STEPHEN FLYNN won’t be losing any sleep over reports that Nicola Sturgeon “did not take” to him following their recent meeting.

Most Scottish Government observers with whom I’ve spoken in the post-referendum era have indicated that Scotland’s taciturn First Minister is rarely inclined to bestow favour or approval. It might even be said that, in the current climate, Ms Sturgeon’s purse-lipped appraisal of the SNP’s newly-elected Westminster leader will work to his advantage.

Reports that the SNP’s Westminster group is in “turmoil” following his rapid defenestration of Ian Blackford should be treated with scepticism. These have mainly been advanced by the First Minister’s little elves, clinging desperately to the notion that the light of her influence remains undimmed.

Mr Flynn was elected with more than half of the votes cast. This was in sharp contrast to the one-vote margin by which Mr Blackford squeaked into the top position five years ago.

Mr Flynn’s elevation has been greeted with a sense of quiet approbation in the Westminster group. Despite his youth he is regarded as sharp, focused and articulate. When a window of opportunity opened he had the perceptiveness to spot it and the boldness to seize the moment. His predecessor simply did not see this challenge coming.

If Mr Blackford had been more in touch with grassroot sentiments about his leadership and style he might have been able to respond. However, he laboured under the illusion – born of complacency – that being an unquestioning devotee of Nicola Sturgeon guaranteed security of tenure.

He might also have divined that many in the Westminster group had been unhappy about its leadership and its direction of travel for several years. Mr Blackford’s forced removal was inevitable and really ought to have happened long before now.

It had become clear, and not just to those directly affected, that several talented members with a capacity for hard work were being constantly overlooked and for reasons that had little to do with their ability or the cause of Scottish independence. Devotion to the First Minister’s cultural caprices were what really counted when promotions were being handed out. There was also sense of frustration at Mr Blackford’s performances at Prime Minister’s Questions which seemed to consist of little more than finding different ways of shouting “Up with this I will not put” to assorted Tory ministers.

Resentment at Ms Sturgeon’s refusal to spare her Westminster MPs much in the way of face-time has also been building for several years. Hers was a spectral presence at Westminster. That her husband, Peter Murrell, is also the party’s chief executive was also the source of profound discontent. As one MP told me several years ago: “No forum exists within the party to express even mild dissatisfaction with any expectation of confidentiality.”

Nor will Mr Flynn be unduly fazed by the frontbench resignations of such as Pete Wishart and Chris Law. Mr Wishart rarely tires of stressing the importance of loyalty and unity to his fellow group members, yet his petty resignation letter bristled with the indignation of one who possesses an absurdly high opinion of himself: one not shared by many others. Much like his parliamentary career it left us all clamouring for less.

I’ve occasionally been disobliging of Stewart McDonald, who stepped down from his position as frontbench spokesperson for defence. But he’s regarded as a convivial and hard-working politician who rarely takes personal umbrage at criticism and who has at least strived to evolve workable positions in an area of historic weakness for the SNP. His letter was everything Mr Wishart’s lacked: gracious, generous, self-aware and loyal. 

Mr Flynn’s appointment of Mhairi Black is an interesting one. The MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is – how can I put this kindly – a wraithlike presence at Westminster where she seems to have been granted a free pass releasing her from actually having to turn up or do anything like scrutinise legislation or devise policy. Mr McDonald is entitled to feel aggrieved that he was passed over for this appointment.  

Perhaps Mr Flynn is deploying Ms Black as a shield in the face of his Aberdeen South constituency which possesses some of the most fanatical (and misogynistic) trans activists in the party. He’d be advised though to keep his deputy at a distance from anything requiring diligence or team-working with those she considers to be “Jeremy Hunts” (to use one of her more charmless idioms).

The new regime also promises a much more civil atmosphere in the group. Under its previous leader a climate of intimidation was fostered where criticism – especially by gender-critical feminists – was squashed by volleys of personal abuse orchestrated by a hand-picked group of henchmen.

Nevertheless, Mr Flynn’s power seizure would have been unthinkable even six months ago. Since then though, the First Minister’s authority has been haemorrhaging. This was most sharply evident in the mini-rebellion of several MSPs over the extreme nature of her Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

Less obviously, it has also been evident in disagreement about her tactics and strategy in placing Holyrood’s authority to hold an independence referendum in the hands of the Supreme Court and what’s perceived as her ill-considered plans to make the next UK election a de facto one. Both of these missteps are rooted in an implacable refusal to seek counsel from any other than a chosen few loyalists. This is proving to be her undoing.

Since that initial revolt on GRA reform the known rebels – and others – have continued speaking to each other. Similar conversations have been taking place among gender-critical Scottish Labour MSPs.

This could have been avoided if Ms Sturgeon had been willing to listen to more reasoned opinion from those who advocate reform without endangering women’s sex-based rights. In what was an extraordinary personal rebuke for the First Minister, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Reem Alsalem, has urged her to pause the process.    

Her refusal to seek counsel from MPs such as Joanna Cherry on her constitutional strategy was also considered arrogant. They’d have told her that this is a very conservative Supreme Court and that she really ought to have had her ducks in a row by appointing a Lord Advocate who might have been relied upon to make a better case than Dorothy Bain.

This though, chimed with the perception of a First Minister who governs by declaration and refuses to consult with those who are closer to the action if they are not personally to her liking.

Also unthinkable six months ago would be the prospect of rebel members discussing leadership change in their recent conversations.

Read more by Kevin McKenna: