – though of course his conclusions will be published.
As a result of that, he is able to hear and consider material that, because of a contempt of court order, this committee cannot – including, as I understand it, from people who were actually party to discussions that others, who were not, are seeking to attest to.
Mr Hamilton has offered no commentary on his investigation and nor will I.
However, this committee – and the public – are entitled to hear from me directly on the matters under consideration.
So today, I will do my best to answer every question asked of me directly and in as much as detail as I can.
Firstly, on the 8 January 2019 I volunteered to Parliament my contact with Alex Salmond. I stated as follows:
‘On 2 April [2018], he informed me about the complaints against him…’
I will explain why I stand by that statement.
Second, I will set out why I did not immediately record the April 2 meeting within the Scottish Government – a decision based entirely on my desire to protect the independence and the confidentiality of the process.
Thirdly, I will outline why I believe it was right that I did not intervene in the investigation when I became aware of it, even though Alex Salmond asked me to do so.
And, finally, although the mistake made in the conduct of the investigation meant, ultimately, that the action for Judicial Review could not be defended, I will demonstrate that the decisions taken at each stage of it were legally sound.
I am sure we will return to all of these matters in detail.
However, I want to focus, in these opening remarks, on the issues around my contact with Alex Salmond on 2 April – and my contact 3 days earlier with his former Chief of Staff.
Alex has claimed in his testimony to the Committee that the meeting in my home on the 2 April took place with a shared understanding, on the part of all the participants, of the issues for discussion.
In other words, that he turned up to the meeting believing I already knew everything.
In fact, this represents a change in his position.
On 14 January 2019, after the conclusion of the Judicial Review, a spokesperson issued this comment on his behalf –
‘Alex has no certainty as to the state of knowledge of the first minister before then’ – by which he meant 2 April.
A brief account of what happened on 2 April suggests – as per his comment in January 2019 – that he did not assume full knowledge on my part in advance.
When he arrived at my house he was insistent that he speak to me entirely privately – away from his former Chief of Staff, Geoff Aberdein and another former colleague, Duncan Hamilton, who had accompanied him, and my Chief of Staff who was with me.
That would hardly have been necessary had there already been a shared understanding on the part of all of us.
He then asked me to read a letter he had received from the Permanent Secretary.
This letter set out the fact that complaints of sexual harassment had been made against him by two individuals, made clear that these complaints were being investigated under the Procedure adopted at the end of 2017, and set out the details of what he was alleged to have done.
Reading this letter is a moment in my life I will never forget.
And although he denied the allegations, he gave me his account of one of the incidents complained of, which he said he had apologised for at the time.
What he described constituted, in my view, deeply inappropriate behaviour on his part – another reason why that moment is embedded so strongly in my mind.
At the time he was showing me the letter and outlining his account, Geoff and Duncan were doing the same with my Chief of Staff.
Again, this would seem unnecessary had she and I known everything in advance.
Questions have been raised about a conversation I had three days earlier – on 29 March 2018 – with Geoff Aberdein and another individual.
I have not seen Mr Aberdein’s account of that conversation.
However, I know the account Mr Salmond has given of the meeting – though he also said on Friday that he had not been given a read-out of it.
Let me say upfront that I have no wish to question the sincerity of Geoff’s recollection, but it is clear that my recollection is different and that I did not and do not attach the same significance to the discussion that he has.
The purpose of the conversation seemed to be to persuade me to meet with Alex as soon as possible – which I agreed to do.
Geoff indicated that a harassment-type issue had arisen, but my recollection is that he did so in general terms. Since an approach from Sky News in November 2017, I had harboured a lingering suspicion that such issues in relation to Mr Salmond might rear their head – so hearing of a potential issue would not have been, in itself, a massive shock.
What I recall most strongly about the conversation is how worried Geoff seemed to be about Alex’ welfare and state of mind – which, as a friend, concerned me.
He also said he thought Alex might be considering resigning his party membership.
It was these factors that led me to meet him, and it was these factors that placed the meeting on 2 April firmly in the personal and party space.
Not unreasonably, some people have asked how I could have forgotten the conversation on 29 March. I certainly wish my memory of it was more vivid.
But as I have stated, it was the detail of the complaints under the Procedure that I was given on 2 April that was significant and shocking.
That was the moment at which any suspicions I had or general awareness that there was a problem became actual knowledge.
It is also worth saying that even if I had known on 29 March everything I learned on 2 April, my actions wouldn’t necessarily have been any different.
Given what I was told about the distress Alex was in and how it was suggested to me he might be intending to handle matters, it is likely that I would still have agreed to meet him – as a friend and as his party leader.
And, as I set out in written evidence, my decision not to record the meeting on 2 April wasn’t about the classification I gave it – it was because I did not want to compromise the independence or the confidentiality of the process that was underway.
All of which begs the question of why I would have gone to great lengths to conceal a conversation that had taken place a mere 3 days earlier.
Let me turn now to my decision not to immediately report the contact.
Sections 4.22 and 4.23 of the Ministerial Code seek to guard against undisclosed outside influence on decisions that Ministers are involved in and likely to have an influence on, such as changes in policy or the awarding of contracts.
This situation was the opposite of that.
The terms of the Procedure excluded me from any investigation into a former minister. I had no role in the process and should not have known that an investigation was underway.
So, in my judgment, the undue influence that section 4 is designed to avoid would have been more likely to arise had those conducting the investigation been informed that I knew about it.
I didn’t want to take the risk that they might be influenced, even subconsciously, by any assumption of how I might want the matter handled.
Their ability to do the job independently would be best protected by me saying nothing.
It is also my reading of the Code that had I reported it, the fact of my meeting with Alex Salmond would have had to be made public, potentially breaching the confidentiality of the process.
It was for those reasons that I did not immediately record the 2 April meeting or the subsequent phone call on 23 April in which Mr Salmond wanted me to tell the Permanent Secretary that I knew about the investigation and persuade her to agree to mediation.
It is worth noting that respect for the impartiality of civil servants and the confidentiality of government business are also obligations imposed on me by the Code.
My judgement changed when Alex Salmond made it clear to me that he was seriously considering legal action.
I felt I had no choice at that stage but to inform the Permanent Secretary, which I did on 6 June 2018.
I also confirmed to her that I had no intention of intervening in the process. And I did not intervene in the process.
Mr Salmond’s anger at me for this is evident.
But intervening in a process that I was expressly excluded from – and trying on behalf of a close associate to change the course it might take – would have been an abuse of my role.
The committee is also rightly interested in the Judicial Review and the government has now published legal advice that informed the decisions we took.
It is clear from that advice that whilst the government had very strong prospects of defending Mr Salmond’s initial challenge, that changed over a two month period from late October to late December.
The concerns raised by counsel, caused by emerging evidence regarding the role of the Investigating Officer undoubtedly caused me and others to pause, and to check if we should continue to defend the case. However, as late as December 11 the view of the Law Officers following consultation with counsel was as follows:
“very clear that no question or need to drop the case. LA clear that even if prospects are not certain it is important that our case is heard.
“Senior Counsel made clear that his note was not intended to convey that he didn’t think we have a statable case.
They concluded that “…we have credible arguments to make across the petition.”
It was when that changed, that the decision was taken to concede.
In any legal challenge a government faces, there is a balance of risk. That risk cannot be eliminated, but the task of ministers is to consider carefully all the advice we receive and consider the broader public interest.
And the test in the Ministerial Code is not the view of external lawyers but of the Law Officers.
Finally and briefly – though I hope to say more as we get into questions – I feel I must rebut the absurd suggestion that anyone acted with malice or as part of a plot against Alex Salmond.
That claim is not based in fact.
What happened is this and it is simple.
A number of women made serious complaints about Alex Salmond’s behaviour.
The government – despite the mistake it undoubtedly made – tried to do the right thing.
As First Minister, I refused to follow the age old pattern of allowing a powerful man to use his status and connections to get what he wants.
The police conducted an independent criminal investigation.
The Crown Office as it does in prosecutions every single day of the week, considered the evidence and decided that there was a case to answer.
A court and a jury did their jobs.
And this committee and an independent investigation are now considering what happened and why.
For my part, I am relieved to be finally facing the Committee, though given all that has brought us to this moment, being here also makes me sad.
Alex spoke on Friday about what a nightmare the last couple of years have been for him and I don’t doubt that.
I have thought often about the impact on him. He was someone I cared about for a long time.
And maybe that’s why, on Friday, I found myself searching for any sign that he recognised how difficult this has been for others too.
First and foremost, for women who believed his behaviour towards them was inappropriate.
But also for those of us who have campaigned with him, worked with him, cared for him and considered him a friend, and who now stand accused of plotting against him.
That he was acquitted by a jury of criminal conduct is beyond question.
But I know, just from what he told me, that his behaviour was not always appropriate.
And yet, across six hours of testimony, there was not a single word of regret, reflection or even simple acknowledgment of that.
I can only hope that in private, the reality might be different.
Today, though, is about my actions.
I have never claimed to be infallible. I have searched my soul on all of this many times over.
It may very well be that I didn’t get everything right. That’s for others to judge.
But, in one of the most invidious political and personal situations I have ever faced, I believe I acted properly and appropriately and that overall I made the best judgments I could.
For anyone willing to listen with an open mind, that is what I will seek to demonstrate today.
The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 9 January 2021.
Covid case numbers still a big concern & putting huge pressure on the NHS, as hospital and ICU cases increase. Also, 93 further deaths remind us just how dangerous the virus can be – my thoughts are with all those grieving.
To save lives and protect the NHS, please stay home.
The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 6 January 2021.
The scenes from the Capitol are utterly horrifying. Solidarity with those in the United States on the side of democracy and the peaceful and constitutional transfer of power. Shame on those who have incited this attack on democracy.
The statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 4 January 2021.
I’m grateful to you, Presiding Office for this recall of Parliament today.
And I want to wish you, members, and everyone watching, all the best for a new year that we hope – despite a very difficult start – will bring better times.
The Cabinet met this morning to assess the up to date Covid situation – which is extremely serious – and discuss what further action is necessary to minimise further spread of the virus. I will set out our decisions shortly.
However, I can confirm now, in summary, that we decided to introduce from midnight tonight for the duration of January, a legal requirement to stay at home except for essential purposes. This is similar to the lockdown of March last year.
However, before I set out Cabinet’s decisions in more detail, I want to explain in some detail why they are so necessary.
In the last few weeks, there have been two significant game changers in our fight against this virus.
One, the approval of vaccines, is hugely positive and offers us the way out of this pandemic.
But the other – the new faster spreading variant of the virus – is a massive blow.
Possibly the most simple way of explaining the challenge we face right now is to compare it to a race.
In one lane we have vaccines – our job is to make sure they can run as fast as possible.
That’s why the government will be doing everything we can to vaccinate people as quickly as possible. I will say more about that later.
But in the other lane is the virus which – as a result of this new variant – has just learned to run much faster and has most definitely picked up pace in the last couple of weeks.
To ensure that the vaccine wins the race, it is essential to speed up vaccination as far as possible.
But to give it the time it needs to get ahead, we must also slow the virus down.
And because it is now spreading faster, that means even tougher restrictions are necessary.
The evidence is now compelling that the new variant is up to 70% more transmissible than previously circulating strains, and that it may add as much as 0.7 to the R number.
And according to recent analysis of PCR test samples, it appears that the new variant already accounts for almost half of all new cases in Scotland.
That increased and faster spread is undoubtedly driving the very serious situation we now face.
Today’s case numbers – 1,905 new cases, with 15% of tests being positive – illustrate the severity and urgency of the situation.
No new deaths were reported today – because yesterday was a Sunday and registration offices were largely closed – but since I updated Parliament before Christmas, 289 deaths have been recorded in the daily figures. That again reminds us of the continuing grief this pandemic is causing.
But this is not just about one day’s numbers.
We are now seeing a steeply rising trend of infections.
Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that I am more concerned about the situation we face now than I have been at any time since March last year.
In the week from 23 to 30 December, the seven day incidence of cases per 100,000 of the population increased by 65% – from 136 per 100,000 to 225 per 100,000.
Test positivity has risen sharply too.
The next update on the numbers of Covid patients in hospital and intensive care will be published tomorrow.
I would expect these to show that, nationally, the total number of Covid patients in hospital is close to its April peak. And in some boards, the pressure is already very real.
For example, in terms of hospital beds, NHS Ayrshire and Arran is currently at 96% of its Covid capacity, and three other health boards – Borders, Greater Glasgow & Clyde and Lanarkshire – are above 60% of their capacity.
The number of people in intensive care is still significantly lower than the April peak – which partly reflects the fact that treatment of Covid has improved significantly since last spring.
But even so, the total number of patients in intensive care in Scotland is already above normal winter levels. Indeed, all mainland health boards have now exceeded their normal intensive care unit capacity.
And it is important to be clear that people who are in hospital and ICU now are likely to have been infected 10 days to 2 weeks ago.
That means that these numbers reflect what the level of new cases was around 2 weeks ago.
Given that the number of cases has increased significantly since then, we can expect to see significantly increased pressure on the NHS over the course of this month.
Contingency plans remain in place to double and then treble ICU capacity if necessary.
And the NHS Louisa Jordan continues to be available to help meet demand – as indeed it has been doing in recent months. 12,000 patients have attended there for scans and outpatient appointments; nearly 5,000 NHS staff and students have been trained there; and it is currently being used for Covid vaccinations.
In short, NHS services are coping at present – although the pressure on frontline staff is considerable – but already in some areas the position is fragile, and getting more challenging.
And if the rate of increase in case numbers that we have seen in past two weeks was to continue unchecked, there would be a real risk of our NHS being overwhelmed – even with contingency plans in place.
In fact, our modelling suggests that without further intervention, we could breach inpatient Covid capacity within 3 or 4 weeks.
And, of course, a sharply increasing number of cases, in human terms, means many more people becoming ill and dying.
All of that explains why we have to act quickly and decisively.
The situation in some other parts of the UK – where case numbers are already much higher than here, and where the contribution of the new variant is already greater – shows what may lie ahead if we don’t.
As things stand, we estimate that we are possibly about four weeks behind the position in London and the south east.
The rapid acceleration in London began when it was at about 160 new cases a week, for every hundred thousand people. That’s the level Scotland was at a week ago.
London is now seeing 900 new cases a week per 100,000. Test positivity is around 27%. And pressure on NHS services is acute.
We have an opportunity in Scotland to avert the situation here deteriorating to that extent.
But we must act quickly.
The advice of our clinical advisers is clear that the increased transmissibility of the new variant means that the current level 4 measures may not be sufficient to bring the R number back below 1.
It is essential that we further limit interaction between different households to stem the spread and bring the situation back under control, while we vaccinate more people.
In short, we must return for a period to a situation much closer to the lockdown of last March.
Let me therefore set out in more detail the decisions Cabinet has reached.
It is important to stress that these are not decisions taken lightly. I am acutely aware of the impact they will have and I know they will not be welcome.
But they are in our judgment essential.
As government, our clear and overriding duty right now is to act quickly to save lives and protect the NHS.
We know that delay or prevarication in the face of this virus almost always makes things worse not better – even if it stems from an understandable desire that we all share to wait for more data or evidence.
To turn to the decisions in detail. The decisions I will speak about a bit later on schools, let me be clear at this stage, they will apply to all parts of Scotland. However other decisions that I will outline will apply to those parts of Scotland currently at level 4, which of course is all of mainland Scotland, and they are effectively an enhancement to level 4.
The island areas currently in level 3 will remain there for now, although we will continue to monitor them very carefully.
These additional level 4 restrictions – essentially returning us to a position similar to the lockdown of last March – will be in place for the whole of January. We will keep them closely under review.
However, I cannot at this stage rule out keeping them in place longer, nor making further changes. Nothing about this is easy.
The first measure is that our fundamental advice, for everyone, is to stay at home.
That is the single best way of staying safe.
We consider that this stay at home message and advice is now so important that, from tomorrow, it will become law, just as it was in the lockdown last year.
This means it will only be permissible to leave home for an essential purpose.
This will include, for example, caring responsibilities, essential shopping, exercise and being part of an extended household.
In addition, anyone who is able to work from home, must do so. It will only be a reasonable excuse to leave your home to go to work, if that work cannot be done from home.
We are asking people and businesses to take this really seriously – as we all did in March, during the first lockdown, – because the situation is at least as serious now as it was then.
The law already requires many businesses in certain sectors to close in Level 4. We now need every business to look again at their operations, and to make sure that every single function that can be done by people working at home, is being done in that way.
Businesses have already shown a tremendous capacity to adapt during this pandemic and I’m very grateful to them for that – and we need them to consider their operations again, as we all work together to reduce transmissions.
The Economy Secretary will be speaking to business organisations about this, including this afternoon. We will also engage with unions on these issues. And we will continue to consider if more regulatory action is required.
We are also providing new guidance for people who are in the shielding category.
If you were shielding and you cannot work from home, our clear advice now is that you should not go into work at all.
The Chief Medical Officer is writing to everyone who falls into this category, and his letter will count as a Fit Note for those who need it.
Unlike the lockdown last year, the frequency of outdoor exercise is not being limited.
It is important for physical and mental health that we can get outdoors for fresh air and exercise as much as possible.
However, from tomorrow, the rule on outdoor gatherings will change.
As of now, up to six people from two households are able to meet outdoors. Given the greater transmissibility of this new variant, we consider it necessary to restrict that further.
From tomorrow, a maximum of two people from up to two households will be able to meet outdoors.
Children aged 11 and under will not be counted in that limit, and they will also be able to play outdoors in larger groups, including in organized gatherings.
However, for everyone else – including 12 to 17 year olds – outdoor exercise should only take place in a way which is consistent with the 2 people from 2 households rule.
In addition, strict travel restrictions remain in place across Scotland. From tomorrow, if you live in a level 4 area – as the majority of us do – you cannot leave your home except for an essential purpose. When you do go out, stay as close to home as possible and stay away from crowded places.
And it remains the case – and let me stress this point – that no-one is allowed to travel into or out of Scotland unless it is for an essential purpose.
Presiding Officer,
A number of other measures will come into effect on Friday of this week.
It is with real regret that we consider it necessary for places of worship to close during this period for all purposes except broadcasting a service, or conducting a funeral, wedding or civil partnership.
I am well aware of how important communal worship is to people.
But we believe that this restriction is necessary to reduce the risk of transmission.
While up to 20 people will still be able to attend funeral services, wakes will not be possible during January. And a maximum of 5 people will be able to attend wedding and civil partnership services.
Presiding Officer,
I know how devastating restrictions like these are and I give an assurance that we will not keep them in place for longer than is absolutely necessary.
There will also be additional measures in relation to businesses, in addition to the tightening of the essential retail definition that took effect from Boxing Day.
The current 1 metre exemption for workplace canteens will end – so canteens will have to ensure that employees sit 2 metres or more apart, rather than 1 metre.
The number of non-essential services which remain open will be further restricted.
Premises which will need to close as a result of these changes will include, for example ski centres, showrooms of larger retailers, and clinics offering cosmetic and aesthetic procedures.
I know that many businesses have already been hit by the restrictions which were put in place on Boxing Day.
And of course I know that the vast majority of businesses have taken their responsibilities seriously, and have invested in Covid safety measures.
In addition, the move to home working has brought challenges for workers and employers. I am hugely grateful for the way in which businesses and their staff have responded to those challenges.
Grants are of course available for businesses required to close as a result of restrictions. That support is in addition to support through the UK wide furlough scheme.
The Scottish Government’s financial support for businesses during the pandemic currently totals more than £2.3 billion.
However, we will continue to assess what more the Scottish government can do – either in closure grants or other forms of support – to help businesses and those who work for them.
We will also work with councils to ensure community and social support for those who need it, including for parents balancing work and online learning.
We will confirm additional resources later this week.
Presiding Officer,
The final substantive issue I want to address – before giving an update on vaccination – relates to schools.
We announced before Christmas that most school pupils would learn remotely – rather than in school – until Monday 18 January.
I can confirm that we have now decided to extend that date and keep schools closed to the majority of pupils until 1 February. We will review this again in mid-January.
The change will apply to all pupils – except vulnerable children, and children of key workers. And it includes nursery schools, as well as primary and secondary schools.
There is no doubt that of all the difficult decisions we have had to take today, this was the most difficult of all and its impact is of course the most severe.
The evidence to date makes clear that thanks to the hard work of school staff and pupils, schools in Scotland have been low-risk environments for Covid. We will work with our partners to ensure that remains the case.
That will include ongoing work on testing in schools and discussions about when, in the context of the overall programme, it will be possible to vaccinate school staff.
And I want to be clear that it remains our priority to get school buildings open again for all pupils as quickly as possible and then keep them open.
However, right now, two factors mean that it is not consistent with a safety-first approach for all children to attend school in person.
First, the overall level of community transmission is simply too high. We need to get transmission down before schools can safely reopen. A period of online learning will also, in turn, help us do that.
The second reason is that there is still significant uncertainty about the impact of the new variant on transmission amongst young people.
We therefore have to adopt a cautious approach at this stage.
So most pupils will be learning online for at least the rest of the month.
We will review on 18 January whether they can – as we hope – return to school on the 1 February.
I know that remote learning presents significant challenges for teachers, schools, parents and young people, and we will work to support children and parents throughout this.
The Scottish Government, Education Scotland and local authorities are working together to further improve the remote learning options which are available for schools.
And it is also worth highlighting that since schools returned after the summer, more than 50,000 devices – such as laptops – have been distributed to children and young people to help with remote learning. More devices are being distributed by councils on a weekly basis, and in total we expect our investment –which builds on existing local authority action – to benefit around 70,000 disadvantaged children and young people across Scotland.
I also want to stress one final point.
Just as the last places we ever want to close are schools and nurseries – so it is the case that schools and nurseries will be the first places we want to reopen as we re-emerge from this latest lockdown.
They remain our priority.
That is why we are considering whether and to what extent – consistent with our overall duty to vaccinate the most vulnerable first in line with JCVI recommendations – we can achieve vaccination of school and childcare staff as a priority. Many teachers will of course be vaccinated over coming weeks as part of the JCVI priority list.
The fortnightly review will not simply be a choice between opening and closing schools – we will always seek to maximise the number of pupils we can safely get back to classrooms and nurseries.
So if the evidence tells us we can get some pupils back safely, we will do that.
However ultimately, the best way of enabling more pupils to return more quickly is by reducing community transmission of the virus as much as possible.
And all of us – by accepting and abiding by the wider restrictions I have set out today – have a part to play in achieving that.
Before I leave the issue of education, let me remind the chamber that we already had plans in place for the staggered return of universities and colleges. We will be considering this week whether any further change is necessary.
Presiding Officer,
Before I close today, I want to give a brief update on our current expectations around vaccine supply.
The Health Secretary will give a more detailed update on vaccination in a statement the chamber next week.
However, I can confirm today that well over 100,000 people have now received their first dose of the vaccine.
The first doses of the Astra Zeneca vaccine are being administered today.
In total, over the period to the end of January – including the more than 100,000 already administered – we expect to have access to just over 900,000 doses of vaccine. Obviously, we hope that increases.
These will be split roughly equally between the Pfizer and Astra Zeneca vaccines.
However, we anticipate that some of the Astra Zeneca portion will be available only in the last week of January.
We do not yet have certainty on supply schedules beyond January but will keep Parliament updated as these become firmer.
However, our current expectation, based on assumptions about supply and the new advice on doses being administered up to 12 weeks apart, rather than 3, is that by early May everyone over 50, and people under 50 with specific underlying conditions, will have received at least the first dose of vaccine.
That is everyone who is on the JCVI priority list, and comprises more than 2.5 million people.
Once everyone on the priority list has been vaccinated, we will start vaccinating the rest of the population, and will do this in parallel with completing second doses for those on the priority list.
Those timetables are of course heavily dependent on vaccine supply. And for that reason, they are at this stage cautious.
However, I have tasked our vaccination team with exploring and keeping under ongoing review all options to speed up the rate of vaccination and bring these timescales forward as far as possible.
I am grateful for the many offers of assistance we have received and while many of them may not prove possible or practical to take up, they will be considered
The Health Secretary will say more about all of this in her statement next week.
Presiding Officer,
To conclude, this is most certainly not the new year statement I wanted to give.
And I know it is a statement no one wanted to hear.
But as I said at the beginning, we are now in a race between the vaccine and the virus.
The Scottish government will do everything we can to speed up distribution of the vaccine.
But all of us must do everything we can to slow down the spread of the virus.
We can already see – by looking at infection rates elsewhere – some of what could happen here in Scotland if we don’t act.
To prevent that, we need to act immediately and firmly.
For government, that means introducing tough measures – as we have done so today.
And for all of us, it means sticking to the rules
It means continuing to follow the FACTS guidance
And it means – above all – staying at home.
That is again our central message.
Stay Home. Save lives. Protect the NHS.
If we do this, we give the vaccine the time it needs to get ahead and ultimately win the race.
I know that the next few weeks will be incredibly difficult.
I’m sorry to ask for further sacrifices, after nine long months of them. But these sacrifices are necessary.
And the difference between now and last March is that with the help of vaccines, we now have confidence that these sacrifices will pave the way to brighter days ahead.
So – for everyone’s sake and safety – please stick with it and stay at home.
The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 1 January 2021.
As independent Ireland takes up her seat on the UN Security Council today, not (yet) independent Scotland is taken out of the EU against our will. Time to put ourselves in the driving seat of our own future, Scotland #indyref2
The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 24 December 2020.
There will be lots of focus – rightly – on the economic costs of Brexit. But ending UK participation in Erasmus – an initiative that has expanded opportunities and horizons for so many young people – is cultural vandalism by the UK government.