IT’S a strange thing to write a column knowing it will quickly be upended by events. But whoever has declared or decided not to stand as SNP leader – and whether or not a deal has been hatched between the two front-runners, I hope there will be a contest.

Bluntly, there are divisions within the party and the best way forward is to air them. The alternative is not sweetness and light but more briefing wars by “unnamed allies” and more of the unhealthy “wheesht for indy” that got tensions festering in the first place.

Differences are normal, natural and perfectly healthy in any political party. It’s how they’re dealt with that counts. Keir Starmer has fully mastered the “zipped up the back” approach to dissent and will never be outdone in control freakery.

So, it’s time for the SNP to go the other way. Air differences. Be open. Let the members decide. Trust the party.

Yes, that would be a quiet revolution. But riskier in the long term than papering over real policy differences between John Swinney and Kate Forbes?

Of course, a legitimate worry for the folk in grey kilts is “civil war” as the Record puts it – a fear that debate this time will be as wounding, disrespectful and chaotic as it was last time.

READ MORE: John Swinney to make statement on SNP leadership bid

I have to say Forbes’s contemptuous rubbishing of Humza Yousaf in the 2023 leadership campaign bothered me almost as much as her views on gay marriage, abortion and children born out of wedlock.

The “useless” tag she placed on Yousaf provided a stick for political foes and created an unwanted media narrative he’d to haul with him over an arduous year in office.

Perhaps the former finance secretary has had time to reflect on the wisdom of such a combative, non-collegiate approach. She’s already described her likely adversary Swinney in glowing terms and whilst supporters have been more colourful on the danger of “continuity candidates”, a leadership contest this time around could be a good, clean, mutually respectful exchange of experience and ideas – though Ms Forbes’s unofficial lieutenant Fergus Ewing is endangering future rapprochement with the Scottish Greens with every brick he spits about their legacy.

Describing them as “extremists and fanatics” may “excite the base”, but Forbes has fences to mend with party members who have generally learned to live with the Green agenda. It’s worth remembering that members of every party – including the Tories – backed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, even though they have since tiptoed away.

But there’s another factor.

The public seems to like parties working together.

READ MORE: Motion of no confidence in Scottish Government fails

The latest Ipsos Mori survey shows a dead heat on ending the Bute House Agreement (BHA) with 45% of the public supporting and 45% opposing Yousaf’s decision. It would be wrong to read too much into that.

It might mean folk simply prefer the devil they know to the upheaval produced by an election. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the BHA. But it could also mean the public prefers negotiation and consensus to pointless grandstanding.

And then there’s the parliamentary arithmetic. The leader of an SNP minority government must work with other politicians – especially other independence-supporting ones.

So, there’s no point lashing out.

Did the Scottish Greens overreact to their removal from government? Yip.

Must they feel mightily relieved that Yousaf’s resignation stopped them from having to traipse through the lobbies, supporting a Tory vote of no confidence? Yes again.

Such a spectacle would have seriously dented Green support in the forthcoming Holyrood election – some Yessers are already planning to vote SNP one and two since the likely strength of Labour makes “top-up” seats on the list for the SNP more likely than before.

But it’s time to put such recriminations aside – it’s far more important to try and create conditions of trust, or at least, mutual tolerance.

Can Kate and her louder supporters “pull their necks in” and work cooperatively – whilst saying strong things about change? Voters need to know.

READ MORE: Kate Forbes and John Swinney hold 'secret talks' on SNP leadership

What is her “economic conservatism” – and the same goes for Swinney, who also backed Green freeports. Is that as good as economic policy gets? We need to hear both their plans.

Swinney – whilst massively popular in the party – did say last year he had no further leadership ambitions.

Of course, cometh the hour, cometh a possible change of heart.

But the membership is entitled to ask if he has the stomach for a bruising period as SNP leader with no easy exit until after the Holyrood elections in 2026.

Equally, whilst Kate was put through her paces on all the big contemporary issues just a year ago – Swinney’s political profile derives from his considerable past experience and time as Nicola Sturgeon’s right-hand man. In many ways this is the elephant in the room.

How do party members feel about the Sturgeon legacy now?

Will the new SNP leader look at life through roughly the same prism – with an emphasis on social justice?

Will the SNP continue with their centralising, micro-managing agenda and general timidity over local control, land reform, ScotWind licences and Council Tax reform?

Will they devise new bold ways to bypass the stifling investment rules of devolution? Will the secrecy and clique control of former chief executive Peter Murrell be tackled? And how?

What about the rules that stopped MPs returning to stand as Holyrood candidates – will they remain in place? And what about complaints over the infinite slowness of candidate vetting (mentioned in every area I visited this year)?

Is all of this water under the bridge – getting fixed – or impossible to discuss given the likelihood of a court case?

OF course, the Scottish Child Payment, the Scottish social security system and decarbonising a railway that’s now essentially back in public ownership were all Sturgeon-era successes. More recently, avoiding strikes and Yousaf’s insistence on a Gaza ceasefire will be an enduring legacy.

But delivery problems have provided non-stop gifts to Unionist opponents who (naturally) never quite get round to explaining how THEY would finance more public spending.

Actual mistakes, some poor policy choices, some hapless-sounding ministers and the sheer passage of 17 long SNP years have shored up the media’s “nothing in Scotland ever goes right” narrative. It’s not SNP bad to say an injection of focus and energy is sorely needed now.

I suppose it boils down to this – does the SNP need peace or disruption? (By which I mean spirited debate about policy and internal party procedure – not pointless, personal vitriol). I think it’s the latter, though I can well understand SNP leadership nerves.

But time spent establishing a consensus on the way forward now – how much “green” and how much “business”; how much “central” and how much “local” – will be time better spent than repeating empty slogans like “continuity doesn’t cut it”.

We need a worked-through strategy for independence. Even though our hands are currently tied behind our collective backs by the “democrats” of Westminster –everything changes and we must be ready.

Once Starmer becomes prime minister with a majority that lets him do what he likes, we’ll see what Anas Sarwar’s promises are made of. Will he get more cash for public services from “the boss”? And if not – what’s the point in a limp, Labour-led government in Edinburgh?

Independence is still more popular than all pro-indy parties combined and demographics suggest that won’t change. So, let’s use this awkward moment to lay a few ghosts, get bold ideas back on the table and hear two strong candidates lock brains to reshape the SNP’s narrative.

Done with respectful smeddum, and a smaller number of hustings, a leadership contest will be no distraction from the General Election campaign but a confident, opening salvo. Or am I on my own?