When Humza Yousaf dramatically collapsed the Bute House Agreement in April, a rare consensus broke out amongst commentators, myself included. That some Green members had forced a vote on it made things untenable for Yousaf and he had to end it.

Yet whilst he had no choice but to end the BHA, he could choose how. In unwisely opting for brutal sackings, he shattered the Greens’ confidence in him, and in return they ensured he was sacked as First Minister. The nation’s politicos were agog at his misjudgement, and Yousaf himself recently admitted he “f***** up”.

This admission came alongside another that is much more damning. Whilst Yousaf views his fault as failing to consider the human dimension, as I suspected his decision was informed by the belief “the Greens rely so heavily on the SNP for the list vote.”

In effect, Yousaf has admitted he took his career-ending decision based on an easily debunkable myth. The First Minister of Scotland, the nation’s most powerful person, with advisers and data aplenty, should’ve been better informed. He should be embarrassed, as should his evidently useless advisers.

They aren’t the only ones. Politicians, journalists and commentators who should know better take the social media bubble myth of “Green votes are really SNP backers doing a tactical” as gospel. There’s an intellectual laziness, a wilful ignorance, as people choose to delude themselves.

The unequivocal evidence points to a distinct Green voter base. For one thing, hare-brained tactical vote schemes made no mathematical sense before 2016, yet Greens have been at Holyrood since 1999. They must have had a pre-existing base of support to elect those MSPs.

The 2014 referendum then raised their profile, resulting in an astonishing sixfold increase in membership. Crucially, that brought more money and activists into the party than ever before.

The 2016 election also took place during a “Green Wave” across Europe, where the climate’s growing prominence saw Green parties reach new heights. Young people drove that wave, and an unprecedented seven years’ worth were added to voter rolls thanks to votes at 16. Claiming only tactical voting could explain Green support that year is absurd.

Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, Green co-leadersPatrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, Green co-leaders (Image: Jane Barlow/PA)

The SNP plummeted by 8% in the North East, but the Greens only went up +1%. Meanwhile, Green growth peaked at +3.5% in Glasgow, which also saw the SNP’s best swing of +4.9%. The beguilingly mirrored national list vote shifts fall apart when you look locally.

Despite this, the myth was alive and well in 2021. When Alba launched, some opponents could hardly hide their glee. It was game over for the Greens, they chortled, as those tactical votes would flood Alba’s way. Never mind sharp policy distinctions, or that Alba is led by one of Scotland’s most reviled politicians.

READ MORE:

As it turned out, that laughter should have been saved for Alba’s risible result, whilst the Greens recorded a best-ever tally – only denied two more MSPs by the dishonestly named “Independent Green Voice” confusing voters. Afterwards, the Scottish Election Study found just a tenth of Green votes were tactical, concluding “Green voters are mostly true believers rather than SNP partisans lending a vote for tactical reasons.”

Success continued into 2022. They doubled their councillors, with another “best in category” result, despite their youthful voter base being least likely to turn out. In four councils (Glasgow, East Lothian, Scottish Borders, and Dumfries and Galloway) their vote share surpassed 2021.

The Scottish Green Party have a strong voter base, Allan Faulds believesThe Scottish Green Party have a strong voter base, Allan Faulds believes (Image: Jane Barlow/PA)

Even in their traditional Achilles heel of First Past the Post Westminster elections this year’s result was easily their best ever, if modest compared to other parties. Those unable to contextualise have mischaracterised this as a deathly blow, but ask yourself this: if for example 2.8% in Glasgow in 2015 was followed by 10.2% across the city in 2016, what does 9.4% under FPTP in 2024 presage for a proportional ballot in 2026?

If that’s not evidence enough, over the past 18 months the myth became self-disproving. SNP support has cratered since Nicola Sturgeon resigned. Yet whilst Green support has fluctuated, their average is yet to dip below 2021 levels.

To square this with the myth, you’d have to believe tens of thousands of Scots are simultaneously politically obsessed enough to know in detail how AMS works and “game” it, but so disengaged as to be unaware the SNP’s loss of support has changed that game. Catch yourself on.

To peel away a party’s voters, you must understand what motivates them. In misidentifying Green voters as being SNP at their core, it’s no surprise opponents have failed to stymie the party’s growth. Looking ahead to 2026, the other parties and their commentariat outriders have a simple choice.

On the one hand, you can get real about the Greens and come up with a credible strategy to win their voters over. On the other, you can cling to comforting myths – and in the SNP’s case, to a massive dollop of the repellent entitlement that you once derided Labour for. Choose more wisely than Yousaf, or else the chances of Ballot Box Scotland’s post-2026 writeup saying “this is another record result for the Greens” only get higher.