Man of principle?

I recently quoted from the text fo the agreement between the SNP and Greens after the Budget debate. Let me do so again:

Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

Yesterday, Green MSPs voted to abstain on the motion appointing Keith Brown, Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil as Junior Ministers. Abstaining is not supporting.

That means the deal is off.

And as the SNP should be the nominating party for the Convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure & Climate Change Committee, that makes Patrick Harvie's continued presence in the chair illegitimate: it is based on an agreement that no longer stands. He has disregarded an agreement but continues to hold an office based on the outcome of that agreement.

Now, Patrick Harvie has, in recent weeks, been lauded as a man of principle. I've been happy to go along with that.

Therefore, as a man of principle, Patrick Harvie has only one course of action available to him. Failure to take that course would expose him as a charlatan.

He must resign as Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

Green Team

Via James, we learn that Eleanor Scott, former MSP for Highlands & Islands will be the Greens' Co-Convener, along with Patrick Harvie.

As I outlined previously, Scott would not have been my first choice - that would have been Maggie Chapman - and it does give off a slight 'back to the future' approach that I wouldn't expect of them. Having said that, she does provide a balance to Harvie, besides the obvious gender balance, insofar as he represents an urban part of the world, where her patch is more rural; he is in the Central Belt, whereas she was the only female candidate from outside it; he has a youth and dynamism about him, while she is an experienced campaigner in the Party. So whatever the individual merits of the female Co-Convener candidates, Scott, on reflection, balances the Green ticket well.

Nevertheless, with Patrick Harvie effectively acting as Leader, certainly in terms of his prominence at Holyrood (compared to Robin Harper, his predecessor), it will be a challenge to Scott to have an impact with the general public. Certainly Alison Johnstone was not successful at doing this, and Shiona Baird had some prominence, but was eclipsed by Robin Harper and relied on her place at Holyrood to a degree. Eleanor Scott has a tough job on her hands and the Greens may find themselves sleepwalking into a single Leader structure. That wouldn't be the worst thing for them but, like their English and Welsh colleagues, they need to reflect fully on the matter.

All change for the Greens

Patrick Harvie is the sole nominee for the Green male Co-Convener's post. This is unsurprising as he was the only credible male candidate.

But a rather garbled BBC News report appears to suggest that Alison Johnstone is bowing out as female Co-Convener, after just a year in the job. According to the story:

The second co-convenor, who must be a woman under the Green Party's rules, will be chosen from three candidates.

They are former MSP Nina Baker, Glasgow councillor Maggie Chapman and Edinburgh councillor Eleanor Scott.

Now, the credibility of this report is stretched by the fact that the reporter has mixed up the biographies: Baker is the Glasgow Councillor; Chapman is the Edinburgh Councillor; Scott is the former MSP. (UPDATE: As confirmed by James, the BBC have cleaned up the mess.)

But assuming the rest of the story is correct, then this blogger intends to make an endorsement.

Nina Baker would have been a viable candidate if Robin Harper were continuing as Male Co-Convener, or if Patrick Harvie were not standing for the role. As things stand, a win for Baker would create an all-Glasgow Leadership team. Now, if gender balance is right for the party, why should geographical balance be ignored? How comfortable would other Greens feel as the party centred on Glasgow? How can they attract more voters from other sources across Scotland, if the Party's most important people represent the same city?

Eleanor Scott has been a previous Principal Speaker of the Party, and was an MSP for four years. But her time at the front of the party was overshadowed by Robin Harper: she did not have the impact to break through and become the Greens' standard bearer. If she can break through in her own Party, how can she help the Party as a whole to break the mould?

This leaves Maggie Chapman. For me, the downside is that she is perhaps the least SNP-friendly of the candidates (Scott, whose partner is SNP MSP Rob Gibson, is obviously the most SNP-friendly). But that would enable the Greens to have a "good cop, bad cop" system, with Harvie engaging in dialogue and compromise with the SNP, while Chapman shored up the base and made sure that the Party's individual voice wasn't lost in the way that the LibDems appeared, and continue to appear, submerged by Labour. Plus which, I have had personal dealings with her. I guarantee that she is a mile smarter than anyone else you'll meet, she's sharp, she can cut through the BS and get to the heart of the matter. She will ask tough questions. She can be very vocal when she chooses to be, and she is incredibly effective. She has the strengths and the potential to be a powerful figure in the Party.

At this stage, if I were a Green, I'd be backing her.