I rise to defend my colleague Liz Smith, who disappeared to the back of the chamber momentarily. I simply want to clarify that, in saying that, she was quoting Professor Mark Blyth—she did not say that it was her view. She was quoting the view of the Scottish Government’s new starry-eyed economic adviser.

What is worse is that the plans to introduce a referendum bill at some point in the future are utterly pointless, because holding a constitutional referendum, as we all agreed in 2014, is outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament. We would waste parliamentary time on a bill that would go nowhere and which would be all about stirring up division and allowing the First Minister to grandstand to her party faithful when she knows—and we know and they know—that she has absolutely no ability to deliver that objective. It is, put in the simplest of terms, a total and utter waste of parliamentary and Scottish Government time.

However, there is one thing that I agree with the First Minister on, which is that a new case for independence is needed, because the one that was presented in 2014 is now exposed as a work of fiction—whether on oil, Scotland’s finances or currency. The person who led that campaign—the former First Minister and a man whose name can no longer be mentioned—has been airbrushed out of SNP history.

Now we have the SNP’s shiny new signing and its latest economic guru, Professor Mark Blyth, setting out the hard realities of independence, which in his words, as quoted by Liz Smith earlier, would be “Brexit times 10”. That is not a unionist politician saying that; it is not even a non-aligned academic. It is the Government’s newly appointed chief economic adviser, who is a cheerleader for and supporter of a separate Scotland. He says that, in his view, independence would be 10 times more damaging than Brexit. Therefore, every time we hear someone on the SNP benches mumping and moaning about Brexit or blaming supply chain issues exclusively on Brexit, let us remind them that their expert says that it would be 10 times more damaging to go down the route of independence.

It is shameful that independence is the Government’s priority at this time, but it is all too typical of an Administration that is out of ideas and which would divide us, rather than unite us. It has nothing new to offer the people of Scotland, and the programme for government should be rejected.

Does Mr Johnson agree that it is ironic that today, just a week after the Greens joined the Government, we have learned that the wind farm turbine factory in Machrihanish in Argyll is closing permanently? That does not demonstrate much of a commitment from the Government to supporting green jobs.

On vaccine certification, we know that there are still adults who have difficulty in accessing vaccinations for a variety of reasons. Indeed, as of today, 17 per cent of over-18s in Scotland have not been doubly vaccinated. Given that backdrop, would the Scottish Government consider allowing evidence of a negative Covid test as an alternative to vaccine certification as a means of entry to the venues that the First Minister has outlined?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You will be aware that important Government announcements should be made first to the chamber before they are given to the press. At 14:40 this afternoon, in advance of the statement to the Parliament that the First Minister is about to make, key details—in particular, proposals to introduce vaccine certification—were posted on social media by the BBC. I am sure that you agree that that is a discourtesy to Parliament. Will you investigate whether that has been a breach of standing orders by the Scottish Government?

In communities across Scotland, many individuals are still waiting to make an appointment for a face-to-face meeting with their general practitioner. I know that the Scottish Government addressed that issue in its plan for national health service recovery, but will the cabinet secretary update us on what the target date might be for getting back to some degree of normality for those who want to meet their GP face to face?

Of course, the appointment of those two ministers means that we have the biggest and most expensive Government ever in the history of devolution, so I hope that it is worth all the money that is being devoted to it.

Alex Cole-Hamilton gave us a history lesson with regard to the concept of Governments’ first 100 days in power. There is nothing scientific or magical about a 100-day period; it is a measure that politicians set themselves to judge progress. However, given that the SNP Government itself made a number of claims about what it would achieve in the first 100 days, it is only reasonable for the Opposition to test what was said against what was actually delivered and, against that test, the SNP Government has been found to be wanting, as we have heard throughout the debate.

This week, we should have been debating the programme for government. We do that every year in the first week back after the summer recess. However, that debate has been delayed for a week, meaning that we, and the rest of the country, are still waiting to hear what the Government’s priorities are for the coming year in terms of its legislative programme and other initiatives. The unrelenting focus on Covid recovery that we have been promised by the First Minister was somewhat lacking in the speeches that she made earlier this afternoon.

Despite all the spin that we have heard from those on the SNP benches this afternoon, the document that the SNP Government published setting out its plans for the first 100 days of this session made promises that the Government has failed to deliver. It has failed to remove unnecessary elements of coronavirus legislation that it promised to remove—for example, it retains the ability to release prisoners early. It promised to vaccinate all adults, but has failed to do so. It has failed to deliver fair results for pupils, given the issues that we have seen with this year’s SQA awards. Further, it has failed in its promise not to push for another independence referendum, as we know that that is the centrepiece of its agreement with the Scottish Greens.

Earlier in the debate, Douglas Ross set out a list of the Government’s policy failures: the worst set of drugs deaths figures in Europe; an education attainment gap that is wider now than in any year since 2017; and huge and growing waiting lists in the NHS for operations, vital treatments and, shamefully, mental health. People are still waiting to see a GP face to face and, as Anas Sarwar and Alex Cole-Hamilton reminded us, there is a lack of support for people who are crippled by long Covid.

In the justice system, there are tens of thousands of unanswered 101 calls to the police, community sentences are not completed or followed up on, and there is an enormous backlog in the courts system, with justice delayed for too many victims of crime. That is the record of the SNP Government after 100 days.

One thing that the SNP has achieved is the deal with the Scottish Green Party, but it is causing a great deal of concern across Scotland. It is causing concern in the business community, as we now have at the heart of government, for the first time in Scotland, people who not only do not believe in economic growth but are actively hostile to it. It is a party whose co-leader supports the nonsense that is modern monetary theory, which says that it is not possible to run out of money—I am sure that Kate Forbes is very interested in that theory. It is a party whose policies would cause devastation to people whose jobs depend on the oil and gas sector, particularly in the north-east of Scotland—the Scottish Green Party pursues a slash-and-burn approach to that industry.

Concerns have been raised by representatives of the farming and fishing communities and rural industries about the impact that Green policies would have on them. They have expressed their dismay at extremists being brought into government, as Oliver Mundell reminded us.

Questions have been raised in the Highlands and in the north-east about what the Greens in government will mean for vital road-safety projects such as the dualling of the A9 and the A96. Despite the best efforts of Graham Simpson, we received no clarity from the First Minister on that question earlier. The Greens claim that they have secured a shift away from road building. A whole host of other local road projects that are absolutely necessary to save lives, prevent accidents, reduce congestion and pollution, and assist economic growth could now be at risk thanks to the Greens being in government.

In my home area of Perth and Kinross, one good example of that is the cross-Tay link road project, which is not just essential to unlock the economic potential of east Perthshire but vital to reduce congestion and air pollution—already at dangerous levels—in Perth city centre. The project depends on financial assistance from the Scottish Government, and we know that the Greens are actively hostile to it. We read Mark Ruskell’s press releases on the subject—he is never done condemning it. Will that vital project be sacrificed on the altar of the SNP-Green deal or will it be allowed to proceed? There are many similar questions to which we await the answers. We need to know whether many other vital road improvement projects across the country will go ahead.

Against that backdrop, it is little wonder that so many members on the SNP benches in this Parliament are concerned about the direction in which the deal is taking them and Scotland. We know what the deal is all about. It is about trying to bring forward another unwanted independence referendum. According to the draft shared policy programme that was published on 20 August, it is the intention of the SNP and Greens to bring forward the referendum within the first half of the five-year parliamentary session. At a time when we should be focusing on Covid recovery—and at a time when the First Minister promised that that would be her unrelenting focus—the Scottish Government is making its real priority the breaking up of the United Kingdom within the next two years.

Instead of the promotion of division, we could have had a consensus here. We could have had an agreement on what Scotland needs to do to rebuild our economy, to create jobs to replace those that have been lost, to restore our public services such as health and education and to start investing in our vital transport infrastructure. Those should have been the priorities of the first 100 days in government, but, instead, the Scottish Government has gone down the route of jumping into bed with a party that wants to take Scotland backwards and not forwards. It is a Government that Scotland did not vote for.

I said earlier that Alex Cole-Hamilton had given us a history lesson. Perhaps the most famous 100 days in history were in 1815, after Napoleon Bonaparte arrived in Paris following his escape from exile on Elba. Within 100 days, he had been defeated by the forces of Britain and Prussia at the battle of Waterloo and sent back into exile. The First Minister will hope that she has more success than Bonaparte did, but in doing a deal with the extremist, anti-business, anti-growth Greens she is sowing the seeds of her own Government’s destruction.

I start by congratulating Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie on their appointment as Scottish ministers. Although we may have the odd political disagreement from time to time, I nevertheless acknowledge that it is a great honour to be appointed as one of the Queen’s ministers. I congratulate them on that appointment and wish them well in it, and I hope that they will advise her well in their new roles.

Earlier, the First Minister alluded to vaccines for young people. Within the next few weeks, many 17-year-olds—shortly to turn 18—will leave home for the first time to pick up a university place and they would welcome the reassurance of a vaccination that is not currently being offered to them. Given that time is very short for people in that group, how quickly can the Scottish Government make a decision on offering them a vaccine?

I associate myself with the Presiding Officer’s comments, and those of the Deputy First Minister, about Andrew Welsh. Andrew Welsh and I served together on a number of committees in the Parliament. Although we were political opponents, he was always a very decent and courteous man with a strong Christian faith, and he will be sadly missed by all in the chamber and everyone who knew him.

The bill process has been very short. I thank members of the Parliament’s legislation team for their assistance with preparing the amendments that my colleagues and I lodged. The very tight timescales put a great deal of pressure on the team; they had to work late into the night, and we certainly appreciate the extra lengths that they went to.

In the stage 1 debate on Tuesday, we set out our concerns about the pace at which the legislation has been introduced. I do not intend to rehearse all those arguments today, as they are on the record, but I think that the manner in which we dealt with amendments yesterday tells its own story. We were trying to deal with significant issues in a very short space of time, and there was limited opportunity for any detailed parliamentary scrutiny, or indeed any external input from stakeholders. We nevertheless did our best to engage with the bill and lodged a number of amendments for discussion.

At the time, I noted Jackie Baillie’s attempt to widen the scope of the bill. Although I understand her reasons for doing so, I do not believe that that would have been a helpful move when we were already trying to rush through too many measures without sufficient time for scrutiny.

At the heart of the bill process lies an essential contradiction. On the one hand, on Tuesday, the First Minister told members in the chamber that things were getting better, that restrictions were on track to be eased and that by mid-August we should, all being well, be back to some degree of normality. In contrast, the Deputy First Minister has said that the extraordinary and unprecedented powers for ministers must be extended for at least another—