
Scottish Greens at the crossroads – principle or pragmatism?
To each and every taunt, Green politicians tend to respond with a gentle, faintly supercilious smile.
Read More:
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.
First Minister John Swinney (Image: PA)
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
Hashtags

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


Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
Sunday shows round-up: Labour defends its ‘one in, one out' migrant scheme
The government is piloting a 'one in, one out' migrant scheme with France. As part of the deal, the UK will return some migrants to France, and in exchange others with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come the other way. On Sky News, Trevor Phillips noted that France could refuse to take back certain individuals, and asked Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander why they would accept 'violent offenders and rapists'. Alexander said there is a lot of 'operational detail' that the Home Secretary and Prime Minister are working on, but claimed the deal was 'robust' and 'workable', and could ultimately 'break the model' of the international people smuggling gangs. Alexander said the government is not setting a numerical target for returns, but they are doing 'the hard work with our international allies', and their 'aspiration' is to return more than one in 17 migrants once the scheme ramps up. Camilla Tominey: 'You can't possibly convince people… the economy is in a good state' On GB News, Camilla Tominey questioned Heidi Alexander over the economy, which shrank by 0.1 per cent in May. Alexander defended the government's record, saying the UK had outperformed the other G7 economies over the first three months of the year, and that the £120 billion of inward investment since Labour took office showed that international capital looks at the UK as a desirable place to invest. Tominey pointed out that in 2022 Rachel Reeves had called for an emergency budget when the economy similarly contracted by 0.1 per cent under the Tories. Alexander said 'GDP figures do bump around from month to month', and talked up Labour's trade deal successes with India, the EU and the US. The Transport Secretary reiterated that Labour's 'number one priority' is to grow the economy. Heidi Alexander: 'When it comes to taxation, fairness is going to be our guiding principle' On Sky News, Heidi Alexander would not confirm expected tax rises in the October Budget. She told Trevor Phillips that Labour have stuck to their manifesto promise of not raising taxes for people on modest incomes, and that 'fairness' would be their principle going forwards. Phillips suggested that 'fairness' might be code for wealth distribution, and asked why Alexander wouldn't say there will be tax rises on the wealthy. Alexander said she wouldn't set the budget in July because the 'global economy is very volatile', and the Chancellor would look at the OBR forecast and make decisions based on the need to invest in public services. Ofcom CEO: 'It is a really big moment' On 25 July, the Online Safety Act regulations will come into force for social media companies, who will have to either remove harmful content or use age checks to protect children on their platforms. On the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg asked Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes if she was confident that the new rules would be effective. Dawes admitted that the path ahead was 'challenging', but said the new rules represent a 'big moment' that will bring about change. Asked how the new regulations would work in practice, Dawes said that companies have been allowed to decide what works best for their platform, but some might become 18 plus only, and others might screen adult content behind age checks involving facial recognition or credit cards. Chris Philp: 'I think they're wrong' On the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg asked Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp about defections to Reform, after four former Tory MPs made the move in the last two weeks. Philp said those people represented a 'very small number' of Conservative MPs over the last ten years, and suggested Reform has 'superficial attractions to people who are frustrated'. He criticised Reform for having 'slogans', but no 'credible plans'. Kuenssberg pointed out that Jake Berry had been in the cabinet with Philp, and suggested that those defecting do believe Reform have credible policies. Philp said they were 'wrong', that Nigel Farage does not have detailed solutions to immigration issues, and that his plan to lift the two child benefit cap would increase the welfare bill and taxes.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Labour minister hints at tax hikes for middle class – but rules out rises for people on ‘modest incomes'
Labour has left the door open to higher taxes on the middle classes in Rachel Reeves ' crunch budget later this year. Transport secretary Heidi Alexander would not rule out tax rises in a series of interviews on Sunday morning, but said the government had pledged not to hike them for 'people on modest incomes'. Asked if the public should expect taxes to go up in the autumn, she said ministers would be guided by "fairness". She also told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme that Cabinet ministers did not 'directly' talk about the idea of a wealth tax – being pushed by unions and former Labour leader Lord Neil Kinnock – during an away day at the Prime Minister's Chequers country estate this week. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp said her comments 'sound to me like a barely disguised reference to tax rises coming in the autumn'. The chancellor has refused to rule out tax rises at the budget since Labour MPs forced ministers to make a U-turn on welfare reforms, losing the government an estimated £5 billion a year in savings. She is under intense pressure to find more money after the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) this week warned that the UK's finances are on an 'unsustainable' path the government 'cannot afford' in the longer term. On Wednesday, Keir Starmer failed to rule out extending so-called 'stealth taxes' – as well as the introduction of a wealth tax – as his government struggles to balance the books. The prime minister reiterated that Labour would stick to its manifesto pledge and ruled out increases to income tax, VAT and national insurance, but he did not confirm whether the government was planning to lift the freeze on income tax thresholds in 2028. The freezes mean more and more people are dragged into paying higher rates of income tax every year as the thresholds fail to keep up with inflation. Lord Kinnock last week suggested a wealth tax would bolster the public finances without breaking Labour's pledges. Union leaders, including Sharon Graham of Unite, are also pressuring ministers to consider the move. Asked by Sky News if such a tax had been discussed at the Cabinet away day on Friday, Ms Alexander said: 'Not directly at the away day.' Pressed on what she meant by not directly, the senior minister replied: 'I think your viewers would be surprised if we didn't recognise that, at the budget, the chancellor will need to look at the OBR forecast that is given to her, and will make decisions in line with the fiscal rules that she has set out. 'We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that.' Asked again if this meant there will be tax rises in the budget, Ms Alexander replied: 'So, the Chancellor will set her budget. I'm not going to sit in a TV studio today and speculate on what the contents of that budget might be. 'When it comes to taxation, fairness is going to be our guiding principle.'


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Labour plotting tax raid on wealthy amid mounting fears of entrepreneurs fleeing the country
LABOUR are plotting to hike up taxes on the wealthy - amid mounting fears of entrepreneurs fleeing the country and hitting investment. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander insisted that working people will be protected but concerns are raised that investment in the UK could be hit. 1 The warning shot came as she revealed that a wealth tax wasn't spoken about 'directly' at a Cabinet away day at Chequers last week. Ministers could launch a raid on savings, investments or property in a bid to raise cash. But Ms Alexander insisted that 'fairness' would be at the heart of any decisions surrounding tax at the Budget taking place in the Autumn. But the comments pave the way for the wealthy and middle-class to be hit by tax hikes to fill Chancellor Rachel Reeves' financial black hole. Only last week, ex-Labour leader Lord Kinnock suggested a 2 per cent wealth tax on assets worth over £10 million. It comes after the Office of Budget Responsibility told of the 'daunting' risks to the UK public finances amid soaring debt. Ms Alexander told Sky News: 'I think your viewers would be surprised if we didn't recognise that at the Budget the Chancellor will need to look at the OBR forecast that is given to her and will make decisions in line with the fiscal rules that she has set out. 'We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that. 'We haven't put up income tax. We haven't put up VAT apart from taking away those VAT tax reliefs that people who send their children to private school get, and we obviously haven't put up employee National Insurance.' Experts have said that the Chancellor may need to look to fill a black hole of around £20 billion to meet her fiscal rules. Labour have said they will not increase taxes on working people. They also have said they won't increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. When asked about 'fairness' in the tax system, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: "That sounds to me like a barely disguised reference to tax rises coming in the autumn." He added: "They can't get anything past their own back benches. The consequence of all of that is going to be tax rises for people who are working hard and on businesses. "It's nothing to do with fairness, it's a symptom of Labour failure."