Brian Monteith: How would Machiavelli approach Humza Yousaf's no confidence vote?

The self interest of opposition parties may yet force an election

When I suggested last week the First Minister should end the Bute House Agreement by dumping the Greens “before they dump him” I meant it – but having never taken my advice before I hardly expected him to act on it.

Unfortunately he went about it in a typically cack-handed way – like the opening scene of the 60s TV Cavalry Western “Branded” – only instead of stripping an officer of his epaulets and breaking his sword before being sent into the desert and tumbleweed, Humza Yousaf stripped his Green ministers of their lucrative salaries and limousines before sending them into deserted Edinburgh streets of broken pavements and wild buddleia.

Subtlety is not Yousaf’s thing; he is rash, cocky, prone to get excited if not raging – and unable to read a room, whereas his predecessor could apparently read a library in an evening.

I can only conclude as the First Minister faces a Vote Of No Confidence, obligingly submitted by the very Tories whom he demanded be expunged from Scotland (oh, the honeyed irony), he shall lose – if he has not already succumbed to off-stage whispers and resigned.

Why? Because if we follow the thinking of the master of political science, Niccolò Machiavelli, offered in his sixteenth century treatise, The Prince, it is in the interests of enough players who have a vote that he loses. It was in The Prince Machiavelli said, “Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain” with an obvious eye on how these weaknesses could be exploited to achieve power.

If they are to be believed, all opposition party members shall vote against him, including the Greens. This leaves the SNP members and the one member of the Alba Party.

Having received an unacceptable deal by Alba leader, Alex Salmond, Yousaf showed he could smell a trap and refused it. No doubt a few SNP MSPs had already warned him they would have an important meeting elsewhere when “decision time” was called if he chose to accept it.

So why should Alba’s solitary MSP now back him? Surely her party’s advantages are in bringing Yousaf down and considering if to work with whomsoever emerges as the next SNP leader? Could an alternative like Jenny Gilruth be any worse?

We then will also see a Vote Of No Confidence in the Scottish Government itself, tabled by Labour. The received wisdom is that the by-then First Minister-less Scottish Government will survive. I’m not convinced. A lot of speculation is calculated on the actors putting Scotland before party to help a government be formed – but why?

All parties believe they are the solution and all politicians aspire to power, because they know, even if they do not admit it openly, it is only through having power they can push change in the direction they are working towards.

So, If we again follow Machiavelli about how self-interest might guide those aspiring to power I believe we can reliably conclude the following.

While the Conservatives would like to be seen bringing Yousaf down it would better suit them if he stayed, for he has proven to be a recruiting sergeant when they face their own troubles – but they must go through the motions to show themselves as the lead opposition. Their best prospect is then to show that through a forced early Holyrood election they can hold seats in Scotland and give the party heart going into the general election. They want to dispel the polls claiming the Tories will be wiped out.

For Labour the dynamics are different. Labour needs to show Scottish voters it is now the most popular party so that past supporters should return. What better way to win the coming general election in Scotland than by ousting the SNP wholesale and forming a new (probably minority) administration at Holyrood? It would also be of immense help to Keir Starmer by putting Scottish Labour in the vanguard of change at Westminster.

For the Lib Dems, who of course have backed Sturgeon and Yousaf’s SNP on so many occasions, bringing down the SNP is their chance to absolve themselves of any blame for the woke policies they endorsed and are now embarrassed by. We see you.

For the Greens, the polling tells them they too would do handsomely out of a new Holyrood election – and they probably calculate there are new votes from disillusioned SNP supporters disgusted with Yousaf’s climbdown on Net Zero targets (presumably they have no wish to keep driving their cars?)

And for Alba there is also the prospect of gaining more MSPs than just Ash Regan, thanks also to nationalists who are disgusted with the SNP.

I only need to be wrong with one party and the SNP survives, but it will be close. After removing the SNP, defeating any vote in favour of a new Government over the following 28 days will bring an early Holyrood election and give Scots a say in who should be First Minister.

I see too much self interest in the opposition parties making that a reality – no matter what they say in public. Such an outcome could be the making of devolution, for it will show unpopular governments can be removed – and that will be no bad thing.

Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org