What we have heard today from the First Minister is utterly unbelievable and embarrassing. He has demeaned himself and the office of First Minister. Two weeks in, and the pretence of a new kind of government is gone—party first, country second. He talked about the actions that should be judged here. It is not the actions of a committee that should be judged, but the actions of a member who attempted to wrongly claim £11,000 of public money. In the real world, that employee would lose their job, not have their bosses running around trying to protect them, which is what we got from the First Minister.

On all the complaints that are now being made, why were those on the Government benches not making those complaints before the process started, rather than after it had concluded? I am talking about the wider Government, not just one individual.

Let us look at what is happening here. Every single day, the two Governments are getting more and more alike. Let us not forget how Boris Johnson was judged when he thought that he could stand against the processes of the United Kingdom Parliament when it came to individual members of the Conservative Party. Let us not forget how Liz Truss was judged when she did the same, and let us see how Rishi Sunak will be judged when he puts party before country. Is it not the case that John Swinney and the Scottish National Party Government will be judged, too?

I say to the First Minister: do the right thing for once. Put the integrity of our Parliament and our democracy before your political party and demand that Michael Matheson resign so that the people of his Constituency can vote for someone who is on their side and not fighting for themselves.

I am interested in putting Parliament first. That is why, before any of this kicked off, I wrote on two occasions to the convener of the Standards, Public Appointments and Procedures Committee, because I was concerned about the danger to the reputation of Parliament because of the fact that a process was going to be undertaken where members had prejudged it. That is an issue, and Mr Sarwar will share my perspective on the issue of employees’ rights. We have to have fair processes in our Parliament. I set out why I thought that those processes were at risk of being unfair.

Mr Sarwar asked about the raising of those concerns and the appropriate course of action to be taken. I remind Mr Sarwar that, in the Boris Johnson case to which he referred, Chris Bryant, one of Mr Sarwar’s colleagues in the House of Commons, recused himself from the parliamentary standards process because he had expressed public remarks about the case. Mr Bryant took the appropriate action to protect the process. The process has not been protected here.

I come at this issue using the fundamental Christian maxim of doing unto others what you would have done unto yourself. It worries me that what is being proposed is something that none of us would like to have done to us, because of its unfairness. That is the issue that Parliament has to confront.

Again, no one will believe that from John Swinney. Let us not pretend that John Swinney somehow holds every member across this Parliament or across the Westminster Parliament as equal. This is an SNP Government that is famous for holding itself to a lower standard than it holds the rest of the country to. That is why it is one rule for the SNP and another standard for everybody else.

If Michael Matheson were a Labour MSP, I guarantee that that would not be John Swinney’s response. If Michael Matheson were a Conservative MSP, I guarantee that that would not be John Swinney’s response. That is because, for John Swinney, it is party first, country second. That was the case in how he handled the Salmond inquiry, and it is exactly the same case in how he is dealing with this.

In case it be forgotten, Mr Wanting-to-pretend-that-he-is-the-integrity-symbol-of-the-Parliament—

Mr Sarwar.

We came to this Parliament—

Mr Sarwar!

We do not use names other than proper names, so please remember that as you conclude your remarks.

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

Let us remember that, in the previous session of Parliament, we had to come to this chamber to force John Swinney to provide evidence to a committee. Let him not pretend that he respects the integrity of individual committees of the Parliament. People can see right through what is happening here.

Michael Matheson should do the right thing: he should stand down and allow a By-election. If John Swinney were going to do the right thing, he would demand that of him, too. However, it should not be up to Michael Matheson and it should not be up to John Swinney. We supported—as did the SNP—the right to recall MPs who were suspended for more than 10 days. Again, Scotland lags behind Westminster on that issue. Does the First Minister support the right of recall of MSPs? If so, does he think that those who are suspended for more than 10 days should face a recall petition so that the public can decide whether they believe that the politician who they sent to Parliament to represent them has integrity?

That is a proposition that Parliament can consider. The Government is perfectly open to considering that proposal. I believe that recall arrangements are appropriate and that Parliament needs to scrutinise the basis on which it puts them forward.

I honestly say to Parliament that it has to be very careful about what it is doing here. The example that Chris Bryant set, whereby an individual who had prejudged a case judged that they could not take part in the process, is one of which we should all be mindful. Natural justice is at stake here. I would be concerned about that wherever that person sat in the chamber, because I want Parliament to exercise its responsibilities fairly and openly in relation to all members.

Mr Sarwar said that there are other issues that I have not raised concerns about. I said earlier that, when Oliver Mundell replaced Stephen Kerr on the committee and Mr Kerr withdrew from it because he had prejudiced his position, I raised no issues about Oliver Mundell, because he had not made any comments about the case.

I am simply saying that, with the way in which it is handling this matter, Parliament is setting a very dangerous precedent.

What about the example that Michael Matheson set? What about the example that Humza Yousaf set when he stood by him? What about the example that John Swinney is now setting by trying to demean this Parliament in order to protect one of his friends?

The SNP is quick to demand action at Westminster, but it always seems to hold itself to a lower standard in Scotland. For too long now, people have felt that those who are in power are in it for themselves or want to put their party before the country. This is what they have had to put up with: weak and incompetent leadership; financial mismanagement; those in power having no idea how to govern, pitting community against community, mired in scandal, believing that they are above the law and breaking public services—a track record of failure. That is not just the Tories; it is also the perfect description of this SNP Government, led by John Swinney.

As people across the country finally get to make their judgment on two Governments that have treated the public with contempt, is it not the case that they have an opportunity to clean up our politics, restore integrity and decency, and have Governments that are focused on changing our country, rather than protecting themselves?

I have made it pretty clear over the past couple of weeks that I will positively and enthusiastically set out the record of this SNP Government, because it has enhanced the lives of people in Scotland.

When Anas Sarwar’s party left office, people in this country got 412 hours of funded early learning and childcare provision. That was what Labour thought was enough for families who are on a low income. Now, it is more than double that, because of the choices that have been made by this Government to look after the interests of children in our country. The Labour Party wants to keep the two-child limit, which is keeping 10,000 children in Scotland in poverty, when this Government has put a child payment in place that is protecting 100,000 children from going into poverty.

When Anas Sarwar comes to the Parliament and wants to challenge me about the record of the SNP Government, I will defend it, because it is delivering a higher quality of life than the Labour Government did in Scotland in 2007, and I am proud of what we have achieved.