THE Scottish Conservatives have withdrawn their confidence motion against Humza Yousaf after it became apparent it would fail.
It was a key factor in triggering his resignation and the Tories have declared victory, saying “job done”.
But the Scottish Greens had reversed their previous support for the motion after it became apparent the First Minister would step down.
Had it gone to a vote as planned, it appeared certain to fail without Green backing.
The Tories have asked the slot is now filled with a statement from the Lord Advocate on the Post Office Horizon scandal.
They said there were “blatant contradictions” in the Scottish Government’s stance, after the Lord Advocate previously indicated she was against mass exonerations while the SNP leadership are in favour.
In Westminster on Monday, Tory MPs voted down an SNP bid to have Scotland included in UK plans for mass exonerations.
Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said: “I’m delighted that the Scottish Conservative motion of no confidence in Humza Yousaf achieved its purpose by forcing him to resign.
READ MORE: SNP confirm details of leadership race following Humza Yousaf resignation
“While, on a personal level, I wish him well for the future, he was a disaster as First Minister and it’s in Scotland’s interests that he goes.
“The next goal for my party is to see off this feuding, failing SNP government and switch the focus away from their independence obsession and on to the public’s real priorities – such as growing the economy and improving Scotland’s ailing public services.
“As it’s job done in terms of Humza Yousaf, there’s no longer any need for us to press ahead with a debate on our no-confidence motion.”
READ MORE: John Curtice delivers verdict on Humza Yousaf resignation with warning for successor
He added that Scottish victims of the Post Office scandal must hear answers from the SNP government.
Ross said: “On the one hand, ministers are demanding that UK legislation be extended to Scotland, yet, on the other, the Lord Advocate is opposed to the blanket exonerations that lie at the heart of 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