SNP MP Joanna Cherry has dismissed claims she said the SNP’s deal with the Greens at Holyrood should be ripped up.
Cherry was interviewed by journalist Graham Spiers at the Edinburgh Fringe on Thursday where she was quizzed by an audience member about whether she felt the Bute House Agreement needed to be renegotiated or revisited.
Some headlines have suggested Cherry said the co-operation agreement should be binned, but she has said they are “misleading” and her comments were far more measured and nuanced.
She told the crowd at the New Town Theatre that the agreement should be renegotiated and discussed by the party, adding that the SNP should not fear a review of something that should “perhaps be terminated or made better”.
Sharing a tweet from Daily Record reporter Paul Hutcheon, Cherry said: “This is a very misleading headline I did not say the deal should be ripped up.
“My comments were far more measured and nuanced than this as the body of the article reflects.
“I hope the Daily Record will correct the sub editors misleading headline.”
The power-sharing agreement between the SNP and the Greens was drawn up in 2021 which saw Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater become junior ministers in the Scottish Government.
But it has recently been called into question, with SNP MSP Kate Forbes suggesting the SNP leadership should “check in” with members on it, suggesting a ballot could take place at this year’s party conference. This echoed calls by former ministers Fergus Ewing and Alex Neil.
Asked if she felt the Bute House Agreement should be renegotiated or revisited, Cherry said: “Yes. I voted against the agreement with the Greens and I’ll tell you why, because I think the Scottish Greens have become a totalitarian party.
“There is a feeling the tail is wagging the dog in Holyrood. The SNP have a huge mandate and the Greens don’t.
“It’s up to the SNP to decide whether or not we stay in coalition with them but I think it’s something we should discuss at a party and I think there is an appetite to discuss it.
“Perhaps the bigger question is why do we fear debate? Why are we afraid of reviewing of an arrangement that should perhaps be terminated or maybe made better?”
