IT wasn’t their best result, but the Scottish Greens will still be very happy with Thursday’s tally.
At their 2003 high point, they won seven list seats on 6.9 per cent of the vote. On Thursday it was six on 6.6 per cent.
But at the elections in-between the Greens had a mere two MSPs, and the party was dreading that, once again, a late squeeze would bring disappointment.
Now, the Greens not only have triple their recent numbers, because of the SNP’s missed majority, they also have potentially unprecedented leverage.
As the only other Holyrood party for Yes, it will be hard for the SNP to bypass them and horse trade by choice with Unionists in order to pass budgets and new laws.
It’s the moment the Greens have been waiting for. The more progressive tax system and fracking ban they want are now a lot closer.
Patrick Harvie’s party traces its result to the referendum - effectively a rolling two-year advert for Green ideas in front of a fresh audience.
Harvie established himself as one of the best debaters for Yes, his thoughtful responses and desire for change on the monarchy, tax and the oil industry in sharp contrast to Alex Salmond’s ringmaster style and a pitch that stressed continuity rather than radicalism.
“We really got our game on in the referendum,” said one Green. “It was the first time a lot of people got involved in politics and they were hearing our ideas. It was a big confidence boost.”
Green membership shot up after the No result, from 1700 to around 9000, a bigger percentage rise than even the SNP enjoyed, bringing record funds and personnel.
To drill their new recruits, the party dived into the general election, standing in 31 of 59 seats, using it as a ‘live fire exercise’ before the main Holyrood battle.
Because the Greens picked their 2016 list candidates early in 2015, they could also use last May to introduce them to voters a year in advance, building their profile and gathering momentum.
By September, the party had written its internal election strategy, followed by a manifesto sign-off around Christmas.
The headline pitch, as in the referendum, was that the Greens offered radicalism at Holyrood.
This crystallised into the slogan “A bolder parliament for a better Scotland” in the New Year.
The Greens also professionalised. At the general election, they had one paid staffer.
For Holyrood, they had around 15, including an organiser in each electoral region, an expanded press office, and the marketing guru Ian Dommett as campaign brand adviser.
Dommett previously devised the SNP's winning “It’s Time” campaign in 2007.
An early decision to push for parity in TV debates also paid off, with a successful lobbying operation of the BBC and regulator Ofcom securing Harvie equal airtime with other leaders.
The BBC had initially suggested classing the Greens as a “smaller party” alongside Ukip.
According to the Greens, their campaign was also leant a hand by the SNP.
On top of the government’s refusal to ban fracking, Nicola Sturgeon's status quo on income tax boosted the Greens’ call for a “bolder parliament”. Even “Both Votes SNP” had an apparent upside.
One Green canvasser said they had been “shocked” at how many people didn’t appreciate they had a second vote. But when the news sunk in, those same people liked the idea of splitting their constituency and list votes and giving the Greens the latter, the source said.
Harvie also upped the party’s profile by standing in the Glasgow Kelvin seat, while Johnstone and John Wilson stood in Edinburgh Central and Coatbridge & Chryston, indicating the Scottish Greens were stepping up a gear.
Harvie came a respectable second to the SNP, Wilson just held his deposit, but Johnstone, though fourth, may well have helped Tory leader Ruth Davidson take the seat from the SNP.
It wasn’t all plain sailing, of course. The Greens suffered a bout of bitter infighting over who should be Harvie’s fellow co-convener. He and MSP Alison Johnstone wanted Zara Kitson, but activists installed her rival, the North East list candidate Maggie Chapman. Chapman’s failure to get into Holyrood means internal party dynamics should be smoother than if she had.
Sarah Beattie-Smith, co-convener of the Greens’ elections & campaigns committee, credited hard work by a hugely expanded membership for the result, but also SNP failure to “use the powers we all fought bloody hard for”.
She said: “Lots of people felt the same way. They thought of the SNP as inheritors of the Yes movement and they were looking for something that had the enthusiasm of that movement.
“It’s been a really interesting journey watching people feel disillusioned with the SNP playing safe, taking them for granted and Labour in disarray, and deciding to vote Green.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel