The parliament’s business manager, George Adam, when outlining his government’s plans for electoral reform earlier this week, told MSPs that an influx of teenagers could “possibly change the vibrancy of this place”. He’s right. A horde of giggling 16-year-olds, dressed in their best H&M basics, TikToking their way through First Minister’s Questions would certainly change the vibe, but perhaps not in the way Mr Adam, not the most electrifying of politicians, envisages.

And yet there he was on Wednesday afternoon, a government minister in his best suit discussing the possibility of children – sorry, young adults – becoming law-makers, as if it was his government’s most rational suggestion since it asserted men could become women simply by filling in a form. There are far too many sensible reasons why 16-year-olds should not become MSPs to list them all here, but on the off-chance that Mr Adam (or more likely his press officer) reads this column, here are a few.

Most are still in school or college. Is the government seriously suggesting that they should ditch their Advance Highers or City and Guilds for a place on the backbenches? The £66,000-a-year salary is certainly more attractive than a minimum-wage weekend job stacking supermarket shelves, but the long-term career prospects are probably not as good as a trade apprenticeship.