THE Scottish Government’s future hangs in the balance as Scottish Green members weigh up whether they want to continue their deal with the SNP.
Discontent over a series of policies – including the council tax freeze, children no longer being prescribed puberty blockers – came to a head last week when it was announced the Scottish Government was abandoning a key climate change target.
Green members put pressure on the party leaders who have now referred the Bute House Agreement – the deal which put them in a quasi-coalition with the SNP – to the grassroots for a vote.
There are a few ways things could pan out. In no particular order, the options are:
Greens pull out, SNP return to minority government
If Green members directed their leaders Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie to pull out of the Bute House Agreement, the SNP could well be back to the days of running a minority administration.
Humza Yousaf would likely be unhappy with this arrangement, having previously said the deal with the Greens was “worth its weight in gold” when compared to the tribulations of running a minority government.
A return to minority status could prove problematic for the SNP. Long gone are the days of the “rainbow parliament” and Holyrood is now viewed as a very tribal legislature.
While first minister Alex Salmond enjoyed success working with the Scottish Conservatives. It seems unlikely this relationship could be replicated between both parties’ current crop of MSPs.
READ MORE: Bute House Agreement hangs in the balance as Scottish Greens agree to host EGM
But there could be opportunities for the SNP in having to work more closely with other parties if they were dumped by the Greens. Progress on dualling the A9, for instance, could be expedited, with the help of Conservative politicians.
Some MSPs, most notably Fergus Ewing (above), would be delighted by this and it may assuage the fears of some who fear the Greens have dragged the Scottish Government away from “middle Scotland”.
Greens pull out, early Holyrood election
This seems the least likely option but theoretically it could happen. If the Scottish Greens ditched the SNP, Yousaf may well decide that he would like to go back to the country.
He may calculate voters may take a dim view of the Greens for storming out of government and the SNP may have a story to tell about sticking to their guns in the face of left-wing pressure which may play well to some voters it does not reach as well as it used to.
However, given recent polls show Scottish Labour gaining on the SNP Yousaf may not want to roll the dice with the electorate quite so soon.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie speaks out on future of Bute House Agreement
But if the Greens pulled out of Government he may be vulnerable to challenges such as no confidence votes and it is not clear whether he may have to be re-approved as first minister by the parliament.
Yousaf may not want to go to the polls but as the leader of a minority government, opposition parties can pull levers which could give him no other choice.
Status quo
The option it appears the Scottish Government favours at present. A senior source told The National the Scottish Greens should “use the time and space between last week and their vote to decide their position in a dispassionate manner”. They added: “It’s important not to make the end of the BHA a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
It also appears they also view this as the most likely option, with another insider saying they “highly doubt” the Greens would depart government.
But in this scenario, anti-Bute House Agreement sentiment may become more focused in the SNP wing than the Greens.
Harvie and Slater (above) may feel under pressure to be seen to be doing more to extract wins from their partners in government – which may alienate some of the SNP’s right-wing even more than they already are.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens 'would take jobs in Unionist government', former minister claims
Calls from figures like Ewing and Kate Forbes (below) to ditch the Bute House Agreement may grow if the Greens feel they need to bag more policy wins they can boast about to their members.
Whatever happens, we’re in uncharted territory here.
Coalitions in their various forms have basically held steady since the opening of the Scottish Parliament. There were no major challenges to the ruling Lib-Lab coalition for the first eight years of devolution from within.
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