It's difficult to blog about something I don't fully understand. One of the things that had defined Humza Yousaf's leadership was his cast-iron commitment to coalition with the Greens, and while there was certainly internal pressure within the SNP to ditch the coalition, that came mainly from quarters that Yousaf has always cheerfully ignored until now. It seems unlikely that the Green leadership played any role in pulling the plug, because they had been engaged in brinkmanship to try to stop their membership from voting to walk away. Yousaf may have calculated that Green members were highly likely to do just that and thus saw an opportunity to look decisive by getting in first, but if so, there must be a risk that such a sudden and unexpected dumping will poison relations between the SNP and the Greens for years to come, which could have ramifications for the independence cause and also make it harder to avert a Labour-Green (or Labour-Lib Dem-Green) coalition in future. So answers on a postcard, really.
We'll now see whether the theory that the Greens were a major drag on SNP support had any validity. I suspect it was wildly exaggerated but there may have been a small grain of truth in it, and even clawing back 1% of support could make a difference in a tight election. In other circumstances I might be worried about the Greens taking revenge by putting up lots of candidates against the SNP and splitting the Yes vote, but weirdly they had seemed hellbent on doing that anyway.
One benefit we may see is within the 'pro-indy establishment', which extends to small bits of the media and to non-party organisations. A majority pro-independence government including the Greens but excluding other small pro-indy parties provided cover for the Greens to be given a special status by the pro-indy establishment. But now that the Greens are an opposition pro-indy party, just like Alba, there may be a balancing-up effect.
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
ReplyDeleteYou say "We will now see whether the theory that the Greens were a major drag on SNP support had any validity."
I suppose if SNP suddenly get a bounce - yes.
But any tarnishing effect on the SNP of the alliance with the Greens may be long lasting and not easily reversed by the end of the coalition.
The next poll may have two concurrent effects: the arrest of Sturgeon's husband and the break up with the Greens. It may be hard to draw conclusions.
I predict there will be little movement. Will be interesting to be proven wrong.
-- Derek
Puzzle: why did Humza say that the deal was secure a couple of days ago? I guess there are message management reasons he did so.
ReplyDeleteNot much of a puzzle: He was lying, and his 'message management' has made him look ridiculous.
DeleteAnd this childish presumptious sense of entitlement reaction is exactly why yousaf was right to ditch the Greens:
ReplyDelete"THE SNP have committed an "act of political cowardice" in ending the Bute House Agreement, Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater has declared."
The worse the greens behave now, the better Humza’s decision will look. I’m far from convinced it’s a smart one, given who he is, but the polls should be fascinating.
Delete"... Humza Yousaf's leadership was his cast-iron commitment to coalition with the Greens"
ReplyDeleteI think he had to say that, but bit by bit he's been ditching Slater's incompetent fantasy world excesses. There's still some to unwind though, wood-burning stoves being one of them.
I'm glad BHA has ended . But let us stick to facts. England , I believe , have introduced control on wood burners . Simplistic arguments won't cut it. Yes wood is a renewable resource but where is it coming from? Sweden? And the main argument against wood burning is that it is a health risk. Evidence is that wood smoke particles may cause asthma and maybe carcinogenic.
DeleteIf you doubt this try Google!
As a measure it's fine for cities, but not for rural, villages and even small towns - including newbuilds - where it's necessity not fashion.
DeleteI stay in a small village , on still days we can be enveloped in wood smoke. I'm sorry but it is simply not a simple matter. City use should be banned aye , I agree. But we also need to consider where the wood is coming from. In some cases burning gas might be greener! And kiln drying wood is bonkers!
DeleteI think that pretty much all urban areas in the central belt, and Dundee, have been smoke-free zones for a long time.
DeleteTell that to my daftie neighbours. And this is in a city housing scheme!
Deletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/24277709.full-humza-yousafs-full-letter-patrick-harvie-lorna-slater/
ReplyDeleteLook for what's missing in the list of "We have worked together".
I liked the greens and want some greens in parliament but I want actual greens, you know, the environment-friendly ones.
ReplyDeletethe greens before 2016ish would be grand please.
This is sort of what I mean when I say that giving party membership too much power is dangerous because they're shallow democracies. Many voters understand that too and will not trust parties which defer too much power to their membership, much less the membership of another party.
ReplyDeleteIn the grand scheme of things it just doesn't seem right that the government of 5.5 million people, 4.3 million registered to vote, 2.7 million who actually vote, etc., should end up hinging upon a few thousand self-selecting party members. The democratic power gradient is way too steep and disproportionate.
Humza made this choice. No party members involved at all.
DeleteIndeed, I reckon the greens membership would have voted to stay in government as instructed by their leader. The moment he made it a resignation issue, he decided the outcome.
I don't follow that argument at all. The voters delivered parliamentary arithmetic that was going to produce either an SNP minority government or an SNP-Green coalition. I don't see why it's more democratic for the choice between those two options to be made solely by one man, rather than in consultation with thousands of party members.
DeleteYousaf inherited a mandate from 1.1 million voters(awkwardly, through a decision of party members). Green MSPs are supposed to represent two hundred thousand Green voters, not their 2024 membership who don't aren't accountable to anyone.
Deletebecause it's upto politicians to do the art of the possible according to their own leadership agenda. Not having to defer to members who most likely haven't the faintest.
DeleteAlso, agree with 1.22. My wife voted green and probably still will as she likes Patrick Harvie. She also sort of hoped for SNP-Green coalition with Greens keep SNP honest on climate. She's a voter, not a member. Elections should be decided by electorate and the parties in the parliament. Not deferred to, let's face it, the most opinionated cohort of that electorate - political party members. You could say everyone has the chance to be a party member but it's not how real life works.
DeleteIs that the 2%?
ReplyDeleteThe numbers are there now to bring the Scotgov down and have a snap election. If there is an election, it's absolutely ideal timing for the London government. No independence majority to worry about during Starmer’s rough years ahead.
ReplyDeleteNo love lost between Greens and SNP now. The greens could be in the mood to stick the knife in. What might Anas offer them for a pact? Imagine the greens running on a campaign of Labour for first minister but “we are the independence voice in government.”
They’d be no less useless a “voice” for Indy than they are now.
"The numbers are there now to bring the Scotgov down and have a snap election."
DeleteThat's highly doubtful. You'd need five different parties to actively vote down the government. Ash Regan may have more leverage from now on, though, because depending on what the Greens do, she'll hold the balance of power on some topics.
Very true. But now the Greens are kicked out on their arses, who exactly still supports the Scotgov? Everyone’s out to get them, and deservedly so.
DeleteReminder: Holyrood snap elections don't reset the term length. If one happened in the next ~18 months, the 2026 election would still be held. No opposition leader really wants to take over with so little time remaining in any circumstances.
DeleteAnd those circumstances? From Sarwar's point of view, they suck. The SNP might lose 15 seats, but remain largest party. Then what? He can be First Minister but only at the price of Deputy Ross and perhaps Finance Minister Cole-Hamilton. For less than two years, with a Scottish opposition wholly dominated by pro-independence parties.
It’s time to have a snap Holyrood election. Enough is enough, the country has had more than enough of these charlatans.
ReplyDeleteThe Tories might give that to us on a plate:
Delete"Scottish Tories to force no-confidence vote in Humza Yousaf"
and if the Greens petulantly vote against Yousaf ...
Haud yer weesht Anas.
DeleteVery interesting column by Riddoch today got over taken by events:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenational.scot/politics/24276988.snp-greens-cant-rise-disagreements-hope/
She argues that we lose hope if the coalition agreement fails. I agree 100%. I hope there is still a possibility of putting this arrangement back together when the dust settles or at least close cooperation with Greens or the vision for Scotland that Riddoch discusses may be in peril.
- Derek
I heard a Green Party councillor from Glasgow today criticising the SNP. When hexwasxasked how he had intended to bote on the BHA
ReplyDeleteI heard a Green Party councillor from Glagow on Radio Scotland criticising the SNP today for pulling the plug on the BHA. When he was asked how he had intended to vote next month on the Greens position, he said that he would have voted for the Greens to ditch it. Listening to that guy explained to me why the SNP had decided to act first.
Delete