THE Scottish Greens are often thought of as lightweight. They have been accused of being the “gardening wing” of the SNP – and Press Association pictures filed on Friday of their leaders sitting amongst flowers would seem to justify that.
It was no doubt this reputation which in part led Humza Yousaf to think he could boot them out of Government without consequence. In August, Yousaf about admitted as much – saying he thought the Greens would calculate that to react negatively against his decision would be “political suicide”.
But Yousaf was swiftly proven wrong. The Greens reacted with anger – among other emotions, as MSP Gillian Mackay memorably cried on the radio about the end of the deal with the SNP.
The then-SNP leader saw a different side to the party: a ruthless one. The Greens were happy to force his resignation, which came just days after they were removed from government. Yousaf summed up the situation succinctly: “I, frankly, f***** up.”
Ahead of key negotiations on the Scottish Budget, the messaging was clear: this is a party coming out fighting.
It was in that vein that Patrick Harvie issued a stern warning to the SNP in his keynote speech: “As Scottish Green MSPs, we have a responsibility to engage with the process in good faith, and with honesty. But as the only party that ever brought down an SNP budget, as John Swinney knows to his cost, we need to be clear that they cannot take our votes for granted.”
Swinney will no doubt remember – and be keen to avoid – a repeat of the 2009/10 Budget debacle to which Harvie was referring.
READ MORE: SNP 'must show they can be trusted' for Greens to back Budget, Patrick Harvie says
In a last-minute decision, the Green MSP pulled support for the SNP Budget after then finance secretary Swinney refused to include £11 million for a house insulation programme.
The Green move couldn’t have been much more last minute – STV political editor Colin Mackay recalled seeing “tears amid the anger among SNP ministers” in the debating chamber as they realised what was about to happen.
In the fall-out, then-first minister Alex Salmond said he had put his SNP on an election footing and was ready to go to the polls early.
In her own warning to the Scottish Government, Green co-leader Lorna Slater said she was “absolutely” prepared to force the SNP into an early election.
But the Green conference also highlighted something else about the party. More than any other in Scottish politics, the Green constitution puts its leaders and MSP group under the control of members.
Giving members such power does make the party more democratic – and prevents it from doing as Labour and the SNP do and simply ignore policies agreed at conference. But it also makes it more unpredictable – and much harder to control.
READ MORE: Greens 'will not back SNP Budget with less than £4.7bn for climate', conference told
It was that unpredictability which also played a hand in the Greens being removed from Government, as their own members were looking to force a vote on whether they should be the ones to end the Bute House Agreement. Yousaf couldn’t risk the embarrassment.
Again that unpredictability reared its head at the conference on Saturday, when an unexpected point of order led to members voting down the entire agenda. Party officials were sent to redraw it, leaving things in limbo and key votes pushed back – while others may not take place at all.
It was not ideal timing considering Harvie had just spoken that morning about the Greens "becoming the effective and professional political force we are capable of being".
The message from conference is then that the Scottish Green leadership is ready to get serious – but can they inspire the membership to go with them?
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