THIS time last week, I was sat in Bute House as Humza Yousaf announced the end of the Bute House Agreement.
Fast forward seven long days filled with chaos and drama and I’m back again, this time hearing from the people looking to replace him.
A lot has happened in this time, as you’ll know. But what has emerged is a very interesting dilemma for the future of the SNP: Does it stick with what it knows, or does the party instead choose to go in a different – and more radical – direction?
That decision seems to have been made today.
On the one hand, you have John Swinney, a veteran in Scottish politics who served as Nicola Sturgeon’s Deputy First Minister for more than eight years.
In that time, Swinney had already declined to run for first minister once and is widely recognised as a key figure in Sturgeon’s legacy.
READ MORE: Timetable unveiled for SNP leadership race if ballot is held
Then there’s Kate Forbes, who – until about 2pm on Thursday – looked set to contest the leadership race, having done so previously in 2023 against Yousaf and Ash Regan.
After a rather anti-climatic end to this chapter of the story, Swinney looks set to go into the election uncontested. It’s unconfirmed whether a deal has been struck between the two, although talks have taken place.
Candidates have until May 6 to put themselves forward, with a new leader of the SNP being announced on May 27 if there is to be an election, Monday if not.
'I'm no caretaker'
At today’s announcement, Swinney marketed himself as the safe continuity candidate, whose wealth of experience makes him a steady and reliable choice.
Whether this is a wise choice for the party, other journalists don’t seem too sure. But right now, Swinney also appears to be the only choice.
“I’m no caretaker,” Swinney told the press conference, confirming that he intends to see the SNP through to the General Election and that he’d like to serve a full term as first minister.
Also in the room were some key players in the Scottish Government: Mairi McAllan – who introduced Swinney to the stage – Angus Robertson, Fiona Hyslop, Shirley-Anne Somerville, to name just a few.
(Mind you, it was difficult to see exactly who was in the room with us, as the media was herded into the back like sheep, unable to see beyond the broadcast cameras and the snappers stood on stools.)
But where does the prospective first minister fall on independence right now, I hear you ask? Well, the honest answer is I’m not quite sure even he knows.
Swinney’s campaign slogan, stamped on the front of his podium and on various placards scattered throughout the room, reads: “Uniting for Independence”.
He spoke of uniting both the SNP and Scotland through independence, and of the need to convince more people of the benefits of indy, but he didn’t go into much detail beyond that.
And the other journalists didn’t push him any further – the BBC, for example, simply asked Swinney: “Will you deliver independence?”
READ MORE: Final chance to subscribe to The National at £20 for a whole year
Well, he couldn’t exactly say no, could he?
As the only pro-independence newspaper in the room, I wanted to ask him what his actual plans were for achieving independence. You know, something tangible and real that our readers might be able to get behind.
As it stands, we're just as much in the dark as we were before he opened his mouth.
It was frustrating that he wasn’t pushed further, and even more so that The National wasn’t picked to ask my question. My request for a follow-up chat with Swinney to clarify his position has – at the time of print – not received a response.
Having spoken to independence supporters on the ground, there seems to be a consensus that we’ve reached a kind of stalemate, that something needs to change if we have any hope of seeing an independent Scotland sooner rather than later.
Given this context, the decision made by many in the SNP to back Swinney seems – at least, from a journalistic perspective – an odd choice.
Many will be confused by this strategy, and why others seem so keen to hand him the keys. He chose not to run just a little over a year ago – so, what’s changed?
When Swinney became deputy first minister in November 2014, I wasn’t even old enough to vote in the independence referendum. Not only am I now old enough to vote in a second referendum, but I’m old enough to be reporting on it.
READ MORE: Read Kate Forbes's full statement as she rules herself out of SNP leadership race
If we’re still, in effect, in the same position we were 10 years ago, there’s a part of me which questions the logic behind the decision to place Swinney as the frontrunner.
Despite this, Swinney clearly has charm. He knows what he’s doing, and he’s been doing it for a long time. The room had an energy to it, and the MSPs who were in the room with us were excited by the prospect of his return.
In this sense he had the upper hand against Forbes, who hasn’t got as much experience as Swinney and already lost the leadership race once before.
There was speculation right up until the announcement over whether Forbes would run. One source told us her “campaign team” would be giving the statement – implying that she was leading a campaign. Another said she would simply be “giving an update”.
And now we know: Forbes will not be running. As a journalist, I was excited by the idea of a contest. I am now sat here in the Scottish Parliament feeling slightly deflated.
What if Forbes had got there first?
All of this got me thinking about what might have happened if Forbes had made her announcement first, before Swinney took to the stage.
Would her decision be any different? Was she under pressure or influenced by Swinney’s suggestion that she would be given a senior position in his government if she struck a deal and stood down?
The bottom line is, we don’t know. Another thing we don’t know is if we’ll see anyone else come forward for the job, although it’s looking increasingly unlikely.
Many of the favourites have already ruled themselves out and shown their support for Swinney, and the consensus in Holyrood’s media tower is that the next few weeks will be less eventful than we had perhaps envisioned.
Whatever happens, we’ll be here ready to bring you the latest.
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