ALEX Salmond has weighed in on Fergus Ewing’s suspension from the SNP and launched an attack on the Scottish Greens.
The former SNP first minister, and now Alba party leader, said the Greens “spell real trouble” for his former party and defended Ewing for his commitment to independence.
SNP MSPs at Holyrood had agreed to suspend the Inverness and Nairn MSP from their group for a week back in September 2023 after he voted against a Scottish Greens minister Lorna Slater in a crucial vote of confidence.
READ MORE: Michael Gove under investigation by Westminster standards watchdog
Ewing, the son of late SNP trailblazer Winnie Ewing and a former rural economy secretary in the Scottish Government, had appealed against that decision.
But in a statement released by his office on Tuesday evening he said it had been upheld by the party who he then turned his fire on.
Ewing voted with Tories, LibDems and Labour in a vote against Slater over her handling of the deposit return scheme.
He claimed the vote against her was a “vote of conscience” and hit out at the SNP.
“The SNP has now become an authoritarian party requiring strict obedience to the leadership at the expense of personal freedom for any individual member,” he said.
And now, Salmond has released a statement defending Ewing and said that for the Greens independence is a “flag of convenience”.
“It is not just Fergus and his half-century of service to the SNP that makes it the wrong decision,” he said.
“It’s the sacrifice of the efforts of all traditional independence supporters at the altar of a Green Party, which pays mere lip service to the cause.
“The Greens spell real trouble for the SNP. Their contribution to government is entirely negative; every Governmental disaster from administering the bottle scheme to self-identification has green fingers all over it.
READ MORE: Second Labour figure calls for Westminster intervention in tax row
“For the Greens, independence is a flag of convenience, something which secures their ministerial meal tickets.
“For Fergus Ewing, in contrast, independence and his Highland constituency are his political raison d’être. An SNP which has no room for the Ewings is heading for the sands.”
Ewing, a veteran politician who has been an MSP since the first Holyrood elections in 1999, spoke out against the Scottish Government on policies such as the now halted deposit return scheme (DRS) and the introduction of new regulations for short-term property lets.
He became known for his back bench rebellions, including ripping up the consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) in the Holyrood Chamber.
It was after DRS was put on hold that a vote of no confidence in Slater (above) was called, with Ewing saying he had “stood up for my constituents to protect them against a disastrous policy (the Deposit Return Scheme) and voted with my conscience against that policy, which was eventually discarded”.
But he insisted: “The SNP leadership no longer tolerates a conscience vote.”
Ewing again called for First Minister Humza Yousaf to allow SNP members a fresh vote on the Bute House Agreement, which allowed Slater and co-leader Patrick Harvie into Government and taking up junior ministerial roles.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour accused of advocating for 'direct Westminster rule'
The Inverness and Nairn MSP pledged he would “continue to defend” his constituents, but refused to say if he would re-join the SNP.
He stated: “For my future, I vow to continue to defend the interests of my constituents, and as far as the SNP is concerned… let the cards fall as they may.
“If the SNP cannot cope with that, so be it.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel