SNP’s 'Fergus Ewing problem' is that he’s right and they’re wrong – Brian Wilson

The SNP should be learning from Fergus Ewing, not suspending him from the party

The Fergus Ewing problem for Humza Yousaf is that, in every offence cited, Fergus was right while First Ministers, past and present, along with their faithful acolytes have been wrong. This is no mere subjective judgment but in each case borne out by subsequent events. What we have seen from Fergus is simply the calling out of inept policies that had nothing to do with the SNP’s raison d’etre.

For years, Nicola Sturgeon used iron discipline to get away with any folly or failure, however costly. ‘Dispute a policy and you damage the cause’ was the prevailing mantra. The loyal troops obeyed, united by the promised land, with the useful side-effect of keeping them in jobs.

Latterly, the policy initiatives became so far divorced from the binding objective that it was a matter of time until someone called out the dichotomy. Unity was being exploited to facilitate agendas more likely to damage the cause than assist it. Step forward, Mr Ewing.

I confess to having been party to his first transgression. We both knew Ms Sturgeon’s absolutist position on ending North Sea licences was nonsensical. A cross-party group of former energy ministers, Scottish and UK, united in saying so, insisting the North Sea must be part of the energy transition rather than its enemy.

That was in June of last year. Fast forward to Thursday’s energy policy statement at Holyrood and the Scottish Government’s evasion of the same issue was comical. In the week of Rosebank, there was literally not a word in the statement from Gillian Martin, the current energy minister, about North Sea licensing. Instead, she endorsed “transitioning as North Sea resources decline”. And who could disagree with that? Certainly none of the signatories to our little declaration. So one up to Fergus.

Then along came the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. There is no need to recall the grisly details of how that legislative absurdity descended into farce. The visual image of Adam Graham (aka Isla Bryson) will suffice. Fergus was among many who pointed out that a man does not become a woman by declaring this to be the case, and it is reckless to pretend otherwise. A year on, the Scottish Government is throwing money at a Supreme Court case which nobody, including themselves, expects it to win, with the legislation in tatters. So two up to Fergus.

Then we had highly protected marine areas which were direct products of the grandly titled Bute House Agreement with the Greens, which Fergus loathed and warned against. HPMAs succeeded in outraging every fishing community in the north and west of Scotland, including former SNP bastions.

Fergus’s theatrical tearing-up of the patronising, pejorative consultation document in the Holyrood chamber was a seminal moment in the campaign to ditch the whole exercise, which duly happened. Three up to Fergus, though the legacy is that nobody trusts Scottish Government ministers not to pursue the same outcomes by different means.

All along the line, of course, there are human consequences to these exercises in bad government. Take the story of Konrad and Kamil Kosieradzki, who might have become poster boys for Scotland. They came to the UK from Poland 20 years ago and ended up in Uist with no fishing background. They learned the job, made a great success and integrated into the community. Their last boat was the newest in the local fleet.

Now it is gone to Cornwall taking the quota with it, with serious economic loss. In a sad farewell letter, the brothers said the HPMA threat was the last straw and they could no longer live with the uncertainty of more restrictive regulation. Another triumph for the Bute House Agreement.

And so to the deposit return scheme and its political embodiment, Lorna Slater. It’s a couple of years since Mr Ewing mentioned that anyone who thought the ferries were a costly debacle should just wait for the deposit return scheme. So it proved, presided over by a minister characterised by a toxic mix of zealotry and arrogance.

Unless the Auditor General makes it his business to find out, we will never know how much was squandered on this doomed exercise. Right to the end, it could have been saved if – as in Ireland – including glass in the scheme was put on hold. Circularity Scotland pleaded for this lifeline but, by then, the whole thing was such a shambles, Ms Slater opted for abandonment and a pathetic attempt at blame-shifting.

Four-nil for Fergus. Called on to express confidence in her, he spoke for Scotland (and most of his colleagues, if they were honest enough) when he declined to do so – which became the punishable offence.

Then there is the A9. In a life-and-death matter, no party should make a blind commitment to win votes, then renege so comprehensively. And no parliamentarian should be punished for fighting his constituents’ corner. Five-nil to Fergus.

Still to come, he may face the judgment of his peers by opposing the Short-Term Lets Bill which is a classic SNP mess. In response to a localised problem, they introduced national legislation of mind-boggling complexity extending to swathes of accommodation that weren’t part of the problem in the first place.

Now we’re told by a minister that it wasn’t about housing shortages in Edinburgh or Plockton at all. It was all along about safety which, self-evidently, is not true. Is it an offence punishable by suspension to point that out?

It used to be possible to disagree civilly on the constitutional issue, which Fergus and I obviously do, while sharing views on the likes of the above. Now it seems compulsory within the SNP to swallow the whole package including matters that have absolutely nothing to do with independence.

Maybe that is Mr Yousaf’s problem rather than Fergus Ewing’s.