Humza Yousaf in Dundee on Friday. Credit: Andrew Milligan / PA
Scottish politics moves fast.
Last week on the Jaggy Thistle we were discussing whether Humza Yousaf would survive a UK general election or a Holyrood election.
Now we’re asking if he will still be in a job next Friday.
For Humza, shit just got real.
Yousaf’s brutal dumping of the Greens from the Scottish government has rebounded on him.
What was intended as a show of executive strength has turned into a demonstration of parliamentary weakness.
Yousaf now faces two votes of confidence in the coming week, one on him as first minister and another on his whole government.
So, how is this crisis going to pan out? I’m keen to hear your views, as wise subscribers to The Jaggy Thistle.
Some questions that require answers:
# Is Humza toast? Is his first ministership now doomed? Or is there a way he can survive the coming week and emerge as head of a minority government with a new agenda?
# Can Humza be seen to do a deal with Alex Salmond’s tiny Alba party? Would that be calamitous for the SNP? Or might it be necessary?
# If Humza falls, will the SNP have to choose a replacement acceptable to the Greens? Do the Greens effectively have a veto on the next leader of the SNP?
# Who will replace Humza if he falls? Neil Gray? Stephen Flynn? Kate Forbes? Jenny Gilruth? Màiri McAllan?
# Is it really in the interests of Labour and the Tories to have a Holyrood election now? Will at least one opposition MSP be unavailable for the votes, perhaps through illness, allowing Yousaf to survive?
These are just prompts. Please do no limit yourself to these questions. I value your opinions and want to know what you think about this crisis more widely.
-o0o-
A reminder: Discussions like these will mostly be behind the paywall in future. So why not become a paid Premium Subscriber today, and be a full member of the Jaggy Thistle community?
For details, use this button.
Do you know anybody who might want to join in this discussion? Share with this button.
It wasn’t as if we didn’t know how useless he was. He demonstrated it amply in his other governmental roles. I reckon the Murrells thought they could control him. Some judgement call that!
I can understand why Humza Yousaf did what he did because it would have looked incredibly indecisive to have had to several weeks for the Greens to decide whether they would deign to prop up his administration, but I doubt he could have foreseen the real anger his decision caused. Talk about righteous indignation and total lack of self-awareness from people whose policies are deeply unattractive to vast swathes of the population and who particularly have total tin ears when it comes to rural Scotland! It will be really interesting to see how far Yousaf is willing to go to stop Ash Regan voting with the opposition, although her call for more competent government, welcome as it would be, seems a triumph of hope over reality and not something Yousaf is in any position to guarantee.
His position is definitely shoogly nail territory.
As for who replaces him, I would have thought Stephen Flynn can't be in the running if there is no Holyrood election, but I may have missed a change in the rules somewhere. When I read this morning that Neil Gray was odds-on favourite to succeed Yousaf if he loses the vote of confidence, may heart sank. Scotland needs better than a safe pair of hands for heavens sake, especially when you're talking about someone who, outside the SNP and political geeks, virtually no-one has ever heard of. Does he have a singular achievement that we could get excited about? He's a younger version of John Swinney, and we know how that ended.
If Yousaf loses and the SNP have to put a name forward in 28 days, am I right in thinking that the decision will basically be up to the SNP MSPs and party members won't get the final say? I'd like to know the answer to that please.
I don't think there is any chance of getting a Holyrood election, because the Greens and Alba certainly don't want one right now, whatever they may say publicly and have indicated they won't vote for the motion of no confidence in the government.
That's a very good question, Peter, about whether it would just be up to SNP MSPs and not members. In the circumstances I think there would be enormous pressure not to have a contest, so there may well have to be a caretaker FM who gets us through this crisis on the understanding that an SNP leadership contest will be held over the summer. I don't know if Neil Gray has the authority to do that job, nor am I convinced he would be seen as enough of a neutral to hold the jaikets in what could well be an SNP civil war. Also, he may have ambitions of his own. John Swinney is the obvious caretaker. But would he do it, even for a few months? Last time I spoke to John he was very much enjoying being out of govt. But his loyalty to the party runs deep.
What surprised me in all this was the complete lack of joined up thinking about the possible consequences of the decision to oust the Greens. HY seems to think that on balance they would continue muted support for the govt.
He has been made to look weak because of his statements. Was it only Tuesday when he said the BHA was working and he hoped it would continue? Attempt to look decisive at 8am on Thursday morning crashes and burns at FMQs.
Seriously, what did HY and his advisers think might happen. The Greens might seek revenge? Or did they really discount them as hemp wearing hippies.
Perhaps renegotiate the BHA? Move to confidence and supply arrangement. No chuck them overboard.
He deserves to lose the VOC due to stupid decisions. Eject them on Thursday afternoon or Friday for goodness sake.
Buy off Ash Regan? After trashing her when she left. That would be the last straw for many SNP members I think.
A new, looser deal with the Greens seems the sensible way forward. But that would require the Greens to calm down and stop thinking about revenge. I see no sign of that at present, but presumably the former Green ministers are consulting the party membership informally this weekend, so let's see.
Very much toast. A thick doorstep of toast. Sacking the Greens was inept. I'm not sure there's been any appreciation of the sort of bind the Greens leadership was in after the climate targets and Cass. He should have at least tried to agree with them to suspend the BHA until after their EGM, giving both of them a painless way out of it. But he's done it now and it's going to hurt both the SNP and Greens at the next election, whenever that is.
I think one of there problems was he wanted to make a big show of being tough. That was his priority, not finessing the relationship with the Greens or renegotiating the BHA. To borrow a phrase from another context, the cruelty was the point.
Yeah, I don't doubt he thought this would make him look tough and decisive, not recognising the fundamental weakness of his position. He never thought the Greens would get to the edge of the tent, turn around and piss straight back in. He didn't think that they would need to look tough too. That's what was inept about it.
But that's what's been wrong with Scottish politics for too long. Too many good guys and enemies, too much performance and high principles and not enough of the boring day-to-day graft of governing, managing and getting things done. Ironically, not enough of the grubby backroom deals and compromises made by anonymous fixers that actually move things forward. It's tiresome.
Whatever happens, the person in the SNP who comes out on top will 1) need to be an adroit coalition builder within the SNP and without the party; and 2) will pay a price. Yousaf is not an adroit politician, more Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes. But I don't think Forbes or anyone else will be able to 'save' the situation either.
These are just a few hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the point. Say Humza reconciles with the Greens in a loose coalition, that further irritates the Forbes/Ewings of this world. Alternatively, Forbes becomes FM in the coming months with Tory outside support because she can't rely on the Greens and annoys the left in her party. Deal with Salmond and Alba and you annoy the Greens, many within the SNP and the complication of Salmond's litigation against the Scottish Government and Branchform.
Finally, the 'caretaker' scenario of a Swinney or similar with the Greens on the outside. There the SNP get the band back together but still bleeding support and credibility in the run-up to an important Westminster GE. There's the distinct possibility of a SNP leadership contest happening during the Westminster GE. Plus you still have the problems of Sturgeon and Murrell and the Branchform investigation.
And that points to, I think, the underlying issue: the fragmentation of the broader indy coalition because indy itself is currently a distant possibility. Imminent - or in a few more years - indy is no longer a tie that can bind the wider Indy SNP/Green movement together. In 2014, you could have Patrick Harvie saying 'no more oil' next to Fergus Ewing saying 'more oil' because the prospect of independence felt very close. That's not the case now, which is why there are such disagreements about the trans issue as well as deep personal dislikes, even hatreds, come to fore and shape the day-to-day politics. No amount of nifty, day-to-day political management can solve this deeper strategic problem.
Many within the party regard Humza Yousaf’s election as leader of the SNP as a stitch-up. The desperation to bend the rules begged the question as to why, what was so fearful about Kate Forbes? Subsequent events are perhaps beginning to indicate what lay behind this, but it can’t go on.
The best way forward is for Yousaf to step down in early course - he has lost all credibility - and for an interim FM to be appointed that could be accepted by the parliament which would allow the SNP to follow due process to elect a new leader, which will take months.
Stephen Flynn can lead the Westminster Campaign should a Westminster general election arise in the interim, and that is how it ought to be anyway under an effective, collegiate, leader. Yousaf is electorally toxic as is Sturgeon and anyone closely associated with her.
Tbh, I'm not at all convinced Kate Forbes is the person to heal the SNP. She has many attributes and skills. But she would be even more of a divisive figure than Humza.
All I am calling for is a proper leadership election with a level playing field. I am not promoting Kate Forbes specifically. In indisputably adverse circumstances, where she did perhaps act inadvisedly in proclaiming her religious beliefs, she still almost won. That was after many thousands of party members had already left the Sturgeonist SNP in disgust and who would most likely have overwhelmingly voted for her. Don’t overestimate the so called “progressive” element within the SNP, most of them have been exclusively selected and over-promoted into government or committee chairs. I think there is only one junior minister in place who did not support Yousaf, yet almost half the party voted for Forbes. So much for inclusivity!
All of that is true and if, as expected, the party loses many Central Belt seats to Labour at the general election the influence of the urban/progressive side of the party will be diminished - albeit that it will still dominate the SNP cabinet.
As I’m not an SNP voter or Independence supporter I would like to see Humza Yousaf cling on as FM, weakened, leading a divided and bitter SNP still being blackmailed by the Greens at least until the UK General Election is over. My hope is that Kier Starmer turns out be a decent PM ( don’t we all hope that ?) and that with Labour in power in UK , Scottish Labour could offer a compelling manifesto to Scotland to revitalise the economy and bring a bit of cooperation instead of division. I realise this is probably hopelessly optimistic.
In think the most optimistic part is definitely Scottish Labour coming up with a compelling vision for Scotland! Despite all the SNP's troubles, the next Holyrood election is still competitive.
Thats true- and suspect you are right. But , counsel of perfection, innit ? Others have invoked sideshow bob tonight, so maybe time to make the best of what we have. Or we could vote for Orban, and other flag wavers. Cheers- thanks for hosting.
Isn’t the Green leadership wounded too? Patrick Harvie has been leader for a long time, said he would stand down if the EGM voted to ditch the BHA , and frankly is not very prepossessing to most of the electorate. Lorna Slater’s support base has always been somewhat dubious. Both were visibly out of their depth as ministers (although far from alone in that in Humza Yousaf’s cabinet). Perhaps their membership could decide its time for a change at the top in the Scottish Greens?
Absolutely, the Green leadership is wounded too. One of the most fascinating aspects of this whole saga is how it exposes the many camps within the Greens, and asks which of them calls the shots. The Rainbow Greens are upset about Cass. The environmentalist Greens are upset about climate targets. The Indy Greens are upset about the sundering of the independence alliance in government. Obviously this is a Venn diagram with some overlap. The Scottish Greens membership numbers are a bit of a mystery (to me at least) but this is a relatively small group of people. A few thousand. The dynamics of this small group of people could have a disproportionate effect on Scotland's political future. Let us put aside for now the question as to whether the membership of representative of the Green voters.
One slight fly in the ointment about all of this, if there was to be an early (or extraordinary) election, is that it wouldn't be for a full parliament but rather for the remaining period of *this* one, so only until May '26.
That does somewhat change the dynamics of who benefits from one. I originally was of the view that the parties that don't are the SNP and the Tories while Labour, the Greens, and the Lib Dems do. But if it is only for less than 2 years then that does change the advantage somewhat and might actually make the Tories more inclined to back it, because they can go to their supporters and go "We brought down the Government" and that might help turnout for them.
The other thing is that the way that the cards have fallen with the Tory VoNC first is that Humza doesn't have to, technically, go if it passes. Under the rules of the Parliament, he only has to walk in a VoNC in the whole Government (Labour's motion) and the Greens might be slightly more inclined to back away from that because they were in that Government and it would not exactly be the best look to their supporters to go "We were rubbish aye". So he might try to hold on with that technicality, and then the real fun would begin.
Also, the Alba factor in this is a little overstated really because of how their support looks, what we have seen in all the elections we have had with them is a lack of the sort of concentration required in supporters to get over the line to get seats. I don't see the Ash Regan situation right now changing that.
Interesting. I don't see the Alba issue as electoral. It's more political, more specifically the internal politics of the SNP. Establishment SNP loathes Alba more than it loathes the Tories. And with good cause, because Salmond simply wants to destroy the SNP in its current form to the point where it begs him to return or it is supplanted by Alba. The fact that neither of these things is going to happen cannot deter him. This is why Humza would rather do a deal with a Unionist party than with Alba, if the Greens remain in a cream puff.
Interesting but I don't see how the Greens benefit at all from any election. They gained MSPs off the back of SNP supporters voting for them when it was clear that the SNP would do so well in the constituencies that they wouldn't pick up any seats from the list. Better to vote Green for that indy majority. If the SNP are declining in the polls and losing constituency seats they need the list seats and are more likely to be eligible for them. If the Greens bring Humza down, SNP supporters will be less inclined to vote for them and there's now Alba as a pro-indy alternative. So on the list, the pro-indy vote is now split three ways rather than being more or less automatically Green. They're screwed.
The data doesn't actually show that. The Scottish Election Study which is pretty much the bible for this sort of thing has shown time after time that the Greens voter base is not majority tactical, it averages as less than 5% of their list vote (coincidently it looks like more Green Voters tactically vote for the SNP in the Constituencies because of no Green candidate standing than the other way around). The Greens Voter base is more in line with a Younger, More Urban, Left Wing demographic that is common amongst parties of that sort of politics. What is interesting is that coalition is sorting itself better, the Green Party used to contain a decent number of more traditional Conservative Voters (The joke about Robin Harper getting elected off the back of Tories that Recycled was based on a truth).
The Coalition allowed them to grow support among left-wingers (they have consistently had better polling over the past 3 years and all projections show them increasing their parliamentary group). This idea that this changes that doesn't past the smell test.
I wondered if I'd made that up but I don't think so. My reading of the Scottish Election Study report is that where SNP voters had a split ticket - voting SNP in the constituency and another party on the list - 72% of those votes went to the Greens. (http://scottishelections.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Scottish-Election-Study-The-2021-Scottish-Parliament-Election.pdf page 16). The following chart (p17) shows that the flow of SNP votes to the Greens makes up a considerable share of the Green vote. Maybe some of them were natural Greens voting SNP where there was no Green candidate but I don't think the reasons for split voting bear that out though the numbers are small. I suspect most of it is SNP supporters looking to maximise the impact of their list vote. Same with the SNP voters who voted Alba on the list. I also saw the same looking at MORI's polling data (I used to work for them) that a sizeable percentage of SNP supporters intended to vote Green in the regional ballot. Anyway, time will tell. Cheers.
Another issue: what happens to voters the SNP is losing to Labour at the general election? What do they do in a Holyrood election? Assuming they vote Labour with their constituency vote, what do they do with their list vote? I guess it depends why they've switched to Labour. But a growing Labour/Green vote is at least a possibility.
My guess, and I can't do any more than guess, is that a lot of them will be older Labour voters drawn to independence in 2014 as much as a rejection of another Conservative government as a positive endorsement of independence (it can't be worse than another 10 years of the tories). They are disillusioned by the SNP and independence and the prospect of a Labour government brings them back "home". I'd expect them to vote Labour in their Holyrood constituency and on the list because Labour in Scotland is far from secure. I can't see the Greens appealing to them. Which brings me to another question that I'll have to have a think about: what are the limits of Green voting?
Yes, one way or another he’s toast. The catastrophic Ulsterisation of Scottish politics over the last decade has completely closed off opportunities to reach out to other parties, to be more collegiate perhaps in return for toning down the independence rhetoric (which his “ultras” would never allow). His charmless send off for Ash Regan means her (and Alex’s) price is sure to be too high for him to still command the full support of his rank and file if he accepts. Best he can hope for is “dead man walking”. And if he fails completely, no one will thank him for causing an election practically on top of the UK GE (except maybe Stephen Flynn who could conveniently switch Parliaments?).
The confidence vote in the Government will (I assume) be before the SNP has time to choose a new leader, the question is then what the Greens would do in those circumstances, abstaining would be enough for the Government to survive but Patrick Harvie’s blood pressure would need to drop a bit before then!
He’s probably toast, though he may be cold toast by the time he resigns/is forced to resign/decides to hold an election. Personally I’m pleased the Greens are out of government - I was pleased they were included in a general ‘it’s nice to have idealists nearer power’ sort of way, but they’ve been useless at all aspects of politics, including their petty and immature reaction to the end of the BHA (greeting on the radio? raging about cowardice and revenge) but especially at trying to develop competent legislation around their manifesto pledges. Which is a problem for politicians. If the EGM sees the end of the current coleaders that may be a step forward, though they need to be mindful of choosing replacements who the electorate can view sympathetically - some of their more prominent MSPs simply alienate more people every time they appear/speak public ally. BUT HY got rid of them in such a cack handed way, too soon after praising them and pretty obviously without considering/being oblivious both the hysteria of their reaction and the inevitable implications of losing his majority - having to depend on those of his own MSPs who are clearly lacking in loyalty to him, as well as on Ash R. Because no other party was ever going to support him.
It's certainly a dilemma. How do you find, within a bunch of self-styled revolutionaries who constantly confuse gestures with action, the kind of methodical consensus-builders who can turn yesterday's radicalism into tomorrow's law?
It seems to me that this in essence is the nub of the issue. Since the COVID damage reduction exercises by the machine developed by his predecessor, it's clear that actual life and death decision making simply doesn't factor into much of Holyrood policy making.
It's an absolute disgrace that these professional politicians are talking about personally hurt feelings; they are representatives first and foremost - have we any constituency polling we can trust left?
The core casualties from this internecine warfare is trust in Holyrood as a seat of government..
You would think he is toast - unless the Greens U-turn and assuming the votes fall the way you'd expect (meaning all MSPs turn up to vote), he'd be relying on Ash Regan just to tie the vote. Any authority he has will definitely be gone then, if he has much left as it is.
All the way through the leadership election and his leadership so far, right up until the day or two before, Yousaf has been wedded to the agreement yet has seemingly decided to terminate it almost overnight. My reading of his comment that 'the balance of the agreement has shifted' confirms that he's dumped the Greens before they've dumped him. The time to do it would have been on becoming leader to bill it as a fresh start, or around election time (either before one or as a response to the result).
He's now alienated the party who are by far the most likely to work with him, and his demeanour and character isn't conducive to winning support from elsewhere. Even as a starting point, the divisive and tribal nature of Scottish politics now makes it far less likely that the SNP and the other opposition parties would work together anyway.
Not being an expert on internal SNP politics I wonder if this has the potential to cause further, longer-lasting division in the party. The leadership election last year was already tight between two politicians with very different beliefs (or at least in Yousaf's case supporters with very different beliefs.) With what's happened since and without an obvious successor who could unite the party they may have to make a choice that's unpalatable to at least one wing.
Very much so. The tribalists in the party will be looking at him tonight and saying: "He wants a meeting with the Tories to discuss co-operation..?" Whereas co-operation with your rivals is how Holyrood works.
Sunday morning dawns with the news that Alex Salmond is demanding an electoral pact with the SNP. Is this to be the Greens’ biggest achievement in govt, making Alex Salmond relevant again? How should Humza respond?
Is Humza Yousaf toast? Well at the moment that seems entirely down to whether Ash Regan will vote for him or not. Fast moving situation but it looks like some assurances to her regarding the Cass report should be enough to get her on board. She would lose her seat if there is an election so the chances of her voting for him are probably quite high if he shows her some courtesy.
But of course this isn't really about Humza Yousaf anyway, he hasn't actually done anything worthy of resigning over. This is about bringing the SNP government down. If Humza resigns there will soon enough be a VONC in whoever replaces him until an election is forced. Exactly as the SNP would do if they were in opposition. Are Labour wise to bring down this SNP government now or wait a bit longer? Probably an even bigger question.
Yousaf can't do any deal with Alba, in my view. They'd keep coming back for more, and the SNP would just be in the same position as before, except with Alex Salmond instead of Patrick Harvie/Lorna Slater.
I very much agree it's a big call for Labour about whether they'd want a Holyrood election now. They don't have all their candidates in place, for one thing.
The polls say if there were an election now the SNP would get the most seats but far short of a majority. Meaning Anas Sarwar would almost certainly be First Minister because the Tories and Lib Dems would obviously back him to be First Minister to get the SNP out of power. So do Labour want that now? Or wait for the SNP gov to lose more ground in polls? Or will a Labour government in Westminster make it quite difficult for Scottish Labour to do as well as they might have done in 2026?
Ash Regan doesn’t need much in the way of concessions to support Humza Yousaf and the SG in the votes of confidence next week because that is the direction of travel within the SNP anyway. SG ministers will be back in their constituencies over the weekend and ought to be canvassing the views of the membership (although some of them appear to have little contact with them).
They might find it hard work to find many “progressive” ones! The reason the Greens had so much influence within the SG was the SNP’s own policy vacuum that developed under Sturgeon. And, of course, Humza is the continuity candidate……….
Agree, he can't do that it would be fatal. To survive he needs to reach some kind of accommodation with the Greens and they have hinted, I think, that they might be open to that. So I don't think he is necessarily toast although I agree with other commentators that a period in opposition would be good for the SNP and for Scotland come to that.
Sunday Times today suggests an SNP leadership contest, should one arise, could be between Kate Forbes and Jenny Gilruth. If I was a betting man - I used to be but gave it up - I would back Gilruth. Folk talk about McAllan as a contender but I find her a tad icy. Gilruth is much warmer and more relatable. I think she’s the best ABK (anyone but Kate) candidate.
Like the Tories, the SNP needs a period in opposition to redefine itself and its project/policies. This is more important than who leads it. Holyrood and Westminster elections on the same day(s) 25 years after advent of devo and 45 years after that of Thatcherism would be a desirable way out of the current crisis/stagnation - allowing for a real debate on our collective/shared futures as Scots, Brits and Europeans.
That is a fascinating prospect, David. Usually Westminster and Holyrood elections play off against each other. Both on the same day? There is a risk, with heavier media coverage, that the Westminster contest would overshadow the Scottish one. Nationalists would object that it looks at Scotland through a UK eye, rather than on Scotland's own terms. But it's a thought.
I think he’s toast, currently burnt around the edges (as you said) but gradually carbonising. But there’s no one there of any competence or stature to replace him leaving the party deeply wounded. Green leadership is also looking ropy and disputed.
Not sure that the Labour Party want a general election now and the voting arithmetic makes winning a VONC unlikely. It does, however, offer them opportunities to attack two other floundering parties and question their credentials. For example, it gives them a platform to question why the Greens would support a VONC in HY but not in the SNP Government, as well as to highlight the SNP’s record in Government.
Perhaps they’ve done their sums and realised that they can’t win (or certainly not the two thirds majority) but they can inflict fatal wounds
That rings true. I imagine there's been some serious conversations within Labour, not least on the cost of a campaign this year and the practicalities of candidate selection and policy development. Definitely tactical gains to be made short of triggering an early vote.
I certainly hope he is toast. In all his roles he’s been utterly Useless. Mind you, so are the rest of what passes for a government in Scotland.
The "Useless" moniker seems to have stuck. Very bad news for him. A nickname with an in-built analysis/judgement. Devastating.
It wasn’t as if we didn’t know how useless he was. He demonstrated it amply in his other governmental roles. I reckon the Murrells thought they could control him. Some judgement call that!
I can understand why Humza Yousaf did what he did because it would have looked incredibly indecisive to have had to several weeks for the Greens to decide whether they would deign to prop up his administration, but I doubt he could have foreseen the real anger his decision caused. Talk about righteous indignation and total lack of self-awareness from people whose policies are deeply unattractive to vast swathes of the population and who particularly have total tin ears when it comes to rural Scotland! It will be really interesting to see how far Yousaf is willing to go to stop Ash Regan voting with the opposition, although her call for more competent government, welcome as it would be, seems a triumph of hope over reality and not something Yousaf is in any position to guarantee.
His position is definitely shoogly nail territory.
As for who replaces him, I would have thought Stephen Flynn can't be in the running if there is no Holyrood election, but I may have missed a change in the rules somewhere. When I read this morning that Neil Gray was odds-on favourite to succeed Yousaf if he loses the vote of confidence, may heart sank. Scotland needs better than a safe pair of hands for heavens sake, especially when you're talking about someone who, outside the SNP and political geeks, virtually no-one has ever heard of. Does he have a singular achievement that we could get excited about? He's a younger version of John Swinney, and we know how that ended.
If Yousaf loses and the SNP have to put a name forward in 28 days, am I right in thinking that the decision will basically be up to the SNP MSPs and party members won't get the final say? I'd like to know the answer to that please.
I don't think there is any chance of getting a Holyrood election, because the Greens and Alba certainly don't want one right now, whatever they may say publicly and have indicated they won't vote for the motion of no confidence in the government.
That's a very good question, Peter, about whether it would just be up to SNP MSPs and not members. In the circumstances I think there would be enormous pressure not to have a contest, so there may well have to be a caretaker FM who gets us through this crisis on the understanding that an SNP leadership contest will be held over the summer. I don't know if Neil Gray has the authority to do that job, nor am I convinced he would be seen as enough of a neutral to hold the jaikets in what could well be an SNP civil war. Also, he may have ambitions of his own. John Swinney is the obvious caretaker. But would he do it, even for a few months? Last time I spoke to John he was very much enjoying being out of govt. But his loyalty to the party runs deep.
As MacMillan said events dear boy events….
What surprised me in all this was the complete lack of joined up thinking about the possible consequences of the decision to oust the Greens. HY seems to think that on balance they would continue muted support for the govt.
He has been made to look weak because of his statements. Was it only Tuesday when he said the BHA was working and he hoped it would continue? Attempt to look decisive at 8am on Thursday morning crashes and burns at FMQs.
Seriously, what did HY and his advisers think might happen. The Greens might seek revenge? Or did they really discount them as hemp wearing hippies.
Perhaps renegotiate the BHA? Move to confidence and supply arrangement. No chuck them overboard.
He deserves to lose the VOC due to stupid decisions. Eject them on Thursday afternoon or Friday for goodness sake.
Buy off Ash Regan? After trashing her when she left. That would be the last straw for many SNP members I think.
A new, looser deal with the Greens seems the sensible way forward. But that would require the Greens to calm down and stop thinking about revenge. I see no sign of that at present, but presumably the former Green ministers are consulting the party membership informally this weekend, so let's see.
It required to be done ahead of them being sacked. That’s the tactical error by HY.
Very much toast. A thick doorstep of toast. Sacking the Greens was inept. I'm not sure there's been any appreciation of the sort of bind the Greens leadership was in after the climate targets and Cass. He should have at least tried to agree with them to suspend the BHA until after their EGM, giving both of them a painless way out of it. But he's done it now and it's going to hurt both the SNP and Greens at the next election, whenever that is.
I think one of there problems was he wanted to make a big show of being tough. That was his priority, not finessing the relationship with the Greens or renegotiating the BHA. To borrow a phrase from another context, the cruelty was the point.
Yeah, I don't doubt he thought this would make him look tough and decisive, not recognising the fundamental weakness of his position. He never thought the Greens would get to the edge of the tent, turn around and piss straight back in. He didn't think that they would need to look tough too. That's what was inept about it.
But that's what's been wrong with Scottish politics for too long. Too many good guys and enemies, too much performance and high principles and not enough of the boring day-to-day graft of governing, managing and getting things done. Ironically, not enough of the grubby backroom deals and compromises made by anonymous fixers that actually move things forward. It's tiresome.
Yes, exactly, confrontation politics in a parliament built for consensus.
Whatever happens, the person in the SNP who comes out on top will 1) need to be an adroit coalition builder within the SNP and without the party; and 2) will pay a price. Yousaf is not an adroit politician, more Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes. But I don't think Forbes or anyone else will be able to 'save' the situation either.
These are just a few hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the point. Say Humza reconciles with the Greens in a loose coalition, that further irritates the Forbes/Ewings of this world. Alternatively, Forbes becomes FM in the coming months with Tory outside support because she can't rely on the Greens and annoys the left in her party. Deal with Salmond and Alba and you annoy the Greens, many within the SNP and the complication of Salmond's litigation against the Scottish Government and Branchform.
Finally, the 'caretaker' scenario of a Swinney or similar with the Greens on the outside. There the SNP get the band back together but still bleeding support and credibility in the run-up to an important Westminster GE. There's the distinct possibility of a SNP leadership contest happening during the Westminster GE. Plus you still have the problems of Sturgeon and Murrell and the Branchform investigation.
And that points to, I think, the underlying issue: the fragmentation of the broader indy coalition because indy itself is currently a distant possibility. Imminent - or in a few more years - indy is no longer a tie that can bind the wider Indy SNP/Green movement together. In 2014, you could have Patrick Harvie saying 'no more oil' next to Fergus Ewing saying 'more oil' because the prospect of independence felt very close. That's not the case now, which is why there are such disagreements about the trans issue as well as deep personal dislikes, even hatreds, come to fore and shape the day-to-day politics. No amount of nifty, day-to-day political management can solve this deeper strategic problem.
Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes! Ouch!
Some really thought-provoking insights there, Andrew. Many thanks.
Thanks, Kenny
Many within the party regard Humza Yousaf’s election as leader of the SNP as a stitch-up. The desperation to bend the rules begged the question as to why, what was so fearful about Kate Forbes? Subsequent events are perhaps beginning to indicate what lay behind this, but it can’t go on.
The best way forward is for Yousaf to step down in early course - he has lost all credibility - and for an interim FM to be appointed that could be accepted by the parliament which would allow the SNP to follow due process to elect a new leader, which will take months.
Stephen Flynn can lead the Westminster Campaign should a Westminster general election arise in the interim, and that is how it ought to be anyway under an effective, collegiate, leader. Yousaf is electorally toxic as is Sturgeon and anyone closely associated with her.
Tbh, I'm not at all convinced Kate Forbes is the person to heal the SNP. She has many attributes and skills. But she would be even more of a divisive figure than Humza.
All I am calling for is a proper leadership election with a level playing field. I am not promoting Kate Forbes specifically. In indisputably adverse circumstances, where she did perhaps act inadvisedly in proclaiming her religious beliefs, she still almost won. That was after many thousands of party members had already left the Sturgeonist SNP in disgust and who would most likely have overwhelmingly voted for her. Don’t overestimate the so called “progressive” element within the SNP, most of them have been exclusively selected and over-promoted into government or committee chairs. I think there is only one junior minister in place who did not support Yousaf, yet almost half the party voted for Forbes. So much for inclusivity!
All of that is true and if, as expected, the party loses many Central Belt seats to Labour at the general election the influence of the urban/progressive side of the party will be diminished - albeit that it will still dominate the SNP cabinet.
I agree Kenny. I’m not sure she would want it at this point anyway.
As I’m not an SNP voter or Independence supporter I would like to see Humza Yousaf cling on as FM, weakened, leading a divided and bitter SNP still being blackmailed by the Greens at least until the UK General Election is over. My hope is that Kier Starmer turns out be a decent PM ( don’t we all hope that ?) and that with Labour in power in UK , Scottish Labour could offer a compelling manifesto to Scotland to revitalise the economy and bring a bit of cooperation instead of division. I realise this is probably hopelessly optimistic.
In think the most optimistic part is definitely Scottish Labour coming up with a compelling vision for Scotland! Despite all the SNP's troubles, the next Holyrood election is still competitive.
My worry with Labour is I can already start to see the arrogant swagger that lost them people’s trust in the first place. A worry.
Thats true- and suspect you are right. But , counsel of perfection, innit ? Others have invoked sideshow bob tonight, so maybe time to make the best of what we have. Or we could vote for Orban, and other flag wavers. Cheers- thanks for hosting.
A pleasure. Thanks for taking part.
Labour has more to gain from Yousaf being SNP leader and FM for as long as possible
A successful no confidence and/or Scottish election not in its best interest
They need to be careful
I agree, John. A wounded Humza is more use to them than a fresh face with a new agenda. Especially with a general election just months away.
Isn’t the Green leadership wounded too? Patrick Harvie has been leader for a long time, said he would stand down if the EGM voted to ditch the BHA , and frankly is not very prepossessing to most of the electorate. Lorna Slater’s support base has always been somewhat dubious. Both were visibly out of their depth as ministers (although far from alone in that in Humza Yousaf’s cabinet). Perhaps their membership could decide its time for a change at the top in the Scottish Greens?
Absolutely, the Green leadership is wounded too. One of the most fascinating aspects of this whole saga is how it exposes the many camps within the Greens, and asks which of them calls the shots. The Rainbow Greens are upset about Cass. The environmentalist Greens are upset about climate targets. The Indy Greens are upset about the sundering of the independence alliance in government. Obviously this is a Venn diagram with some overlap. The Scottish Greens membership numbers are a bit of a mystery (to me at least) but this is a relatively small group of people. A few thousand. The dynamics of this small group of people could have a disproportionate effect on Scotland's political future. Let us put aside for now the question as to whether the membership of representative of the Green voters.
One slight fly in the ointment about all of this, if there was to be an early (or extraordinary) election, is that it wouldn't be for a full parliament but rather for the remaining period of *this* one, so only until May '26.
That does somewhat change the dynamics of who benefits from one. I originally was of the view that the parties that don't are the SNP and the Tories while Labour, the Greens, and the Lib Dems do. But if it is only for less than 2 years then that does change the advantage somewhat and might actually make the Tories more inclined to back it, because they can go to their supporters and go "We brought down the Government" and that might help turnout for them.
The other thing is that the way that the cards have fallen with the Tory VoNC first is that Humza doesn't have to, technically, go if it passes. Under the rules of the Parliament, he only has to walk in a VoNC in the whole Government (Labour's motion) and the Greens might be slightly more inclined to back away from that because they were in that Government and it would not exactly be the best look to their supporters to go "We were rubbish aye". So he might try to hold on with that technicality, and then the real fun would begin.
Also, the Alba factor in this is a little overstated really because of how their support looks, what we have seen in all the elections we have had with them is a lack of the sort of concentration required in supporters to get over the line to get seats. I don't see the Ash Regan situation right now changing that.
Interesting. I don't see the Alba issue as electoral. It's more political, more specifically the internal politics of the SNP. Establishment SNP loathes Alba more than it loathes the Tories. And with good cause, because Salmond simply wants to destroy the SNP in its current form to the point where it begs him to return or it is supplanted by Alba. The fact that neither of these things is going to happen cannot deter him. This is why Humza would rather do a deal with a Unionist party than with Alba, if the Greens remain in a cream puff.
Interesting but I don't see how the Greens benefit at all from any election. They gained MSPs off the back of SNP supporters voting for them when it was clear that the SNP would do so well in the constituencies that they wouldn't pick up any seats from the list. Better to vote Green for that indy majority. If the SNP are declining in the polls and losing constituency seats they need the list seats and are more likely to be eligible for them. If the Greens bring Humza down, SNP supporters will be less inclined to vote for them and there's now Alba as a pro-indy alternative. So on the list, the pro-indy vote is now split three ways rather than being more or less automatically Green. They're screwed.
The data doesn't actually show that. The Scottish Election Study which is pretty much the bible for this sort of thing has shown time after time that the Greens voter base is not majority tactical, it averages as less than 5% of their list vote (coincidently it looks like more Green Voters tactically vote for the SNP in the Constituencies because of no Green candidate standing than the other way around). The Greens Voter base is more in line with a Younger, More Urban, Left Wing demographic that is common amongst parties of that sort of politics. What is interesting is that coalition is sorting itself better, the Green Party used to contain a decent number of more traditional Conservative Voters (The joke about Robin Harper getting elected off the back of Tories that Recycled was based on a truth).
The Coalition allowed them to grow support among left-wingers (they have consistently had better polling over the past 3 years and all projections show them increasing their parliamentary group). This idea that this changes that doesn't past the smell test.
I wondered if I'd made that up but I don't think so. My reading of the Scottish Election Study report is that where SNP voters had a split ticket - voting SNP in the constituency and another party on the list - 72% of those votes went to the Greens. (http://scottishelections.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Scottish-Election-Study-The-2021-Scottish-Parliament-Election.pdf page 16). The following chart (p17) shows that the flow of SNP votes to the Greens makes up a considerable share of the Green vote. Maybe some of them were natural Greens voting SNP where there was no Green candidate but I don't think the reasons for split voting bear that out though the numbers are small. I suspect most of it is SNP supporters looking to maximise the impact of their list vote. Same with the SNP voters who voted Alba on the list. I also saw the same looking at MORI's polling data (I used to work for them) that a sizeable percentage of SNP supporters intended to vote Green in the regional ballot. Anyway, time will tell. Cheers.
Another issue: what happens to voters the SNP is losing to Labour at the general election? What do they do in a Holyrood election? Assuming they vote Labour with their constituency vote, what do they do with their list vote? I guess it depends why they've switched to Labour. But a growing Labour/Green vote is at least a possibility.
My guess, and I can't do any more than guess, is that a lot of them will be older Labour voters drawn to independence in 2014 as much as a rejection of another Conservative government as a positive endorsement of independence (it can't be worse than another 10 years of the tories). They are disillusioned by the SNP and independence and the prospect of a Labour government brings them back "home". I'd expect them to vote Labour in their Holyrood constituency and on the list because Labour in Scotland is far from secure. I can't see the Greens appealing to them. Which brings me to another question that I'll have to have a think about: what are the limits of Green voting?
Your point about greater competition for list seats if SNP dips in constituency vote is a really salient one.
Yes, one way or another he’s toast. The catastrophic Ulsterisation of Scottish politics over the last decade has completely closed off opportunities to reach out to other parties, to be more collegiate perhaps in return for toning down the independence rhetoric (which his “ultras” would never allow). His charmless send off for Ash Regan means her (and Alex’s) price is sure to be too high for him to still command the full support of his rank and file if he accepts. Best he can hope for is “dead man walking”. And if he fails completely, no one will thank him for causing an election practically on top of the UK GE (except maybe Stephen Flynn who could conveniently switch Parliaments?).
The confidence vote in the Government will (I assume) be before the SNP has time to choose a new leader, the question is then what the Greens would do in those circumstances, abstaining would be enough for the Government to survive but Patrick Harvie’s blood pressure would need to drop a bit before then!
Who’d have thought the future political direction of the country would rest on Patrick’s hurt feelings.
He’s probably toast, though he may be cold toast by the time he resigns/is forced to resign/decides to hold an election. Personally I’m pleased the Greens are out of government - I was pleased they were included in a general ‘it’s nice to have idealists nearer power’ sort of way, but they’ve been useless at all aspects of politics, including their petty and immature reaction to the end of the BHA (greeting on the radio? raging about cowardice and revenge) but especially at trying to develop competent legislation around their manifesto pledges. Which is a problem for politicians. If the EGM sees the end of the current coleaders that may be a step forward, though they need to be mindful of choosing replacements who the electorate can view sympathetically - some of their more prominent MSPs simply alienate more people every time they appear/speak public ally. BUT HY got rid of them in such a cack handed way, too soon after praising them and pretty obviously without considering/being oblivious both the hysteria of their reaction and the inevitable implications of losing his majority - having to depend on those of his own MSPs who are clearly lacking in loyalty to him, as well as on Ash R. Because no other party was ever going to support him.
Publicly. I need a new iPad.
It's certainly a dilemma. How do you find, within a bunch of self-styled revolutionaries who constantly confuse gestures with action, the kind of methodical consensus-builders who can turn yesterday's radicalism into tomorrow's law?
To be fair to them, almost the whole of ScotGov have been in performative mode for some years now.
It seems to me that this in essence is the nub of the issue. Since the COVID damage reduction exercises by the machine developed by his predecessor, it's clear that actual life and death decision making simply doesn't factor into much of Holyrood policy making.
It's an absolute disgrace that these professional politicians are talking about personally hurt feelings; they are representatives first and foremost - have we any constituency polling we can trust left?
The core casualties from this internecine warfare is trust in Holyrood as a seat of government..
I fear you are right. Faith in Holyrood has been damaged, at least in the short term but possibly for longer.
You would think he is toast - unless the Greens U-turn and assuming the votes fall the way you'd expect (meaning all MSPs turn up to vote), he'd be relying on Ash Regan just to tie the vote. Any authority he has will definitely be gone then, if he has much left as it is.
All the way through the leadership election and his leadership so far, right up until the day or two before, Yousaf has been wedded to the agreement yet has seemingly decided to terminate it almost overnight. My reading of his comment that 'the balance of the agreement has shifted' confirms that he's dumped the Greens before they've dumped him. The time to do it would have been on becoming leader to bill it as a fresh start, or around election time (either before one or as a response to the result).
He's now alienated the party who are by far the most likely to work with him, and his demeanour and character isn't conducive to winning support from elsewhere. Even as a starting point, the divisive and tribal nature of Scottish politics now makes it far less likely that the SNP and the other opposition parties would work together anyway.
Not being an expert on internal SNP politics I wonder if this has the potential to cause further, longer-lasting division in the party. The leadership election last year was already tight between two politicians with very different beliefs (or at least in Yousaf's case supporters with very different beliefs.) With what's happened since and without an obvious successor who could unite the party they may have to make a choice that's unpalatable to at least one wing.
Very much so. The tribalists in the party will be looking at him tonight and saying: "He wants a meeting with the Tories to discuss co-operation..?" Whereas co-operation with your rivals is how Holyrood works.
Sunday morning dawns with the news that Alex Salmond is demanding an electoral pact with the SNP. Is this to be the Greens’ biggest achievement in govt, making Alex Salmond relevant again? How should Humza respond?
Is Humza Yousaf toast? Well at the moment that seems entirely down to whether Ash Regan will vote for him or not. Fast moving situation but it looks like some assurances to her regarding the Cass report should be enough to get her on board. She would lose her seat if there is an election so the chances of her voting for him are probably quite high if he shows her some courtesy.
But of course this isn't really about Humza Yousaf anyway, he hasn't actually done anything worthy of resigning over. This is about bringing the SNP government down. If Humza resigns there will soon enough be a VONC in whoever replaces him until an election is forced. Exactly as the SNP would do if they were in opposition. Are Labour wise to bring down this SNP government now or wait a bit longer? Probably an even bigger question.
Yousaf can't do any deal with Alba, in my view. They'd keep coming back for more, and the SNP would just be in the same position as before, except with Alex Salmond instead of Patrick Harvie/Lorna Slater.
I very much agree it's a big call for Labour about whether they'd want a Holyrood election now. They don't have all their candidates in place, for one thing.
The polls say if there were an election now the SNP would get the most seats but far short of a majority. Meaning Anas Sarwar would almost certainly be First Minister because the Tories and Lib Dems would obviously back him to be First Minister to get the SNP out of power. So do Labour want that now? Or wait for the SNP gov to lose more ground in polls? Or will a Labour government in Westminster make it quite difficult for Scottish Labour to do as well as they might have done in 2026?
Fascinating questions.
Midterm in a UK Labour government that is, in the short term at least, sticking to Tory spending plans, will be a tricky time.
Ash Regan doesn’t need much in the way of concessions to support Humza Yousaf and the SG in the votes of confidence next week because that is the direction of travel within the SNP anyway. SG ministers will be back in their constituencies over the weekend and ought to be canvassing the views of the membership (although some of them appear to have little contact with them).
I hope they also speak to seriously pissed off voters!
They might find it hard work to find many “progressive” ones! The reason the Greens had so much influence within the SG was the SNP’s own policy vacuum that developed under Sturgeon. And, of course, Humza is the continuity candidate……….
Agree, he can't do that it would be fatal. To survive he needs to reach some kind of accommodation with the Greens and they have hinted, I think, that they might be open to that. So I don't think he is necessarily toast although I agree with other commentators that a period in opposition would be good for the SNP and for Scotland come to that.
I think I said on Twitter yesterday that he wasn’t toast, just toasted, albeit burnt at the edges.
Sunday Times today suggests an SNP leadership contest, should one arise, could be between Kate Forbes and Jenny Gilruth. If I was a betting man - I used to be but gave it up - I would back Gilruth. Folk talk about McAllan as a contender but I find her a tad icy. Gilruth is much warmer and more relatable. I think she’s the best ABK (anyone but Kate) candidate.
Like the Tories, the SNP needs a period in opposition to redefine itself and its project/policies. This is more important than who leads it. Holyrood and Westminster elections on the same day(s) 25 years after advent of devo and 45 years after that of Thatcherism would be a desirable way out of the current crisis/stagnation - allowing for a real debate on our collective/shared futures as Scots, Brits and Europeans.
That is a fascinating prospect, David. Usually Westminster and Holyrood elections play off against each other. Both on the same day? There is a risk, with heavier media coverage, that the Westminster contest would overshadow the Scottish one. Nationalists would object that it looks at Scotland through a UK eye, rather than on Scotland's own terms. But it's a thought.
I think he’s toast, currently burnt around the edges (as you said) but gradually carbonising. But there’s no one there of any competence or stature to replace him leaving the party deeply wounded. Green leadership is also looking ropy and disputed.
Not sure that the Labour Party want a general election now and the voting arithmetic makes winning a VONC unlikely. It does, however, offer them opportunities to attack two other floundering parties and question their credentials. For example, it gives them a platform to question why the Greens would support a VONC in HY but not in the SNP Government, as well as to highlight the SNP’s record in Government.
Perhaps they’ve done their sums and realised that they can’t win (or certainly not the two thirds majority) but they can inflict fatal wounds
That rings true. I imagine there's been some serious conversations within Labour, not least on the cost of a campaign this year and the practicalities of candidate selection and policy development. Definitely tactical gains to be made short of triggering an early vote.
Toast less cold than I had expected.
Me an aw.