Patrick Harvie on Kate Forbes, SNP, Israel, trans rights and net zero

So there’s plenty to quiz him about: the “green tail wagging the yellow dog”; Kate Forbes backing a vote on the Bute House deal; attacks from Fergus Ewing; trans rights; the SNP’s decline; Labour’s resurrection; and, of course – can Scotland achieve net zero without hurting the poor or wrecking communities like Aberdeen.

What does he say to claims that the Greens pull the SNP’s strings? “I usually laugh because most portraying us that way in the next breath say we’re achieving nothing. You can’t have it both ways,” he says.

“Neither extreme is true. By going into this co-operation agreement we’ve changed from making speeches about how everything should be better to a party that’s trying to deliver change. That involves compromise. Although we share much common ground, there are many issues we don’t agree on.”

But can you work with a party in disarray? “The SNP had decades of very stable leadership,” he continues. “Inevitably as you get a change of generation, whether it was Humza Yousaf or anyone else after Nicola Sturgeon stepped down, they wouldn’t come with the standing of having done the job at the highest level for decades.

“That opens up the possibility of more collegiate leadership. What Humza Yousaf is doing is a change of culture. That’s always going to be difficult, and ruffle some feathers.

“Some [SNP figures] worried about their standing in the polls should look to themselves. Are you looking like a divided party? Are you making the SNP look more confused? Some reacting as though there now needs to be fundamental change need to consider whether they’re offering the public the idea of a united party.”

Forbes

The SNP’s Rutherglen loss was because voters saw the by-election “as a prelude to a UK election. The UK election will be about getting rid of the Tory Party. Labour are the obvious party likely to replace them”.

However, the SNP’s leadership election “troubled” progressive voters who previously backed the party, due to “how prominent social and economic conservativism was within the SNP’s upper echelons – and they hadn’t been aware of that”.

Some have now switched to the Greens after seeing “such a close race with [Kate Forbes] who came out with lines around progressive taxation you could easily have heard from Liz Truss”, says Harvie, adding: “There’s also her social conservatism around same-sex marriage. It just didn’t feel like the modern Scotland that’s been built since devolution began. A lot of folk who bought into the idea of a modern socially progressive Scotland in the devolution era probably were pretty taken aback by some of the attitudes that came out.”

Would the Greens have abandoned the SNP deal if Forbes won? “That wouldn’t be a decision for me or Lorna Slater as co-leaders, it would have been for party council. I personally wouldn’t have been comfortable remaining a minister.” Harvie’s “recommendation” to the party would have been Forbes’s “positions … were incompatible with the Bute House agreement, and it would need to be ended”. He adds: “I don’t think there’s much doubt the way that decision would’ve gone.”

Kate Forbes MSP, the SNP leadership candidate is pictured speaking to journalists at the Sikorski Polish Club in Glasgow where after she met members of the Ukrainian community at the Glasgow branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain

Labour

THE SNP might lose the next Holyrood election. Would Greens team up with a minority Labour government? “It’s healthy for everyone in parliament to feel there’s no guarantee they’ll be there after the next election,” says Harvie.

“In my first years in the Scottish Parliament, there was a Labour-led administration. We did then what we do now: be constructive where there’s common ground and challenge where government got things wrong. You should work together where you can.”

However, “Anas Sarwar seems to be saying they’ll go it alone and won’t co-operate with anyone”. Harvie adds, however, that Scottish Labour at “council level often rely on Conservative support”.

Greens would approach a minority Scottish Labour government in the “spirit of seeking common ground”. However, if a UK Labour government used Section 35 orders against legislation then “we’d find very few opportunities” for co-operation.

If Labour does “replace a corrupt, toxic Tory Party” at Westminster, however, Harvie says that presents a chance to “reset the relationship, and try to achieve respect for devolution”. But he says that as Labour wasn’t offering “radical transformational” policies, then come the next Holyrood election many voters may feel “pretty disappointed” in Sarwar and Starmer.

Hostile

Given the SNP’s woes, might rebels force Yousaf to scrap the Bute House deal? “Clearly, there’s one or two always hostile to the Greens’ environmental policies on the SNP backbenches, that’s no secret.”

Harvie says the SNP has a “clear legal responsibility to construct a climate plan” which reaches emissions targets. “That can’t be done without some of the very policies that those who’ve always been hostile to environmentalism on the SNP backbenches seek to oppose.”

Due to “complex” issues like the cost of living crisis and climate change, most voters believe “that one party on its own in minority, unable to bring forward an agenda, is unlikely to be able to address those challenges coherently”.

Most independence supporters want “pro-independence parties working together”. Does that mean he’d work with Alex Salmond? “No, but supporters of independence want that choice to exist.” However, he adds: “I hope they continue not to vote for Alba.”

He is unfazed by media attacks. “I don’t think many of our prospective voters are regular Mail or Express readers. We probably attract support from those who wouldn’t be seen dead [reading them].”

Ewing

BUT might those voters listen to SNP MSP Fergus Ewing, who attacked the Greens? “Possibly,” Harvie says, adding that Ewing’s opposition is “no great surprise” given his position on “environmentalism, or social policy – he’s someone who has voted against LGBT rights”.

The SNP deal has served Greens well, Harvie implies. They have increased in polls. “There’s a growing number who might have been attracted to green politics but in previous elections thought ‘I’m going to vote for the bigger parties because they’re going to form a government’. Playing our part in government is about saying ‘green politics isn’t for show’: a green vote is a way of making change happen, it’s not a protest vote.”

Bad press, Harvie feels, maybe helped. He quotes Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. If some now take green politics seriously enough to oppose the steps necessary to achieve a sustainable future, it demonstrates we’re capable of making further headway. That worries them.”

Greens have garnered negative headlines over the Middle East conflict, however, so what’s their position? The party condemns “both Hamas and the Israeli government’s response”, Harvie says. “World leaders … must broker an immediate ceasefire.” Regarding flying Israel’s flag over Holyrood, Harvie “would worry this might imply we are not equally concerned for the lives of people in both Israel or Palestine, or that we support the wider actions of the Israeli government”.

Indy

ISN’T independence doomed by a Labour Westminster majority government? “No, because the question of Scottish independence – whether you support or oppose – needs answered by people in Scotland, not voters in Bristol or Birmingham.

“If – yet again – there’s a pro-independence majority [at Holyrood], then Labour will be effectively doing the same as the Tories: just saying ‘no you can’t’. They’ll lose whatever trust they’re now trying to rebuild.”

But if Labour does say “no” and there’s no Yes majority – what then? To avoid that, says Harvie, “pro-independence voices must successfully make the case that independence is the answer to the issues uppermost in people’s minds”, he says, adding: “For most people, the constitution isn’t some absolute. There are flag-wavers on both sides who’ll never support anything but the union or independence.

“Most people want a settlement to this question that’s relevant to their concerns. We must articulate why Scotland being able to make decisions for ourselves is necessary to address the cost of living crisis and the just transition.” Making that case, Harvie believes, will “re-establish majority [independence] support and force the UK’s hand”.

So, is he saying there’s no road to independence without the SNP and Greens governing well enough to build a consistent pro-independence majority in the polls which leaves the UK Government no alternative but to agree another referendum? “They can’t say no forever, and if we didn’t build that majority enthusiasm for independence then achieving a referendum wouldn’t be much of an achievement if you haven’t persuaded people along the way.”

But hasn’t the Scottish Government failed to govern well, and seems too obsessed with independence? Those “on the sceptical side of independence would portray things that way. I don’t think to most people it looks like that. There’s plenty on the pro-independence side think the Scottish Government isn’t obsessed enough about independence”.

Harvie has “no doubt” Scotland will vote again on independence and “as generations change, you’ll continue to see growth in support”.

And the state of the Yes movement now? “At one level, there’s a great degree of impatience among many who don’t want to wait for the UK to say ‘OK, you can have another shot’. At the same time, nobody with any credibility says there’s a path to independence other than a democratic one.”

Climate Strike march, Glasgow. Pictured are marchers on West George Street on their way to George Square... Photograph by Colin Mearns.20 September 2019..

Trans debate

ON trans rights, Harvie says Scotland is now a “front” in a “nasty culture war” due to Holyrood passing gender legislation vetoed by the UK Government. There is “genuine anxiety and fear” among trans people. A “moral panic has grown up around transgender people and the way they’re misrepresented and demonised in the press”, he adds.

Harvie points out that at Holyrood, “overwhelmingly across the political spectrum”, there was support for the legislation, “even a couple of Tory MSPs voted for it. It’s utterly dismaying to see stereotypes, tropes and prejudices that were directed at lesbian, gay and bisexual people when I was growing up repackaged and redirected at an even smaller, more marginalised group”.

“Homophobia, and moral panic whipped up by the right-wing press and many politicians” in the 1980s and 90s, “ultimately lost. That can happen again. I’m convinced. There’s a generational aspect to this”. Some older people will “always throw their hands up in horror”. Similar laws passed in “other countries, and the sky didn’t fall in”.

It’s now more “dangerous” to be LGBT, Harvie says. “Social media makes it worse.” Twitter is “a bin fire”. He has received “serious threats of violence”. Social media threats are “starting to play out in real life”. Hate crime “is increasing significantly”, he says.

“Every politician and part of the media and the cultural landscape who helped draw this culture war dividing line, whipping up fear and anxiety, is culpable for the consequences being seen at the moment. They need held accountable

for it.”

FOR Harvie, the issue of whether Scotland can achieve a net-zero “just transition” which doesn’t hurt the poor or damage oil and gas-dependent communities is “the critical question”. There’s “obviously risk of replicating the inequalities” that took place under Thatcher.

He wants “district heating” in Scotland, where industrial plants provide neighbourhoods’ central heating and hot water. Private companies, Harvie says, could sell heat to publicly-owned networks.

But how can Scotland achieve net zero by 2045 given our manufacturing base can’t fulfil the requirements, there are not enough workers with green job skills, and supply chains aren’t up to scratch? “We can do it,” he says. “That’s why we’ll need the involvement of the private sector.”

Harvie wants to “send a very clear signal to industry that Scotland is serious about getting this work done – and wants to create conditions in which investment flows in. That’s what we need if we’re going to see private and public sector organisations skill up and scale up in a way that enables us to do the work”.

Polls show many fear environmental policies will hurt them financially. The Scottish Government has been accused of not releasing adequate information regarding support for installing energy-efficient technologies like heat pumps.

Harvie says information is available. A “generous” package of loans and grants exists. Grants of £7,500 are available. There are also “optional interest-free loans” of £7,500. Companies like British Gas offer heat pumps at only £500 above the grant level. As companies develop new heat pumps, prices will fall, Harvie says. Heat pumps will become “more attractive so you don’t have an ugly big grey box but something that looks like it belongs at your home”. He also says products will soon come on the market for people in flats. “I’m on the second floor of a tenement. I can’t at the moment install a heat pump.”

Public funding through grants for heat-pumps are a “big part” of achieving net zero, but wealthier households should “make some contribution”. However, Harvie accepts the system is “confusing … We need to do more to communicate”.

Net zero, Harvie says, has been “dragged into culture war territory” in order to “play on people’s fears around cost”. To make net zero affordable, Rishi Sunak should “decouple gas and electricity prices”, which are currently linked, making renewable electricity costs “artificially high”.

The Scottish Government is still drafting its net-zero industrial strategy so aren’t we at base camp in terms of tackling emissions?

“There’s a huge amount of progress to make but I wouldn’t say we’re at base camp.” Scotland must “rapidly scale up” green manufacturing and skills, though. “Other countries are ahead of us.”

Scotland is “hampered” by the UK Government “dragging its feet”. He hopes for “a change of direction if there’s a change of UK Government”.

Sunak has, with recent announcements, “demolished swathes of existing climate policy”, sending out “mixed signals” to industries which need to invest in green technologies so the country achieves net zero.

Does he fear the push to net zero will replicate the pain of Thatcherism? “We’re trying to navigate a path between something catastrophic for the world, and something which achieves emissions reductions but not in an unfair, unjust way,” he says.

“We’re trying to get between those bad two outcomes and achieve a just transition. Of course, that’s difficult. Can we? Yes. Will we? Nothing comes with a guarantee.

“The only way to guarantee that we fail is to not try.”

ScotWind

YET with public money so vital to achieving net zero, why did the Scottish Government’s ScotWind deal allow overseas firms to buy up swathes of seabed for offshore wind for just £750 million? “There’s some portraying ScotWind in far too negative a light. It does generate public resource. It also crucially gets wind energy developed and installed.” Putting too high a price on the deal would have “led to nothing”.

But Denmark will take public equity stakes in future deals like ScotWind. Will we in future rounds? “I’m always open to looking at how we improve on what we’ve done.”

Hasn’t there been failure around green legislation like the deposit return scheme and highly protected marine areas? On marine areas, Harvie says: “There should have been more of an effort to engage communities.” Instead, some communities “felt the consultation was landed on them”. Fake information was distributed on social media, however, “intended to scare people”.

The deposit return scheme was “deliberately sabotaged” by the UK Government for “malign intentions … deliberately seeking to undermine devolution”.

Does some action by groups like Just Stop Oil alienate public support? “That’s a fair question. I think direct action has always played an important role in achieving social change, from the civil rights movement to votes for women,” he says.

“I think it would be more effective if targeted at fossil fuel companies, banks that finance fossil fuel companies, those complicit. I believe that there is a case for saying it’s legitimate if sporting or cultural events are sponsored by those companies.

“But it must feel comprehensible. When it just looks like disruption of ordinary people going about their daily lives, it’s less comprehensible.” Harvie says he “feels the frustration” of activists, and referenced ongoing discussions about “the ethics of more violent direct action”.

Does he support violent direct action? “I don’t think it’s the right approach. It risks the environmental movement looking like it offers a chaotic future”. The green movement should “embody a secure peaceful future”.

Given the government milestones missed, is net zero achievable by 2045? “Yes,” he says. “Some of the more challenging steps are around shorter-term targets. In many ways, 2030 targets are actually more challenging than 2045. The new climate plan is still in development.

“I don’t think there’s any getting away from the fact this is going to be incredibly difficult and the actions of the UK Government have made it more difficult. So there’s still a huge amount of work do to.

“It’s extremely challenging. But we can achieve net zero by 2045.”