THE SNP would have had a worse result at the General Election if they had still had a ruling agreement with the Scottish Greens in place, Stephen Flynn has claimed.
The SNP’s Westminster leader – who met with former first minister Humza Yousaf at Holyrood the day before he ended the Bute House Agreement – argued that cutting the deal short was the right thing to do.
Flynn – who had long made clear his discomfort with the agreement – said had it still been in place on July 4, the SNP would have returned fewer than the nine MPs they did.
READ MORE: Keith Brown says SNP back convention of 'all' pro-indy parties – read speech in full
He told Holyrood magazine: “It wasn’t working. I think if we’d still been in coalition with the Greens, there wouldn’t be nine SNP MPs.”
Asked to clarify, Flynn said: “It would be less.”
However, the Scottish Greens hit back, saying they had “secured our strongest General Election result to date while Stephen Flynn led a campaign that saw his party losing 38 MPs”.
A spokesperson for the party added: “The Scottish Greens have delivered an emergency rent freeze and protections for tenants across Scotland, free bus travel for young people and record investment to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. Which of these changes does Stephen Flynn think weren’t working?”
Speaking at the SNP conference on Friday, Flynn backed First Minister John Swinney to lead the party to victory in the 2026 Holyrood election.
Asked about the General Election review Swinney had led at the conference’s opening, Flynn said: “It allowed the membership to engage directly with the party leadership about the challenges that we’ve faced.
“That’s something that’s difficult for any political party to do. John has taken the very serious and right decision to do that with the members at the earliest possible opportunity.
“We went through a whole host of different topics, much of them reflecting upon the fact that the trust we had with the Scottish people was eroded.
“And that’s why of course we lost the election. Now what we have to do is to acknowledge the fact we’ve had that discussion, refocus our priorities and make sure we’re fighting fit for the Scottish Parliament election in 2026.”
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