To state the bleedin’ obvious, leadership contests don’t foster party harmony.
Disagreement is inevitable when you ask 70,000-plus individuals to pick a side.
So, despite the party’s mythical iron discipline, the recent SNP contest was always going to be seasoned with a heavy peppering of fractious moments.
At least the debates were a clear display that democracy is alive within the SNP, even if critics would have you believe all debate is stifled.
I say “mythical” party discipline because, to the watching public, it appears to be a commodity in short supply at the moment.
The SNP has had more leaks than a cowboy plumber’s en suite bathroom and while that’s gold for those in the newspaper trade, it’s also a gift for the party’s political opposition.
Last week we also witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of an SNP MSP physically rip up a Scottish Government document in the debating chamber.
It was downright rude. Ewing would have gone ballistic if a party colleague had behaved in such a manner when he was a minister.
Push back from backbenchers against their own party in government can be a positive contribution to the political process if it is genuinely motivated in the best interests of constituents.
Properly articulated, it can be a counter to imperfect policy, a warning that what is being proposed has flaws which need to be resolved. But there are ways of going about your business to achieve these changes.
Ewing was not the only SNP backbencher to object to the no catch zone proposals which would impact on coastal communities. But he was the only one who made the conscious decision to play the pantomime villain.
His histrionics are the latest in a repeat pattern of very public dissent. A cynic might consider he is still in the throes of a 24-month huff since he left the government.
Or perhaps he believes, as a son of the venerated Ewing dynasty, his surname entitles him to behave as he chooses, free of consequence. If so, it’s time he was dissuaded of the notion.
If Ewing is continually let off the hook, others will believe they too can act with impunity - and that again only benefits the opposition.
Discipline is, of course, the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience and that presents a bit of a dilemma for the two SNP parliamentary groups.
They are out of the habit of imposing discipline because they have largely not needed to for years.
Influential former MSPs such as Bruce Crawford, Roseanna Cunningham, Mike Russell, Linda Fabiani, Jeane Freeman and Stewart Stevenson remembered an era when the party was not the dominant force it is now and they observed a self-imposed discipline which has possibly been lost since they stood down at the 2021 election.
If a select few elected members at Holyrood and Westminster refuse to police themselves, then the leadership will have no option but to impose discipline.
What’s the point of keeping a whip if it’s never cracked?
And, given recent events perhaps an amnesty might be appropriate, to wipe clean the slate of recent misdemeanours and start over with the clear warning that future serious breaches will be met with equally serious consequences.
The bonds of unity in the SNP might very well remain stronger than the electorate currently believe, but in politics, perception is reality and behaviour like Fergus Ewing’s is giving off some serious division vibes.
The First Minister will doubtless recognise this and he will be equally aware of another political reality … the public are loath to vote for divided parties.
We could be just a year away from a UK general election and anything less than a strong showing for the SNP will seriously stall any push for a second independence referendum.
The leadership team urgently needs to find a mechanism to restore that fabled party unity.
Time needs to be called on the behaviour of politicians who mistakenly believe they are bigger than the party.
The clock is ticking.
To sign up to the Daily Record Politics newsletter, click here.
