Did Stephen Flynn's debate performance mark him out as a future SNP leader? - Euan McColm

The credits hadn’t started running at the end of Friday night’s rather chaotic seven-header general election leaders’ debate on BBC One before the SNP press release arrived.

You will, I’ve no doubt, be astonished to discover the party’s verdict was that its Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, had comfortably won.

The nationalists’ election campaign director Stewart Hosie declare it a “hands down” victory. Flynn, he said, had “demonstrated beyond doubt that “only the SNP will oppose £18 billion of Tory and Labour Party cuts to public services, protect Scottish jobs, and put Scotland's interests first”.

Flynn “demonstrated” no such things. Nor, I think, was he a clear winner of the debate.

But it is undeniable that among a panel of representatives from the UK’s seven main parties – including big-hitters such as Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner, Tory Leader of the House (and sword-wielding icon) Penny Mordaunt, and Reform’s Nigel Farage – Flynn acquitted himself very well indeed. The candidate for Aberdeen South – who replaced (or toppled, depending on which version of events you find more authentic) Ian Blackford to become the SNP’s leader in the House of Commons in December 2022 – was confident, delivered his lines well, and remained good humoured throughout the 90-minute debate. After a very messy first fortnight of campaigning, SNP strategists will have been pleased by Flynn’s accomplished performance.

Flynn has had some impressive outings at Prime Minister’s Questions and those in the political bubble know he’s affable and funny (a Labour peer recently remarked on what good company he is, describing him as “thoughtful and interested” while his short, self-mocking campaign video in which he covers the issues of politics, Scottish weather, and the national football team’s chances at the Euros before scooshing sunblock on his bald head is genuinely amusing) but Friday night was his first major outing on a UK-wide platform at prime-time.

It was often the case when Nicola Sturgeon would participate in such debates – particularly during the EU referendum campaign – that social media would light up with remarks from “progressives” in England. “I think I’ll move to Scotland,” they’d declare. “Why can’t the SNP stand candidates in England?” they’d ask. Like idiots.

There was a bit of that on Friday night. Flynn’s introduction to the wider UK public went about as well as he could have hoped.

I don’t mean to undermine Flynn’s achievement but it’s important to point out that he, as other senior SNP figures have, enjoyed the privilege of having a UK-wide platform without the inconvenience of the sort of close examination he might have expected in an event staged in Scotland. Flynn could make bold criticisms of the UK government reasonably safe in the knowledge that the national broadcaster wasn’t then going to turn the focus to the devolved administration.

On Brexit, overwhelmingly rejected by Scots, Flynn was clear and devastating while Labour’s Rayner – as the electoral make-up of the UK dictates she must – tried to ride two horses.

And, most helpful to Flynn of all, he was not hit by a hail of questions on either the scandal of former Scottish health secretary Michael Matheson’s dodgy expenses claims or Operation Branchform, the ongoing Police Scotland investigation into the SNP’s finances. Had the debate taken place in Scotland, Flynn would have had a far rougher ride.

All of that, aside, SNP members are entitled to think Flynn did a better job of things on Friday evening than John Swinney would have.

Swinney has had a stinker of a campaign, so far. His decision, the morning after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election, to come out fighting on behalf of Michael Matheson, now suspended from Holyrood for 27 sitting days and docked 54 days’ pay after wrongly claiming £11,000 in expenses and then lying about it, remains baffling. Not only have his actions ensured Matheson’s ministerial career is permanently over, they have angered and confused colleagues. Had the former health secretary quietly taken his bumps and Swinney supported the sanctions against him, Matheson might one day have returned from the backbenches. Now, it’s unthinkable that he could hold ministerial office again. Voters would, I think, consider that a colossal exercise in taking the piss.

The Matheson issue cuts through with the public – two thirds of Scots think he should resign as an MSP over what he did – and SNP candidates, already facing a resurgent, better-funded Labour Party, could do without having to defend the indefensible on the doorsteps on Scotland.

It appears inevitable that the SNP is about to lose a substantial number of its 43 Westminster seats. The only question is over just how bad things are going to be.

Swinney – because the party can’t afford yet another destabilising change of leadership – will carry on after the election, all the time resentment about his leadership growing.

And things stand to get more difficult still for Swinney. At some point between the general election and the 2026 Holyrood election, Operation Branchform will come to a head. This, some senior SNP figures fear (and I agree with them) could have a devastating effect on the party’s standing.

It may not be so long before the SNP is in full rebuilding mode.

There aren’t many among the party’s current parliamentary ranks who combine talent with necessary distance from the Sturgeon regime. These will the minimum requirements of a future party leader. Flynn just about fits into that category. Joanna Cherry – currently campaigning to retain her Edinburgh South West seat – certainly does. Beyond them? I’m not so sure.

Stephen Flynn stands to play a key role in some difficult years to come for the SNP. Judging by his performance in the BBC debate, he might just be up to the job.