Do Greens want the consequences of no-confidence vote in Humza Yousaf?

Previous criticism of a low level of engagement at such events from the SNP and Greens are certainly unfounded now. There was a strong turn out from MPs and MSPs as well as members from all over the country. And, of course, Humza Yousaf was top of the bill on stage.

It was difficult timing for the First Minister and his party, coming as it did so soon after the news that former SNP chief executive and husband of Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Murrell , had been charged in connection with embezzlement after a police investigation which had seemed to be going on forever. It was, of course, the talk of the proverbial steamie but there was a determination among marchers not to be beaten into submission.

READ MORE: Inside the room as Humza Yousaf sacked the Scottish Greens from government

Cynics question the usefulness of mass independence marchers. You know the arguments. “The sight of thousands of flags alienates those still considering the options.” “No-one’s mind has ever been changed by a public march.” Personally I’m unconvinced by those arguments and in any case they don’t recognise one other important effect of these events – they lift the spirits of those taking part by showing the wide support for their cause.

And so it was on Saturday when Yousaf pulled out all the stops to inspire a busy George Square to believe there was still life in the independence movement yet. “In the last few days, my friends, they have said we were finished,’’ he said. “Well you don’t look finished to me’’. The First Minister can be an inspiring speaker when the chips are down and he did a great job that day.

Independence rallies look a little different these days thanks to the involvement of Believe in Scotland, organisers of last weekend’s event alongside Pensioners for Independence. There is a new focus on Scotland’s distinctive culture and on Saturday there was music from the stage and the hosts were traditional singer Iona Fyfe alongside model and actress Eunice Olumide. Line Of Duty star Martin Compston was among those at the front of the march.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the emphasis some are placing on the need for unity among the various strands of the Yes movement. I wrote last week about my increasing unease with the language being used by some of those who oppose the self-identifying nature of the most recent moves to change gender recognition legislation.

I can’t go to events where speakers will voice their opposition to legislation with which I agree and do so in terms I find objectionable. I don’t feel a responsibility to do so, even if those events are generally in support of independence.

I’m ALWAYS going to vote for independence and do everything I can personally to support independence in principle. I simply feel unable to align myself with attitudes I profoundly disagree with.

That’s a moral issue with which I didn’t have to grapple last weekend as none of the speakers had supported those opinions. As the First Minister pointed out, the crowd represented the Yes movement in all its glorious diversity, including political parties outwith the SNP. That included the Greens, who were currently discussing ending the arrangement they had with the SNP in the Scottish Government.

That seems to me a reasonable discussion for the Scottish Greens to have given that the abandonment of the Scottish Government’s environmental targets represented a serious challenge to their environmental principles. Had they decided to end the Bute House Agreement with the SNP that would not have meant the Greens had ditched their support for independence or that they would necessarily vote against the SNP budget.

It would have suggested the party had weighed up the benefits to environmental policies of its remaining time in government against the unease it feels with its involvement with the ending of targets it supported and decided it could not remain.

I think that decision would be understandable but mistaken. However, yesterday that decision was taken out of the hands of the Greens when Yousaf decided to terminate the agreement himself. That decision immediately plunged his government into crisis. The Tories, unsurprisingly, have said it will lodge a motion of no confidence in the Scottish Government. At the time of writing Labour have said they will back it. The Greens are considering their position.

Of course, this could have happened anyway if the Greens had pulled out of the deal but I have to say I think that was unlikely. I believe most members would have agreed with Green co-leader Patrick Harvie (above) when he calculated his party would achieved more – if not everything it wanted – within the Government that it would outside.

There were important decisions in the pipeline that would have benefit from a majority government which included the Greens. One that springs to mind is the move to establish an exclusion zone around abortion clinics from which protests are banned.

The arguments in support of these zones are sound. There’s little doubt that anti-abortion protests around abortion clinics intimidate women who use them. Protesters can claim all they like that they are involved only in silent prayer everyone knows their aim extends beyond saving souls to dissuading women from having abortions.

Green MSP Gillian Mackay says the protests amount to “targeted intimidation’’ of women who are getting an abortion. All Scotland’s officially recognised feminist organisations agree.

It was Mackay who last year introduced a members’ bill which would block any protests taking place within 656ft of clinics. Holyrood’s Social Care and Sport Committee this week unanimously agreed to the bill’s general principles.

READ MORE: Scottish Greens to back vote of no confidence in Humza Yousaf

The SNP’s future attitude to this and other socially progressive moves could depend on the pressures which pushed the First Minister to take his decision. The deal with the Greens was not popular with powerful figures within the SNP, even if it’s currently unclear just how powerful they are.

One is Kate Forbes, one of the three candidates who stood to replace Nicola Sturgeon as party leader and First Minister. She had said she wanted SNP members to have a say in the future of the Bute House Agreement, which I wouldn’t consider a ringing endorsement of the deal. Forbes is pretty far from a social progressive.

During her failed leadership campaign she revealed she would not have supported gay marriage had she had a vote at the time. She’s also come out against gay marriage. Although she says she wouldn’t allow her Christian faith to influence her decisions in Parliament, that seems to be undermined by her statement on the gay marriage vote.

Of course, Forbes didn’t win the election campaign but I have to admit I was shocked by the level of support. It made me reconsider the opinion I held that the SNP were a largely socially progressive party. How influenced was Yousaf by Forbes and her supporters by his decision to tear up the deal with the Greens? How important does he feel her support is to his leadership?

It’s noticeable that he has not given his own members the vote on the Bute House Agreement the Greens had. Is that a show of leadership or fear that they would vote against it?

For now Forbes is firmly standing up for the First Minister but would she continue to do so if he loses a no confidence vote, or would the temptation to launch a new leadership challenge prove too difficult to resist?

The Greens’ reaction of the party to the First Minster’s “betrayal” reveals its MSPs are deeply hurt. So hurt that they will vote to support the no-confidence vote against the First Minister, regardless of the effect it will have on his position and the future direction of his party.

It’s not the decision I’d have taken in their position. I get they want to teach Yousaf a lesson and send him a message not to take them for granted.

They may feel he doesn’t deserve their support. They may even be right. But do they really want Scotland to suffer the possible consequences?