For all that they are still a relatively small presence in the Scottish political firmament, the Greens do seem to aggravate others to a disproportionate degree.
By chance, I was participating in a wireless phone-in this week. One caller derided the Scottish Greens as “a lentil munching, sandal wearing bunch of hippies”.
Fergus Ewing, the former SNP Minister, previously dismissed them as “wine-bar revolutionaries”.
To each and every taunt, Green politicians tend to respond with a gentle, faintly supercilious smile.
Read More:
- Scottish Greens brace for summer leadership race 'civil war'
- Leading Scottish Greens activist suspended amid infighting
- Ross Greer's challenges ahead of Scottish Greens leadership contest
- Ross Greer to stand for Scottish Greens leadership
In truth, the most fervent advocates of Greenery can occasionally seem a mite smug. Like religious adherents, they can sometimes give the impression that their path is the way to truth, while others are self-deluded.
Only very occasionally, mind. And they mean well. They genuinely believe, as they set out in their 2024 election manifesto, that “we are hurtling towards climate hell.”
Such a conclusion tends to lessen the scope for nuanced politics.
But, alongside that, there is also an intriguing conundrum confronting the Scottish Greens right now as they elect their next leaders and contemplate the pending Holyrood elections.
Are they content to be, principally, a party of voluble protest? Or is there pragmatism too – an opportunity to cut deals with other parties, such as the SNP or Labour, in pursuit of interim Green objectives?
As The Herald has ably chronicled, there are those in the party who argue that the Greens must present a fully radical agenda, who distrust Holyrood compromise, including the Bute House pact previously struck by the retiring leadership.
Equally, though, there are prominent Greens who lampoon such talk as “heroic Bolshevik insurgency” – which achieves precisely nothing for the people of Scotland.
Politics is frequently a question of balancing principle, pragmatism and power. Just ask those Labour MPs who found it impossible to back their leader’s demands for welfare cuts.
Again, commonly, that balance becomes trickier as a party gains more salience. It is relatively easy to be pure of thought when what you say and do is immaterial.
That tends to change when there is the prospect that your contribution could alter Parliamentary arithmetic, could advance or thwart legislation, could sustain or oust a government.
Then you have to choose. To compromise. You have to acknowledge that you cannot implement every line of your manifesto. Not least because the people did not vote for you in sufficient numbers.
Be clear. The Greens will not abandon principle. They will still, on occasion, sport that knowing smile. But perhaps they may once more seek a mandate to enter negotiations with others.
Is that feasible? Are the Greens not burned by Humza Yousaf’s abrupt decision as First Minister to end the Bute House pact and kick them out of government?
Seems not. One senior source dismissed the notion that they were “nursing some raw fury at the SNP.”
I was told that there is a good “transactional” relationship with Team Swinney, as evidenced by the negotiations over the Scottish Government budget.
The Greens know that John Swinney does not share their overall outlook. For example, he believes firmly in pursuing GDP economic growth while they do not, insisting that was excluded from the Bute House deal.
And, yes, perhaps the relationship with Nicola Sturgeon was deeper. She is arguably closer to the Green perspective. After all, in a lecture, she previously set out the concept of assessing “well-being”, rather than simply economic wealth.
But it seems the Greens could still work with John Swinney, where necessary. There is, I was told, “sufficient mutual trust and respect.”
There could also be a deal with Labour, arithmetically. But core Labour policies might be problematic – not least their eager advocacy of nuclear power.
For now, the SNP seem more likely partners. After all, both parties support Scottish independence. Albeit with differing degrees of vigour.
Frankly, I do not believe that Green politicians get up in the morning with the first thought that they must end the Union. Their waking focus is on the environment and climate change.
Still, the Greens insist that they back independence, placing it in the context of those environmental aims. They say that an independent Scotland would be better placed to alter energy policy and tackle the climate crisis.
And there is another thought lurking at the back of Green minds. They note that John Swinney has faced a degree of internal SNP criticism from those who believe he is not sufficiently fervent in pursuing independence.
One source suggested to me that this might present an opportunity for the Greens to highlight their independence credentials. Frankly, to prise votes from the SNP.
However, as with Mr Swinney, it seems the Greens want to get away from discourse over the independence process. To build support instead for the proclaimed advantages of the notion.
Again, though, the Greens will not shed their iconoclastic image. They will continue to position themselves as challenging the wealthy establishment.
An opportunity to do that presents itself with President Trump’s possible Scottish visit. Many leading politicians will be torn between mounting protests and arguing Scotland’s interests, if given a chance.
No such dilemma confronts the Greens – who will be firmly behind the barricades.
But, still, there is the lure of pragmatism. I expect the Greens to enter the next Holyrood elections with a litany of claimed achievements and a taste of what more could be feasible, if they are granted influence.
Always a degree of grandiloquence on the climate. But a focus on cutting costs for working families. Rent controls, free bus travel for young people, secured by the Greens in partnership with the SNP.
This leadership election will determine who is primarily making that case. Patrick Harvie is standing down as co-convener. Lorna Slater is seeking re-election.
As I write, MSPs Ross Greer and Gillian Mackay are also in the frame. Others may emerge.
En passant, I should note that the winners will not necessarily be one woman, one man, as in the past. That reflects revised equality guidance.
But political balance will still be at the core of this contest. What direction will the Scottish Greens pursue? And could it lead them back to shared power at Holyrood?
Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
Share