Insight: Minor achievements, major failures, and even bigger rows – the underwhelming legacy of the Bute House Agreement

Concord between SNP and Greens failed to push through flagship policies amid tensions

It was a marriage of convenience designed to cement a clear pro-independence majority at Holyrood, ensure difficult budgets were passed, and insulate senior ministers from the threat of opposition confidence motions that had plagued Nicola Sturgeon’s minority administration in the previous parliamentary term.

When the Bute House Agreement was struck in August 2021, Ms Sturgeon described it as a “ground-breaking” union capable of meeting “the challenges and opportunities” of the age. “Today’s politics can too often feel small - polarised, divided, and incapable of meeting the moment,” she added. “This agreement is intended to change that.” With the eyes of the world set to fall on Glasgow at the COP26 climate summit just a few months later, the then first minister no doubt felt assured in giving voice to the significance of the moment, and her place at its epicentre. But less than three years on, it appears Scotland is back to square one.

After the increasingly strained hybrid pact - more than a confidence-and-supply agreement, less than a fully fledged coalition - finally reached breaking point, there are numerous questions over what it means for the political future of First Minister Humza Yousaf, as well as that of Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater. But what will the legacy be of the BHA itself?

Despite Ms Sturgeon’s desire to frame it as a historic shift, others in the SNP argue that the power-sharing deal was, from the outset, a fatally flawed idea that would damage the party. It lost a councillor who resigned in protest, and as the agreement was being ratified, some privately questioned whether Mr Harvie and Ms Slater could marry their radical sensibilities to the duties required of ministerial posts; it was pointed out that only three months earlier, the Green leaders had to apologise after breaking Covid-19 rules following a visit to an Edinburgh pub.

However, the Greens, and Mr Harvie in particular, well understood that in such a governing coalition, it is the ostensibly junior member - even one that secured just eight MSPs and eight per cent of the regional list vote - that wields the most power. It is not unreasonable to suggest that such a dynamic was reflected in the agreement’s implementation

It soon emerged, for example, that there were several areas around which the new Green ministers were not bound by collective responsibility. And although the cooperation agreement specified that they would be invited to sit in on cabinet meetings “at least twice a year,” they were far closer to the heart of government than many in the SNP felt comfortable with.

Mr Harvie took part in at least nine cabinet gatherings. There were also fortnightly “liaison” meetings, where SNP ministers, including finance secretary Shona Robison, held detailed policy talks with Green MSPs. For critics of the agreement, such a close relationship entrenched perceptions that the Green tail was wagging the SNP dog.

The Bute House Agreement was ended by Humza Yousaf on Thursday

No matter the dynamic at play, the reality is that the parties’ draft shared policy programme resulted in more failures than successes. The Greens have been vocal in pointing out major wins around free bus travel for under 22s, circular economy legislation, an upsurge in active travel funding, and the impact of rent controls, but they are very much exceptions.

Many big ticket policy commitments have been impossible to realise, such as the pledge to secure a referendum on Scottish independence. So too, the promise to establish a National Care Service has been repeatedly delayed, with ministers proposing scaling it back the scheme to avoid mounting costs. Vows to replace council tax, as they always do, went nowhere.

Elsewhere, the SNP and the Greens spoke of being united in their commitment meeting a statutory target ensuring that less than 10 per cent of children are living in relative poverty by 2030. The government may have increased the Scottish Child Payment in service of that aim, the latest figures show little change, with approximately 260,000 children (26 per cent) living in relative poverty in 2022/23.

However, the ultimate demise of the BHA can be traced directly to the delays and collapses that hampered other joint policy commitments, such as the attempted rollout of the flagship deposit return scheme (DRS). With Ms Slater overseeing the project, it had been due to launch this March, but amid a bitter constitutional bun fight over Westminster’s refusal to grant an exemption through the Internal Market Act, it has been pushed back until October 2025 at the earliest.

The collapse of the Bute House agreement has sent shockwaves throughout Holyrood, with First Minister Humza Yousaf facing a no confidence vote. Picture: Lisa Ferguson

As the scheme lurched from crisis to crisis, Ms Slater’s handling of the situation hardly inspired confidence. That was particularly true of her appearances at Holyrood, where she repeatedly refused to provide answers to simple questions. In the end, a no confidence vote was brought against her, although it was defeated.

Equally, however, it is unfair to attribute all the blame to Ms Slater. It is ironic that on the very day the Bute House Agreement was acrimoniously torn up, the UK government announced its DRS had been delayed to 2027 due to asynchronicity between England and devolved administrations - a major stumbling block faced by Scotland’s scheme.

In truth, the myriad problems predated the Green co-leader’s stewardship of the policy. There were pre-existing concerns about the incorporation of glass, as well as a failure to engage with businesses, leading to delays. One source involved in the botched DRS implementation said that not enough had been done to scrutinise the failure of civil servants to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s.”

In the same month DRS was kicked into the long grass, another key Green goal was scrapped in the form of Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs). The conservation zones were an integral part of the draft policy programme, with plans to deliver the first designations as early as 2026.

First Minister Humza Yousaf terminated the Bute House agreement at a hastily arranged press conference on Thursday morning, but the day ended with the beleaguered SNP leader fighting for his political future. Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/PA Wire

In reality, the scheme faced significant opposition, and not just from island communities and fishing groups, but many within the SNP, most notably Kate Forbes and Fergus Ewing. Even amenable veterans like Alasdair Allan, the SNP MSP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, said he had never known his constituency so be apparently so “unanimously opposed” to any policy.

Much like the DRS, HPMAs were scuppered in large part by shoddy governance, with accusations of a lack of evidence and a desultory level of consultation. “The government was already on rocky ground given its inability to build ferries on time,” one SNP MSP said. “HPMA gave the impression of a government that was out of touch and urban-centric.”

HPMAs were viewed by the Greens as “red line” in the concord. While that position softened as the backlash from communities intensified, the announcement by net zero secretary Mairi McAllan to abandon the plans only ramped up tensions between the Greens and SNP.

Things eventually came to a head around two key issues - gender services and climate change. Despite the opposition of nine SNP MSPs, the government secured enough cross-party support to ensure the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (GRR) was passed in December 2022. The following month, however, saw the legislation vetoed by the UK government. The Greens pushed hard for Mr Yousaf to launch a legal challenge, but even after that was defeated at the Court of Session last December, there remained pressure to appeal. That Mr Yousaf chose not to sparked anger.

Even before then, a significant divergence had opened up around gender issues, exposing one of the main issues that proved to be the undoing of the BHA - the SNP were not prepared to go as fast and as far as their Green partners wished. It is understood that there were angry exchanges at a senior level after one Green MSP, Maggie Chapman, suggested that Holyrood ought to explore whether children as young as eight could decide to legally change their gender.

The antagonism ratcheted up several notches following the publication of the Cass review earlier this month. Mr Harvie gave an interview in which said he had seen “far too many criticisms” of the review to consider it a valid scientific report. “That was the final straw,” said one SNP MSP. “It’s the politics of Donald Trump.” As the Scottish Government hummed and hawed over an official response to the report, even as NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde announced it was pausing the use of puberty blockers, Mr Harvie and Ms Slater drew brickbats from their party’s members.

The then circular economy minister, Lorna Slater, was widely criticised for her handling of the deposit return scheme. Picture: Andrew Miligan/PA

On 17 April, the brickbats became boulders, after the government announced it was ditching key Scottish emissions targets. It took a little over a week for a partnership inaugurated to build a green economic recovery to fall apart in spectacular fashion.

One question perhaps overlooked amidst the tumultuous events of recent days is whether any of the BHA’s biggest failures would have happened on the watch of an SNP administration. After all, the commitments to gender legislation reform and DRS were prominent in the party’s 2021 manifesto, as was the goal of decarbonising the heating in one million homes by 2030, a target Mr Harvie admitted last year was “not achievable.” A rough framework for HPMAs also featured.

“There are policies in the agreement that failed because the Greens refused to compromise,” one SNP source said. “Even in government it felt like they were still an opposition party at times. But there were policies that would have been brought forward by a minority SNP government, and if you look at deposit return and GRR, the problem wasn’t the Greens, it was the legislation itself.”