Did The Inverness Courier debate witness a major shift in the SNP leadership race?
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
The Inverness Courier Leadership Debate sought to place the Highlands and Moray firmly on the political agenda after years of neglect by the political establishment in Holyrood and Westminster.
In front of an audience of around 200 locals the candidates for First Minister – Kate Forbes, Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf – were repeatedly confronted with the issues that our readers told us mattered most to them.
The fact the audience was made up of members of the public led the leadership hopefuls to address broader issues beyond the SNP such as trust in whether the government can deliver or not – for the Highlands and Moray.
That meant – dualling the A9 and A96, decentralisation of local government and re-establishing localised policing, GPs and the NHS, maternity services, poverty and inequality, mental health services, housing and depopulation.
That seemed to hit home with some observers, such as political commentator Gerry Hassan who wrote on Twitter: “The Inverness Courier SNP debate is covering real things & the state of the Highlands & Scotland. Small businesses; Police Scotland centralisation; size of Highland Region; A9 dualling & more.”
The feeling that the North of Scotland had dropped off the map when it came to policy was movingly expressed by one questioner – retired Detective Superintendent Charles Hepburn.
Five years ago he was forced to watch his wife die because a 999 call handler did not know where Orkney was – a heartbreaking outcome of centralising services – yet no one would commit to decentralise Police Scotland.
Nor could they guarantee that the A96 could be dualled by 2030 which, in fairness both were big asks but is it really so unreasonable to demand effective policing across the region and for another deadly road to be upgraded?
If the forest of arms that were raised when moderator Nicky Marr asked for a show of hands by those angered by the failure to dual the A9 by 2025 was anything to go by then the answer to that question is a firm Highland ‘no’.
But when it came to how political decisions in Holyrood affected the north the points came in hard and fast and ranged over an enormously diverse set of areas – what was clear was that much policy was not working.
Retired GPs demanded answers on vaccination clinics for children being abandoned, mental health workers wanted to know what could be done about soaring suicide rates and business representatives asked if they would govern for all of Scotland.
One of the most striking aspects of the debate was the candidates’ refusal to exchange barbs as they each sought to address the questions without attacking each other’s policy positions or records.
When the candidates cross questioned one another it was so benign that it was almost shocking. Humza Yousaf asked if Kate Forbes became First Minister what would she take to Edinburgh to remind her of the Highlands (Aultbea black pudding).
That drew literal “aaaaws” from the audience. Her fierce retort? What, as the former islands minister, was Mr Yousaf’s favourite island? He said you are trying to lose me support, she joked: “That was the plan.” His answer was Rum.
Then Ash Regan was invited by Ms Forbes to spend a hypothetical £100 million on the Highlands and proceeded to list road and rail infrastructure investment and try to establish a public energy company.
By this stage the only thing missing was a campfire and an acoustic guitar.
It also felt in the room that the candidates had punched themselves out when it came to invective and with the finish line just 10 days at away they were beginning to cast an eye to moving on from the early skirmishes and were looking to repair the SNP.
Perhaps the chief takeaway from the evening was that the SNP is currently a party questioning itself – what apart from independence does it stand for – and with Nicola Sturgeon about to exit the stage there is now more room for open debate.
Scotland’s party of government, once a fascinating, compelling standard-bearer for a single cause had become one of the most secretive, monotone, and predictable political entities in Europe.
Now, despite the crises, it has seized on the changing of the guard and thrown into the political spotlight three of the most genuinely diverse candidates in the history of the party.
And it may have just rediscovered its dynamism by listening, for the first time in years, to those who previously were ignored and what happens next is, at very least, very interesting.
