LORNA Slater has laid out the choice facing the Scottish Green Party over the SNP power-sharing deal ahead of the membership's crunch votes – "making real change" or "just talking about it".
It'll be up to the SNP and Scottish Greens memberships to determine whether or not the agreement struck between leaders last week will go ahead.
Announced at Bute House, it could see Slater, a new MSP, and fellow co-leader Patrick Harvie, a Holyrood veteran, take up ministerial positions, giving the Greens their first ever seats in government.
At Friday's press conference, Harvie said he was "very confident and hopeful that Greens across the country will see this as an extraordinary opportunity". Referring to the COP26 climate conference taking part in Glasgow in November, he went on: "There could not be a more important moment for Green politics to take this step forward."
The issue has been the topic of debate amongst Green members and supporters on social media, with a decision from that camp not due until this weekend.
On Twitter, some have questioned what the deal means for Green politics and whether or not it will cost the party its principles, while others have referred to the arrangement as an opportunity to achieve change.
I think this is the crux of it @IslaAitken, you've expressed it well.
— Lorna Slater (@lornaslater) August 22, 2021
Do our members want to actually see substantial parts of our manifesto implemented and us have real influence, or would they rather stay 'safe' on the high ground? https://t.co/GciTinwxcc
Posting to her 22,300 followers, Slater set out the choice facing the Scottish Greens in her own words.
The Lothians MSP said: "Do our members want to actually see substantial parts of our manifesto implemented and us have real influence, or would they rather stay 'safe' on the high ground?
"I know I got into politics to make a real difference and as our NZ [New Zealand] Greens colleagues reminded us (and the Tories et al are fuming over) the Greens could get a lot if good stuff done in government that they wouldn't be able to prevent."
She went on: "The fact is that over 30 years of hard work towards this by our members has made us a party that can be seriously considered as a party of government, while the Tories have been never been in government in Holyrood, and the Labour leadership seem to prefer shouty, hostile, Westminster-style politics over the kind of grown-up cross-party working that we know voters would like to see.
"I hope that our members would prefer to be part of making real change, instead of just talking about it for the next 30 years."
The potential for a ministerial post comes after Slater became one of the most Googled players in the 2021 election. That followed TV debate performances that won plaudits.
READ MORE: Education Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville tests positive for Covid-19
Slater, who worked in the renewables sector before entering Holyrood, replaced Maggie Chapman as Scottish Greens co-leader in 2019 after declaring the party was in need of a "fresh new start". The Lothians seat is her first public election win.
The Scottish Green Party was founded in 1990 when it split from the UK Green Party. Harvie, who was elected to the second Scottish Parliament, has been in a leadership role in 2008, following the departure of Robin Harper.
The power-sharing deal was approved by the SNP's national executive committee on Saturday and a consultative poll will now be produced for members.
Meanwhile, the Greens will have their say in an extraordinary general meeting on Saturday.
On Saturday, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was "delighted" that the draft co-operation agreement had been "unanimously endorsed" by her party's ruling committee "following a very upbeat meeting".
READ MORE: Green ports, Cambo, Grouse shooting: What do SNP and Greens disagree on?
That was one day after The National revealed how Slater had told a Greens meeting that Sturgeon wanted the deal for "stability". She said: "The First Minister truly intends this to be a transformational parliament, particularly on things like the climate emergency and child poverty. What she doesn’t want to be doing is facing down motions of no confidence every other week.
“She doesn’t want to be working in a toxic atmosphere where she’s fighting her way through day after day after day. What they want is to say, 'if we put together legislation that you’re happy with, will you vote for it'?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel