
Why Ross Greer would be good for the Scottish Green party
The pragmatic radicalism on offer from Ross Greer is a wiser course to take
Harvie and co-leader Lorna Slater became the first Green ministers in British history when they joined Nicola Sturgeon's devolved administration in its final two years. The alliance was not politically productive (the gender bill was blocked by Westminster and a bottle recycling scheme came to nothing) and it ended badly (Harvie and Slater were abruptly booted by Sturgeon's successor, Humza Yousaf) but the exercise proved the Greens could misgovern just as well as any other party.
Greer cut his teeth working on the Yes Scotland campaign during the 2014 independence referendum. Since entering Holyrood in 2016, he has made a name for himself as a gammon-baiting, woker-than-thou, omnicause progressive, with a lanyard for every occasion and every liberation. He's fond of the Soviet anthem, the chant 'We're selling the Falklands when Thatcher dies' and taking his Scottish parliament oath with a raised fist. He calls Churchill a 'white supremacist' and 'mass murderer', his dream dinner date is the IRA revolutionary Michael Collins, and he recently tried to remove all references to 'His Majesty' in Scottish public bodies and legislation. In other words, he's adorable.
However, despite Greer's gift for leftist posturing, he has earned himself the enmity of a faction known as the Glasgow group: Green councillors and activists who reckon the far-left party could be a lot farther left. Greer understands that an ideological lurch would kill the golden goose. The Greens have a growing voter base of young, urban, precariously middle-income graduates to supplement their more traditional support among the comfortably retired, the guilty affluent, and assorted cranks. This Deliveroo-Waitrose alliance is essential to the party's development and, on current polling, will give them their best result yet at next year's Holyrood elections.
That is unless they trash all the work they've done and cascade down a purity spiral, narrowing their own ranks and pushing away hyper-progressive, theoretically social democratic voters who identify with the Greens' culturally leftish messaging but would suffer materially from meaningfully socialist fiscal policies. At his launch, Greer stressed the importance of being more than 'a party of protest' and while he hammered home the need to tax the 'super rich', he struck a more nuanced note when questioned on raising additional revenue from higher earners.
In common with most other parties in British politics today, the Greens are economic populists and have settled on wealth taxation as a way of costing expensive policies (e.g. universal free bus travel) without having to confront hard questions about income tax. Telling the electorate the brutal truth, that if they want quality public services taxes on basic and middle-earners will have to rise, would go down like a dose of strychnine on the doorstep.
Keeping their voter coalition together requires the Greens to stick to Zohran Mamdani-style vibes-based progressivism. They need to make a great deal of noise about taking on the rich and powerful but pursue a melange of populist fiscal reforms and high-status social policies that might inconvenience the rich and powerful here and there and will definitely upset the traditional-minded among their number. One thing these policies certainly will not do is alter the fundamentals of the economy in a decisively egalitarian direction.
People vote Green for one of two reasons: to prove that they're good people or to stick it to those they resent. The principal business of a Scottish Green leader is to maintain and, with any luck, expand these electoral blocs. Sharper ideological definition is likely to have the opposite effect, which is why the pragmatic radicalism on offer from Ross Greer is a wiser course to take. Skelp the super-rich but keep the middle earners and modestly wealthy on board by selling them leftist vibes at centrist prices.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Rhyl Journal
4 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.


South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.


ITV News
4 hours ago
- ITV News
Will Trump's threats be enough to pull Putin to the table for peace talks?
So President Trump is sick of all Vladimir Putin's talk, in fact so much so it's even a topic for him and the First Lady. After a day in the office he tells her he had a nice chat with Vladimir but then when she puts the TV on, she says 'Oh really, he's bombed a nursing home', which upsets the President. How's that for a glimpse of geo-politics Chez Trump? As a result of too many chats followed by too many strikes President Trump, who just a few weeks ago suspended military aid to the Ukrainians, not for the first time, has decided he's going to arm them. Quite how many Patriots is, in true Trump style not entirely clear, but they will get some. In further Trump style, with America First, Nato members will pay for them. If that's not enough to get Russia to the table, and in reality it's probably not, he's proposing further tariffs and other financial penalties in 50 days. The target of extra tariffs would be on countries doing business with Russia, but it's doubtful it will be all those countries, some of which are allies of the US - and also doubtful how firmly they will be enforced if they even come into play at all. On a balmy Saturday in May, in Kyiv, I listened to the British, French and German leaders demand Russia sign up to an unconditional ceasefire with huge financial penalties if said ceasefire didn't materialise by Monday. It was a proposal apparently backed by Donald Trump. A few hours later President Putin offered unconditional talks -but ignored the ceasefire demand and the talks have been pretty pointless. Ukraine is now under aerial bombardment as never before and the number of civilian deaths and injures in June is at a record high. There's nothing to say there won't be a similar move this time. It is going to take more than the threat of more financial sanctions to really shift this war. There is of course, relief in Kyiv that President Trump seems to have mellowed in his position towards Ukraine, however there is no sense of security in that. After he humiliated President Zelenskyy's in the Oval Office, nothing is for certain anymore, and there's no belief that even when he's playing nice, the US leader can be relied on. Within a few hours of the President's threats, the missiles were hitting civilians again. In one of their last calls Putin warned he would escalate over the next 60 days. That's one presidential promise the Ukrainians can be sure of.