The Scottish Parliament is set to vote on a controversial bill that would legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults, sparking a heated debate among lawmakers and revealing divisions within the Scottish National Party (SNP). The bill, introduced by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, proposes to allow mentally competent adults in the advanced stages of a terminal illness to seek assistance in ending their lives. The vote, scheduled for 13 May, will be a free vote, meaning MSPs will not be bound by party lines but will vote according to their conscience.

Former First Minister Humza Yousaf and current First Minister John Swinney have both voiced their opposition to the bill, citing concerns over the lack of sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals from potential coercion. Yousaf emphasized the irreversible nature of the decision, stating that the legislation would 'open a door that cannot be closed.' Swinney, who has consistently opposed similar bills in the past, reiterated his stance, highlighting the ethical and legal complexities surrounding the issue.

However, the SNP's unified front appears fractured as Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville announced her support for the bill. Somerville, who represents Dunfermline, acknowledged the profound impact of the issue on individuals across Scotland and stressed the importance of implementing 'enforceable protections' for vulnerable patients. Her decision underscores the personal and moral dilemmas faced by MSPs as they prepare to cast their votes.

The debate over assisted dying in Scotland reflects broader discussions on end-of-life care and individual autonomy. With the bill's progression hinging on the upcoming vote, the outcome will not only shape the future of assisted dying legislation in Scotland but also test the cohesion of the SNP. As MSPs grapple with their consciences, the nation watches closely, awaiting a decision that could redefine the boundaries of life and death in Scottish law.

Families of the 29 victims killed in the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash are escalating their decades-long fight for answers, preparing to deliver a petition with more than 47,000 signatures to Downing Street demanding a public inquiry. The Chinook Justice Campaign has published 110 "critical questions" they want answered about the tragedy that claimed the lives of 25 intelligence experts and four special forces crew members when the aircraft crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on June 2, 1994.

The campaign comes after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer rejected calls for a judge-led inquiry into the incident, prompting families to declare they will "see the UK government in court." Among those delivering the petition on Tuesday are brothers Andy and Matt Tobias from Watford, whose father John Tobias was killed in the crash. The petition delivery will be accompanied by an attempt to deliver a letter directly to the Ministry of Defence.

Central to the families' concerns are questions about mission authorization, aircraft selection, and whether those on board were properly warned of risks. The campaign has gained momentum amid revelations that key documents related to the crash have been sealed until 2094—a century after the incident occurred. David Hill, technical expert for the Chinook Justice Campaign, characterized the government's position as "a betrayal by the state of them and their loved ones."

The crash investigation has followed a contentious path over the past three decades. Initial findings blamed pilot error for the tragedy, but this conclusion was overturned in 2011. The continuing secrecy surrounding the incident has drawn criticism from campaigners who argue it "undermines trust not only in the MoD but in the government itself." As families prepare to confront the government directly, the case represents one of Britain's longest-running military accountability battles.