Nicola Sturgeon is in talks with the Scottish Greens to freshen the face of government and formalise Holyrood’s independence majority.

But talk about co-operation, collaboration or parliamentary coalition could serve another useful purpose – distracting from a new row about the SNP’s lack of internal democracy.

This weekend the SNP’s treasurer Douglas Chapman MP resigned from the role saying: "Despite having a resounding mandate from members to introduce more transparency into the party's finances, I have not received the support or financial information to carry out the fiduciary duties of National Treasurer."

SNP business convener, Kirsten Oswald MP tweeted her disappointment at Chapman’s decision and said: "I fundamentally disagree with his assessment of the support and financial information available to him."

Read more: Boris Johnson using 'reforming' tactics to help privatisation survive

Mr Chapman is saying no more, the party has already offered the post to previous incumbent Colin Beattie MSP, and the National Executive Committee (NEC) will likely co-opt someone if he declines.

The resignation came late on Saturday and thus avoided scrutiny by the Sunday press, Mr Chapman is hardly a prominent SNP figure and had been expected to switch to the Alba Party anyway.

So as palace revolts go, this was restrained, polite, even a bit half-hearted.

Today, the long grass certainly beckons.

But in politics, context is all.

Chapman stood in the November SNP elections on a platform of ending secrecy about the party’s accounts – part of a general effort to get new people inside the tightly controlled party machine. Three prominent activists also got onto the finance and audit committee – Frank Ross (a qualified chartered accountant and Lord Provost of Edinburgh), Livingston company director Cynthia Guthrie and the Mid Scotland & Fife NEC member Allison Graham. But within a few months the trio had resigned, reportedly unable to do their jobs.

In March, the shock of these resignations was rapidly overshadowed by the greater shock of Alba’s formation and the narrative of personal revenge swirling around Alex Salmond.

But these very douce, guarded departures were announced as the May elections loomed and the Holyrood enquiry shifted attention onto the Scottish Government.

Alba did manage to shine a light on the SNP’s problematic financial affairs, and candidates (like Cynthia Guthrie) spoke out about secretive decision-making processes and obstruction to the reforming "new guard" elected at the party’s November conference. In particular Alba bloggers raised questions about the £600,000 raised by members and supporters as a special Indyref2 campaigning fund which the SNP had promised not to touch for any other reason. Apparently that money cannot now be located or accounted for.

Read more: People power versus the law of the land, what will Sturgeon choose next time?

Last week, former minister and SNP National Secretary candidate Marco Biagi stepped down as a consultant to the independence taskforce unit unveiled by deputy leader Keith Brown in January with the aim of creating policy papers and campaign materials to “fire up” the wider Yes movement.

Although Mr Biagi has said nothing in public, the speculation is that he too was frustrated by SNP high command. Without its only appointee – the unit’s future is now unclear.

So where does that leave Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell?

The close confidantes of the First Minister, so recently singled out for criticism – CEO Peter Murrell, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and senior adviser Liz Lloyd – are all still in place. It’s as if the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry didn’t happen or the SNP’s intervening election triumph somehow wiped the slate clean.

There’s still a possibility the police may intervene to find the "missing" £600k – a complaint was received in March and is "still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required". On BBC Scotland yesterday though, John Swinney was asked if police are investigating and responded: "Not to my knowledge, no."

Indeed, just as Dominic Cummings may just have made Matt Hancock’s position more secure, the very guarded criticism made of the SNP leadership might simply prompt a defensive team to huddle even closer or concentrate on changing the political narrative. The cynical might speculate that the First Minister’s co-operation talks with the Scottish Greens serve simply to distract from internal party dissent. Whilst a pact might increase collaboration and the ease of policy planning, the talks are just as likely to come to nothing. And whatever happens, this political experiment in governance won’t fix the internal problems of Scotland’s main governing party.

Colin Beattie may yet pass on the treasurer’s job, SNP members may take legal action to find the apparently missing cash and the police might intervene.

But more likely, this will all blow over again. Those who objected most strongly to Peter Murrell’s way of running the party are no longer party members and might be dismissed as having axes to grind. With a second independence referendum likely before the end of this parliament, most SNP members and many Yessers will be willing to look the other way, assured that nothing happening on the SNP’s watch resembles the contracts for chums cheerfully dished out in Whitehall.

But two wrongs don’t make a right, Scottish voters expect far more from the party of government in Scotland and unresolved internal party problems are bound to erupt again at a more damaging time. Douglas Chapman’s low-key resignation is essentially a polite, final warning. Big changes in the SNP top team are needed now, as relatively quiet months of summer approach, all eyes are on Covid recovery and a formal Indyref2 campaign is still distant.

Is Peter Murrell’s continued management of the party really vital to Nicola Sturgeon’s future or even likely to guarantee success for the SNP in the challenging years that lie ahead?

Perhaps it’s time for the First Minister to put her leadership credentials to the ultimate test. Does she have the guts and political nous to tell her husband that it’s time to move on?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.