So what is the alternative to Bute House agreement? I’m yet to hear one - Stewart McDonald

Debate and disagreement, as I have written before in these pages, are the lifeblood of our democracy. The ability of politicians and members of the public to engage in healthy and informed disagreements over policy strengthens our political culture, makes for better laws and makes for better government.

The ability of politicians and members of the public to engage in healthy and informed disagreements over policy strengthens our political culture, makes for better laws and makes for better government.

I was reflecting on this over the summer recess as I read about some of my fellow SNP colleagues calling for a debate on the Bute House agreement – the historic power-sharing agreement that put my party in coalition with the Scottish Greens and secured a parliamentary majority for an SNP-led Scottish Government. As much as I am a firm believer in debate, I also believe that, if you want to disagree with an idea or policy, it is only right that you attempt to outline what you would propose in its place instead. I am yet to hear that from opponents of the Bute House agreement.

Indeed, what is the alternative to the Bute House agreement? Attempting to govern on an issue-by-issue basis in a parliament where the leaders of the unionist parties wear as a badge of honour their unwillingness to work constructively with the largest party? Or does a minority SNP government attempt to agree to a confidence and supply arrangement with the very party they have just pushed out of government? Neither, I am sure even my most sceptical colleagues would agree, are realistic proposals that will allow my party to continue delivering for Scotland.

But, more than that, calls to examine the Bute House agreement overlook the fact that the agreement is good for the SNP. In bringing the Greens into government – the first time the party has entered a national government in the UK – our party receives an injection of fresh energy and, though it may be unpopular at times, a nonetheless necessary push for the Scottish Government to go further and faster on the climate crisis.

I must confess that even now I have yet to hear a reason why the Bute House Agreement is so manifestly unsuitable for Scotland that the whole agreement needs to be torn up. The substantive policy and moral arguments around issues such as gender self-identification, Highly Protected Marine Areas and Deposit Return Schemes have been fought and won by centre-left and centre-right governments alike across Europe – including the UK Government itself. Are we really saying that policies that work perfectly fine in Dublin and Berlin are somehow at odds with the fabric of Scottish life? That is quite a claim to make.

But that is by the by. The First Minister, currently preparing his Programme for Government, must look towards the future. While the Bute House agreement may give Humza Yousaf the ability to govern with parliamentary stability, what matters most of all is governing well. The First Minister’s upcoming programme needs to show Scots that he is laser-focused on helping them weather the current economic storm while also ensuring that his government continues to support Scotland’s long-term economic growth.

Scotland has, for many years, topped the list of places in the UK outside of London which attracts the most Foreign Direct Investment. While this an achievement the Scottish Government should rightly be lauded for, the short-term stimulus that FDI provides is not and will never be a reliable substitute for stable long-term economic growth. To create the conditions for that to occur, the First Minister must continue to invest in jobs and skills training, and the digital and physical infrastructure that make Scotland one of the most attractive places in the UK to found and grow businesses.

The Bute House agreement sets out a commitment to do just that: investing in active travel and public transport, tackling child poverty, and fixing the housing market are all essential to Scotland’s long-term economic growth and the First Minster must stay the course. These policies are not only popular – they are the socially and economically the correct thing to do.

It should never go unsaid, however, that the best way to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business would be to re-join the European Union, or at the very least the single market and customs union. The pro-Brexit Labour and Conservative parties would love for that ship to sail – for them never to have to face the political consequences of the economic damage they have done to families and businesses across Scotland. But Brexit will, whether they like it or not, continue to be Scotland’s biggest drag on economic growth, impacting access to labour and trade with our largest market.

We will wait to see what the First Minister announces next week. But I would urge my colleagues – in which I include the Greens – who think that the popularity of the SNP and the Scottish Government will improve if we continue to attack each other in public against the backdrop of a cost-of-living crisis, to reflect on the damage they are doing. As Sir John Curtice pithily put it: “The truth is, I think, in looking at their partners in government, the SNP are probably not looking at the principal source of their political difficulties.” Debate is healthy – public division is not. The public will not forgive naval gazing for much longer.

And in the end, the promise of leadership is measured not by ideological debates or political rivalries but by the results achieved. Even working against tough headwinds being blown from Westminster, SNP and Green colleagues must focus our attention on working together to address the economic and social crisis that fuels the miasma of despair many are experiencing. We must renew ourselves and deliver good government and a prosperous Scottish economy, which would be the single best thing we could do to the case for independence.

It may not always be easy but, as Winston Churchill once quipped, there is only one thing worse than fighting with allies – and that is fighting without them.