Chamber and committees

I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament. It is almost as if a troop of monkeys with typewriters has been given the job of writing a motion to cover as many policy areas as possible.

I will get to that at the end of the sentence, Presiding Officer.

If people across Scotland want a party on the centre-right that has grown-up policy solutions, that knows how to write motions in Parliament and that puts forward a credible platform to reduce taxes and improve economic growth, that party is not Reform, but the Scottish Conservatives. That point is made in my amendment, which I am very pleased to move.

I move amendment S7M-446.4, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“agrees that strong economic growth is essential to raising living standards, creating jobs and funding high-quality public services; notes with concern that, after nearly two decades of a Scottish National Party administration, Scotland continues to suffer from weak growth, low business confidence and poor productivity; further notes that Scotland has become the highest-taxed part of the UK, leaving workers paying more and making Scotland less competitive for investment, jobs and enterprise; recognises that Scotland’s economic prospects are strengthened by its place in the UK, which remains Scotland’s largest market and provides the stability, scale and security that businesses need to invest; believes that the Scottish Government should use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to grow the economy, lower the tax burden and support business, rather than pursue constitutional division, and calls on the Scottish Government to focus on making Scotland more competitive, more productive and more attractive as a place to work, invest and do business.”

Perhaps Mr Simpson has an explanation for that.

I will go on all afternoon, if members wish me to.

Let me talk a little bit about the motion, because Malcom Offord makes a significant point that I agree with: the need for

“strong and sustained economic growth”

as the starting point for getting everything right in our society.

The first duty of Government should be to support that economic growth. Despite what Tom Arthur said earlier, Scotland has been badly let down over the past 19 years. Over the past decade, Scottish economic growth has lagged behind the rest of the UK. Even UK growth has not been great during that period, but Scottish growth has averaged only half of the UK rate. If only we had matched average UK growth rates over that period, we would have had billions more to spend on public services.

As part of the economic backdrop, we need constitutional stability, which is why the SNP talking continually about independence does not help the situation. It does not help investment.

Let us remember that the rest of the UK export market for goods and services from Scotland is worth three times what the EU single market is worth to Scottish businesses. However, the SNP’s bright idea is to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom so that we can forge closer links with Europe, which clearly would be to the detriment of our business community.

We know that there are members on the Reform benches who are ambivalent about our place in the United Kingdom. Malcolm Offord has suggested that Scotland could have another referendum within 10 years. There are others, such as David Kirkwood, who has openly supported independence and said that he would vote for it once more.

It is clear that Reform cannot be trusted when it comes to Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. If people across Scotland want a party on the centre-right—

I thank Mr Simpson for that. That just shows what a wasted talent Mr Simpson is on the back benches, when he should be down the front, leading the charge for Reform.

We can reasonably conclude from recent elections that peak Reform has already come and gone, and Scottish politics will be all the better for that.

I do not think that I could ever be as grand as Mr Bannerman. I am afraid that he is out of date. He is referring to results from a month ago; I am referring to results from just last week. The tide has turned already. It is the Scottish Conservatives that are on the way up, and it is Reform that is on the way down. [Interruption.] I will happily give way again, Presiding Officer.

This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament.

The kindest thing that I can say about the Reform motion is that it is an amateur production. I do not think that I have ever seen such a shambolic and convoluted conflation of so many different issues in a motion as I have today in Malcolm Offord’s motion. The motion ranges from the economy and taxation to skills, apprenticeships, education, net zero, oil and gas, low-emission zones, transgender prisoners, immigration, housing and welfare. As far as I can see, the only things that have been left out—

I appreciate that Angela Ross and her colleagues are new to the Parliament. I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once. There will be plenty of opportunities in the next five years to come back and discuss the topics in detail, instead of pushing everything together at the start of the session.

I gently say to my Reform colleagues that they have some experience on their benches, and they might want to make use of it. Graham Simpson is an experienced parliamentarian who knows how to write a comprehensible motion, so they should perhaps turn to him for his talents.

We should perhaps not be surprised that Reform is in a state of confusion. After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight.

That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances. In last week’s by-elections, Reform failed to deliver on expectations. In Makerfield, to the delight, I suspect, of colleagues on the Labour benches—or some of them, at least—there was an overwhelming victory for Andy Burnham in a seat in which Reform had originally been expected to do well. Closer to home, in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Reform trailed in third place behind our excellent Conservative candidate, Jack Cruickshanks, who managed to not only finish in second place but increase the Conservative percentage of the vote.

Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total. To put that in perspective, in the equivalent seat of Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine just last month, Reform managed to secure 17.7 per cent. Their vote is down by more than half in the course of a month.

Oh, Mr Kerr! I do not think that it is my leadership ambitions that people in his party need to worry about.

Let me turn, if I can, Presiding Officer, to the substance of the motion. There is much in Mr Offord’s motion that we would agree with. Time does not permit me to deal with every policy issue.

Yes, Mr Bannerman.