There will be a division.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 508B disagreed to.

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 508 agreed to.

Amendments 509, 491 and 492 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

I am just trying to work out when the best moment is for a brief pause. I will push on a bit in the hope that that entices you all to keep moving in the right direction.

The next group is on assignation and succession. Amendment 184, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 185 to 215, 230 to 233 and 305 to 308. I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 184 and speak to all the amendments in the group.

The question is, that amendments 185 to 215, 510, 493 and 496 be agreed to. [Interruption.] Sorry—I knew that I would get that wrong. I will clarify that. The question is, that amendments 185 to 215, 510 and 493 to 496 be agreed to.

Amendments 185 to 215, 510 and 493 to 496 agreed to.

Right—I need to get back online with the script.

Amendment 216, in the name of Tim Eagle, has been debated with amendment 488. Do you wish to move or not move the amendment, Tim?

I am delighted to stand up and speak in the debate, even if it is to highlight some of the incredible things that I hear other parties saying. First, I put on the record that the MOD is a very important contributor to Scotland. It invests huge amounts of money—more than £2 billion a year—and our arms exports and weapons exports are incredibly important. I do not need to point out to members that Lossiemouth, which is in the region that I represent, has just benefited from a Boeing investment of more than £100 million.

I am sorry that Daniel Johnson is not in the chamber, but I recognise what he said about the importance of investing in our armed services and what the Labour Party is doing. I was pleased to hear him say that because, for too long, our armed services have been cut down. When I was a soldier, there were 138,000 soldiers in Germany; now, in the UK, fewer than 60,000 can be deployed. I am also pleased that the Scottish Labour amendment identifies that, without the type 26 frigate programme, Ferguson Marine would not be able to rely on having a future.

I struggle with the SNP’s policy, which is that the party supports diversifying from defence expenditure and defence industries but likes defence. It seems to me that you cannot have the two.

I would be delighted if Lorna Slater asked AI to articulate the Scottish Greens’ policies, because they seem completely incoherent. It seems that they support delivering first-field dressings to Ukraine but not giving soldiers the ability to defend themselves on the battlefield, which is ludicrous.

Let me be entirely clear: I believe that the first duty of every Government is ensuring the security of the country and the population. That will not be achieved by giving hugs and kisses to those who threaten us.

Let me be clear that the only place in the world that has benefited from a flower power revolution is Portugal, in 1974, when soldiers put carnations in their guns to prove that they were not going to fire at civilians. Every other country has to use bullets to defend itself and fight against aggression. Countries need weapons to defend themselves, and they need to be confident that their politicians will give them the ability to defend themselves.

In very short and simple terms, our armed forces need to walk softly but carry a stick in order to defend us against the growing turbulence across the world. One has only to look at Iran, North Korea, Russia and China as central places where division is being sowed.

I highlight some of the comments that we have heard about Ukraine. I will quote Lorna Slater and see whether she will stand up to defend this. On 5 March 2025, she said:

“Support for Ukraine is wide and deep. Not since the end of the cold war have Europe’s values been tested as they are being tested now. In the face of Russia’s aggression, however, we are resolute.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; c 93.]

We are resolute, but we do not seem to be resolute in providing Ukraine with the ability to defend itself. That is a completely mixed message.

John Swinney stood before us and said:

“Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 13.]

We will stand with Ukraine, but we will not defend it or allow it to defend itself.

Those are the sorts of mixed messages that we get. I have lots of other examples of that for lots of SNP members who have not turned up to the debate. The SNP wishes to diversify rather than defend the country. Let me say, as an ex-soldier, that that is pure hypocrisy and not understandable.

I will keep it very brief. I will quote Patrick Harvie, which I do not do often:

“Scotland has strong solidarity with Ukraine and is outraged at those who would abandon it to an aggressor”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 16.]

Surely, by not giving it arms, we are doing exactly that.

If Lorna Slater’s remarks were completely coherent, how will Ukraine defend itself against Russia if it does not have any weapons with which to do so? Is it just supposed to hug and kiss it out?

Will the member take an intervention?