This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter.
The Scottish Greens have upset a few people. Again.
Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater’s party have, to no-one’s real surprise, said they will snub King Charles’ visit to Scotland on Wednesday, in a move that couldn’t be more on brand for the Greens if they tried.
The Scottish Greens have a long-held anti-monarchist stance, and it would be quite incredible if they changed their tune now.
In a video message, Ms Slater criticised “a system that allows one family to hold so much unearned wealth and privilege at a time when millions of people have so little”.
She added: “We can be a fairer, greener Scotland where sovereignty, power and wealth lie with the people rather than being passed down like a family heirloom.”
What appears to have renewed the upset for some people is that the Greens are now in government at Holyrood – with two ministers in place under the co-operation with the SNP.
Tory MSP Maurice Golden claimed there was a “deep irony” in the Green’s anti-monarchy stance, adding that “the King has an incredible record protecting our environment”.
Mr Golden said: “Meanwhile, the Greens have U-turned on opposing new incinerators, announced the renewable heat target had been missed and wrecked a flagship recycling scheme.”
Ms Slater and Mr Harvie now represent the Scottish Government, but does that mean the party should row back on its beliefs? Surely the Greens would, quite rightly, receive more criticism if they did.
There is a perception that the Greens are in a tricky position with the public. That may or may not be true, but it is fairly common for the junior party in a coalition or co-operation to face a backlash.
Some upset and frustrated SNP backbenchers have squarely blamed the Greens for the Scottish Government’s troubles.
The deposit return scheme lies in tatters, led by Ms Slater but very much an SNP policy gone wrong, with the Greens a very convenient scapegoat from some in the SNP.
The Scottish Government’s U-turn on earmarking 10% of Scottish waters as highly protected marine areas, with no fishing allowed, was the first part of the Bute House Agreement between the parties of government that has been shelved, at least for now.
The Greens insisted they were happy with the rethink, but there could be the start of a power shift with the SNP holding a strong hand over their partners at Holyrood.
But the Greens’ position on the monarchy gives diversity to the Yes movement which desperately needs some energy.
Unspun | Analysis: What does the death of Twitter mean for Scottish politics?
Humza Yousaf’s ‘new’ independence plan was more of the same, with some activists left confused over what he actually has planned following the next UK general election.
The Greens’ case for independence has always had its own brand of separation and one of the key components is for Scotland to become a republic.
That stance gives the Greens its own identity when many are happy to lump the party with the SNP, as many see Labour with the Tories, based on their stance on independence.
Nicola Sturgeon took the climate crisis seriously, at least at face value and with her policy intent.
But the SNP also appears to be branching out to another part of the Greens’ mantra, and it’s bad news for King Charles.
The First Minister has suggested that an independent Scotland could hold a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy as head of state.
A big part of the Scottish Government’s 2014 independence case was that the monarch would continue to be an independent Scotland’s head of state, but times are changing.
The Sunday Post reported this weekend that only 44 street parties were held in Scotland to mark the coronation of King Charles, compared to more than 3,000 in England – opening up the debate on whether there are different attitudes to the monarchy on either side of the Border.
Support for the monarchy is a complex issue...
...want to read the full article? Sign up for free to the Unspun newsletter and receive it directly to your inbox every weekday night at 7pm. Click here 👈
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