THE Scottish Government has a “huge amount” to recommit to following the election of the next first minister, Patrick Harvie has said.

The Scottish Greens co-leader was asked if there were any red lines that could throw the Bute House co-operation agreement into disarray, with Harvie setting out that his party would expect to see the next SNP leader challenge the UK Government’s Section 35 order to stop Scotland’s gender reforms from becoming law.

While Harvie wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Scottish Greens would pull out of the agreement if whoever was elected didn’t share their progressive values, in a nod to contender Kate Forbes comments on transgender people and sex outside of marriage, he said it would be “extraordinary” if the Scottish Government didn’t challenge the UK Tories over Section 35.

READ MORE: LIVE: Kate Forbes to keep fighting amid calls for her to quit race

Speaking to LBC in the Scottish Parliament, Harvie said: “The leadership of the SNP is clearly a matter for SNP members, but of course, after that contest is over, the whole parliament will vote on the question of the First Minister.

“As the Scottish Green Party, we're very clear that we're keen not only to cooperate with other parties that have progressive values, but also to be part of a government with progressive values committing, for example, to the measures that are in the Bute House agreement.

"Such as defending the rights of transgender people through the gender recognition reform legislation and moving on deal with issues like the ban on conversion practices, which is a form of torture that's used against LGBT+ people.

“So there's a huge amount that needs to be recommitted to by the Scottish Government and I think I'm not in very much doubt that that's the expectation that's being expressed, certainly from what you see on social media from a great many SNP members as well.

“That's the kind of progressive government they want to see going forward.”

Harvie added that he had seen some “quite extraordinary comments” from some of the SNP leadership candidates, and said it was a “really important moment”.

He said: “It's not so very long ago that some of these deeply, deeply socially conservative positions would have been seen as just normal, even as very commonplace in the political spectrum.

“Now, I think we're at a point where progressive political parties need to take a clear position.

READ MORE: Ben Macpherson rules himself OUT of SNP leadership contest

“I think that's the expectation that's being expressed from within the SNPs membership, and it's certainly the expectation I would have of the Scottish Government.”

Harvie added that progressive parties need to “give effective progressive policies”.

He added: “What I haven't seen is anyone suggesting that someone who's religious in their personal life can't take a part in politics, of course, it will be undemocratic to say that someone simply on the basis of which church they belong to can't take part in progressive politics, but there does need to be a line that they wouldn't use the law to impose those religious values on those who don't share them.”

And, on the issue of the row between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, after the latter used a Section 35 order to stop the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from being given Royal Assent, Harvie said it would be odd for an SNP leader to “roll over”.

He said: “We have legislation that Parliament has just passed by an overwhelming majority, blocked by a UK Government abusing its power.

“It would be truly extraordinary if the Scottish Government, a pro-independence Scottish Government of all things, was to say we're just going to roll over and let the UK Government veto legislation that we passed…”

Asked if that would be a red line for the Scottish Greens if the next first minister wouldn’t challenge the UK Government over gender reforms in court, Harvie said: “We've already been very clear that the Sections 35 order as it's called, the UK government's veto against overwhelmingly supportive devolved legislation and the gender recognition reform act, that veto is unacceptable, needs to be challenged robustly.

“I'd be making that case whether I was in a cooperation agreement as part of the government, or if I was an opposition party. That needs to happen because it's the principle of defending democracy as much as defending the contents of that legislation.”