Et tu, Flynn? Whispers of dark deeds to topple Humza from within...
ON the morning after the SNP storm which saw Humza Yousaf suffer one of the worst humiliations in Scottish political history, the Nationalists’ Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, chose his words carefully. Would he take over as SNP leader if Mr Yousaf loses a vote of no confidence next week, he was asked. With uncharacteristic solemnity, Mr Flynn said: ‘Now is not a time to speculate over the future of anyone beyond, of course, the discussion that’s being had next week.’
Not quite a denial then. But Mr Flynn’s allies insist that he will stand by his man, the embattled Mr Yousaf. The pair are ‘close’, they say. ‘They have a good working relationship.’
Yet for all the platitudes – and the reposts from Mr Flynn appearing to back Mr Yousaf on X – his overt display of solidarity has left some in the SNP unconvinced.
For they fear that Mr Flynn is the party’s Brutus – the man who betrayed Caesar, was then forgiven and brought back into the fold, only to then betray him again and stab him to death.
Was Mr Flynn’s usurpation of Ian Blackford as leader of the Westminster group two years ago only a warm up for events unfolding now?
‘That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me,’ one Holyrood source said last night.
Yet, for many in the Nationalist ranks, last week’s turn of events was so ‘monumentally and catastrophically embarrassing’ that it is simply not credible that the First Minister and his advisers made the decision to scrap the Bute House Agreement so abruptly without someone, somewhere, having an ulterior motive.
One senior SNP source told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I am increasingly convinced that Stephen had a hand in this. He is very clever and very ruthless and he has proven with his toppling of Ian Blackford that he knows how to manoeuvre.’
ANOTHER insider, who believes that Mr Flynn resembles a ‘young Alex Salmond’ owing to his ‘swagger’ and ‘populist’ appeal, said: ‘I think this is a very high risk game for him. Let’s hope he doesn’t muck it up.’ The Scottish Greens also mentioned ‘Westminster’ forces at play during their press conference on Thursday evening.
The suggestion, of course, is that Mr Flynn forced Mr Yousaf’s hand to end the SNP/Green power sharing pact in such a brash way, knowing that it would trigger chaos, then a no confidence vote and then, as if by magic, create space for a new SNP leader.
But speculation about Mr Flynn’s ambitions for the top job has been swirling since October in the wake of the SNP’s disastrous defeat at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election.
It was a flashpoint for many in the party who, having dismissed the concerns of SNP rebels pushing back against the leadership, began to reassess their position.
Some looked to Mr Flynn to be a fresh ‘unity leader’ who could bridge the gap between old and new guard factions in the party.
Notably, one insider at the time said: ‘Humza’s special adviser Colin McAllister spends most of his waking hours trying to work out how to resist a challenge from Stephen Flynn.’
Six months on, sources now muse over the possibility that Mr McAllister’s fears may have been realised.
Had Mr Flynn become so utterly exhausted by the week-in, week-out firefighting that has come to characterise Humza Yousaf’s government – over disastrous policies such as the shambolic bottle recycling scheme, tax hikes, gender reform and hate crime laws – that he felt he it was in the interests of the SNP to perform a sort of coup d’état?
Was Mr Flynn a ‘Brutus’, ready to proverbially stab Mr Yousaf in the back to take the throne?
Or, as a North-East man to the core, was he only motivated by concerns that the SNP/Green Bute House Agreement would not convince his oil-dependent constituents – and therefore general election voters – to re-elect him? Was he simply protecting his SNP Westminster group, whose mood has been somewhat downcast of late according to insiders?
A recent YouGov mega-poll suggested the SNP would lose more than half of its Westminster seats at the next general election, only retaining 19 MPs.
So concerned are HQ about the upcoming vote – yet to be officially called by the Tories – that sources claim some funds have been diverted away from seats that the Nationalists think they will lose to Labour, seen by some as an effective act of surrender.
Or was Mr Flynn’s meeting with the First Minister at Bute House on Wednesday a simple coincidence?
These are the questions that have occupied many SNP minds since.
Plotting by Mr Flynn has been robustly denied by his allies, but the fervent speculation around his involvement in last week’s events surely shows an SNP on the edge, not knowing who to trust or where to turn.