Chamber and committees

I think that that stands as a helpful example of why the Scottish Government should think twice about any association with the Scottish Greens.

We are talking about the Scottish Government’s lack of investment in the Rolls-Royce potential in the Clyde. I heard Mairi Gougeon say—unbelievably—that the Government is in favour of Scotland’s defence industries and its armed forces, because we need to defend ourselves, but that it is not in favour of giving our armed forces anything to defend themselves with. That is a completely unacceptable position.

In 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, perhaps there were grounds for putting on rose-tinted spectacles. Maybe we were briefly seduced by the kind of world that we thought we might all be going to live in, but the world is evolving around us right now. We should celebrate the fact that we have leading defence industries here in Scotland that employ the very best of our young people at the forefront of technology. We need to get behind them and be part of the defence of this country and the free world.

Will Lorna Slater take an intervention?

I have heard Scottish Green politicians say that the United Kingdom itself commits war crimes. Is it the Scottish Greens’ position that the United Kingdom Government should not be supplying weapons to itself?

I will start by congratulating Murdo Fraser on the comprehensive programme of defence industries that he identified in his speech.

I also congratulate Daniel Johnson, Paul Sweeney, Edward Mountain and Jackie Baillie on what I thought were first-class, direct speeches that spoke to the very heart of the issue of the defence of this country.

I also pay tribute to the hero of this afternoon’s proceedings, Angus Robertson, who was, in fact, the only member of the Government who was prepared to sit beside the Deputy First Minister. I watched Fiona Hyslop come in, note that the Deputy First Minister was sitting on her own, unsupported, on the front bench, and bravely sit in the row behind her.

I am reminded of when it used to be that the slogan of the Scottish Government was “Stronger for Scotland”. Well, the last time that it was stronger for Scotland’s defences was when Derek Mackay sat on the front bench as its financial spokesman and actively campaigned on behalf of Thales in Govan for the ground-support vehicles that were needed to be manufactured here in Scotland, and, no doubt, deployed in the defence of this country.

The Scottish Government could take the advice of someone such as Stewart McDonald, who sat with Mr Robertson at the Palace of Westminster, where he spoke knowledgeably on defence matters, and who is now clearly at war with his own back-bench friends here in the Scottish Parliament. However, instead of his advice, the Scottish Government is now taking the advice of the Scottish Greens.

Here is the nub of the issue, as far as I am concerned: how can the Scottish Government contemplate advice from the Greens, who, when we had a reception in Parliament during apprenticeship week for more than 100 16-year-olds working in a whole diverse section of the defence industries in this country, had Ross Greer on a megaphone outside this Parliament condemning them and egging on those who were pushing, shoving and spitting at them and accusing them of committing genocide? How is that supportable?

Let us face it—the Scottish Greens are against Britain’s defence industries. They have accused Britain of committing war crimes. Ross Greer has talked about the war crimes of Churchill. The Greens talk about the war crimes of the UK Government, all the way through to the present Government. They talk about the need to be transparent, but in order to be transparent, it is necessary to be free, and in order to be free, it is necessary to have strong defences that allow us to defend our own country.

Fifty years after a politician said that one’s first duty to freedom is to defend one’s own and acquired the sobriquet of the “Iron Lady” for her trouble, Lorna Slater looks to Kate Forbes and tells her that, instead, she should stand before our enemies and posture as the organic food lady. What possible defence of our country would that represent?

I will, since Ms Slater was gracious enough to give way—eventually.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I make a similar point to the one that Martin Whitfield made. Whether we were in Dublin or in Paris, engaging with people in other countries or with the pilot panels that we have run here, the committee found that those who participate will accept that their ideas may not be taken forward—because that is for Parliament to decide—as long as people tell them that that is the case and why. The great cynicism and lack of trust in the process arises when people give a lot of time and effort to the process of making recommendations but are then left high and dry and never hear anything more about it. They wonder what the purpose and value of their contribution was. If we communicate back to them, whether we say yes or no, they will accept that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that there is a parliamentary by-election taking place this week, I am concerned that we should not bring the politics of that into our proceedings this afternoon. I am sure that that was not my friend’s intention, but it would be most unfortunate if it was seen in that way.

I am very grateful for that intervention, and I apologise to Christine Grahame. Her uncustomary lack of bling today meant that I did not quite catch the fact that she had stood up when she did. I see her now, even though my eyesight is failing in my advanced years.

Ms Grahame will be pleased to know that the way in which we reach out through panels specifically does what she asks. Often, the people who are randomly selected to take part have never participated in anything similar, some have never voted and some have never had any engagement in the political process at all. The way in which the members of people’s panels are selected reaches and brings in some of the very voices that Christine Grahame is concerned that we should seek to reach.