Fergus Ewing would have won SNP Inverness and Nairn selection contest 'by a landslide' claim party insiders
EXCLUSIVE: Party insiders said the veteran Nationalist would have beaten Emma Roddick in the internal vote.
Fergus Ewing would have won the SNP candidate selection contest for Inverness and Nairn if he had stood, party figures have said.
The veteran Nationalist announced on Friday that he would stand as an independent at next year's Holyrood election.
Ewing will go up against current Highlands and Islands MSP Emma Roddick - who won the SNP contest.
He has been the MSP for Inverness and Nairn since the Scottish Parliament returned in 1999 and was a minister for 14 years under Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
A Holyrood SNP source said: "If Fergus stood for the SNP in Inverness and Nairn he'd have won the selection contest by a landslide."
A second insider said: "It's well known Emma put all her focus into her plans to challenge Fergus, while Fergus used his platform to give a voice to his constituents so fair play to him for giving folk in Inverness a proper option.
"There was a lot of talk about whether Fergus should pass SNP vetting and perhaps there should have been more of a focus on the suitability of the current SNP candidate for Inverness.'
A third source also said that Ewing would have won the selection contest.
Ewing has been a vocal critic of the Scottish Government and was particularly damning about the coalition agreement with the Greens.
He spoke out against the deposit return scheme, gender reform, marine protected areas and what he said was a lack of support for the oil and gas industry.
He defied the party whip to back a vote of no confidence in then-Green minister Lorna Slater in 2023. This resulted in him being temporarily suspended from the SNP Holyrood group.
Ewing had confirmed in March that he would not stand for the SNP - blaming the Scottish Government's failure to dual the A9 and A96 roads.
On Friday he said he would stand against the SNP next year: "This has not been an easy decision. I have taken it because I love the people of Inverness and Nairn and the people of Scotland more than my party, which I have been in for more than half a century."
He said the Nationalists had "deserted many of the people whose causes we used to champion".
He added: "I believe the SNP has lost its way and that devolution itself – presently - is letting Scotland's people down. It doesn't need to be this way.
" Holyrood is more fractious and tribal than ever before.
"Too much power rests unchecked in the hands of party leaders, free to choose candidates who will slavishly support them, rather than stand up for the people who sent them to Holyrood. Choosing the pliant over the talented."
Fergus Ewing is the son of SNP legend Winnie Ewing, whose win in the 1967 Hamilton by-election was a historic breakthrough for the party.
His sister Annabelle Ewing is the SNP MSP for Cowdenbeath.
Labour candidate for Inverness and Nairn Shaun Fraser said: " Fergus has rightfully earned respect for calling out the failures of SNP government and the policies and priorities which have done so much damage to the Highlands and Islands.
"The breakdown in his relationship with his party highlights again that the SNP has no concern for the Highlands."
Roddick said: "Local members backed me overwhelmingly in the selection contest for Inverness and Nairn.
"I have always stood up for the Highlands and spoken out on issues that affect all of us who live here; I've never been shy about doing so.
"I am SNP because I share our principles and belief in Scotland - that, as an independent country, we can best serve the people I represent and work hard for every day.
"That's why I have the backing of the local party, and I look forward to putting our positive vision across during the campaign."
The SNP was approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood 2026 election
Alison Johnstone has been in the role since 2021 and was the sixth person – and only the second woman – to hold the position. She entered politics in 2007 when she was elected as a Scottish Greens councillor in Edinburgh. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Numbers prove that the world is ignoring those who talk Scotland down She was then elected as an MSP in 2011, and 10 years later became the first Scottish Greens party member to take up the role of Presiding Officer. Alison Johnstone (Image: PA) Announcing her decision to step down, Johnstone told The Times that "it was always my intention that this would be my last term in Holyrood". 'I came from a wholly non-political background and got involved in a campaign to save a school playing field," she said. 'I was not in a political party but campaigned for the creation of a Scottish parliament and I then worked as an assistant for Robin Harper, the first-ever Green parliamentarian in the UK elected to the first-ever Scottish parliament.' Most recently, Johnstone made headlines after she expelled former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross from the debating chamber after he refused to follow rules. Ross tried to bring the matter up a week later, and was slapped down again after he inferred Johnstone had not acted in a "neutral manner". READ MORE: UK Government 'set to proscribe Palestine Action after RAF protest' Holyrood's Presiding Officer is impartial – when MSPs take up the role, they give up their party affiliation. They are responsible for chairing meetings in the debating chamber, selecting which questions will be asked at First Minister's Questions, as well as chairing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and Parliamentary Bureau meetings. The Presiding Officer is supported by two deputies – currently Annabelle Ewing (SNP) and Liam McArthur (LibDem). According to the Scottish Parliament website, the Presiding Officer receives a salary of £130,500.
Cambrian News
3 hours ago
- Cambrian News
Call for legal action over rail and NI funding
Mr Price asked: 'If the change was made without consultation or adequate reasoning, what legal hurdles would the Welsh Government face in bringing a case and what remedies might be available?'
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Exclusion isn't the only response to difficult pupils
A reader has a suggestion for the First Minister when it comes to dealing with difficult pupils Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Apparently First Minister John Swinney warns that 'Excluding disruptive pupils risks pushing them into organised crime' (19 June). That may be so, but there are other alternatives for those young people who, for whatever reason, find mainstream education challenging. For example, he could look at the opportunities provided by the Spartans Community Foundation in Pilton and their Alternative School for secondary school students, extending now to P6/P7 pupils. Fiona Garwood, Edinburgh John Swinney wants every Scottish pupil to have a good educational experience (Picture: Andrew Milligan - Pool/Getty Images) Deadly games Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump is taking a fortnight to consider whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. Good. It means internal advisers have got to him, perhaps even the Europeans, Canadians and UK. Such a move would be an act of folly. Remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Labour in power, Tony Blair gives early notice of his support for the 'special relationship'. They produce a 'dodgy dossier' speaking of 'weapons of mass destruction' which probably didn't exist. Blair struts around beside George Bush, looking macho. There is a 'victory', but long-term chaos descends on Iraq, certainly no democracy. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and there will be greater chaos. Israel is the immediate major aggressor, and is a client state of the US, which is totally complicit. Meanwhile, Israel has reduced Gaza to ruins, and is starving its population, what remains of it, to death. At the same time, it is a land-grab, with more Israel settlers being facilitated. Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh Ban US bombs Earlier this week, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of diplomacy by making an offensive early exit from the G7 meeting in Calgary, presumably rushing home to plan a joint war with Israel against Iran. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Will Britain, in an echo of their actions in joining with the USA to wreck Iraq, now join with the US to wreck Iran? It would seem that this is the intention of our Prime Minister, not wishing to cross his big orange buddy. I sense that the great majority of Scots are not up for waging a new war in the Middle East, just as we do not support Israel in their obliteration of the Palestinians, but what can we do? Well, we might take journalist Neal Ascherson's advice, and act as if we are already an independent nation. The USAF regularly use Prestwick to refuel their flights to the Middle east. Might bunker buster bombs be part of the payload of USAF aircraft refuelling at Prestwick? The airport is owned by us, the Scottish people. Our Scottish Government should veto any USAF flights resupplying Israel's military, and should certainly veto any transit of bunker busters ultimately intended for Iran. This would very much displease Keir Starmer, but would be recognised by right-minded people, nationally and internationally, as a correct and moral action. Ken Gow, Bridge of Canny, Banchory What the X? So the SNP's Communication's Officer, David Mitchell, asks on X, 'why exactly is Scotland is paying for [HS2] when it doesn't even stop in Scotland?' And yet, the SNP government has stated that it has not contributed any funds to HS2. Indeed, Scotland will receive proportionate Barnett consequentials funding based on that (albeit flawed) investment. So it seems to me that part of Mitchell's role is to miscommunicate in an attempt to provoke groundless outrage amongst dyed-in-the-wool separatists. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire Planning language Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Words fail me too (Letters, 19 June). The Government has taken its eye off the ball. There is a much more important language than Gaelic or Scots that must be made official so they can pursue their dream of covering Scotland with wind farms – planning language. I doubt SNP MSPs had any idea how, for example, the word 'localised' would be used when they passed National Planning Framework 4, based on the manifesto of the Scottish Greens, voted for by 8 per cent of the electorate. The Government voted for the two National Parks and National Scenic areas to be protected from wind farms but 'Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable.' It seems 'localised' in the dictionary means 'restrict or assign to a particular place'. Developer language 'for planning purposes' means you can insist the effect of 18, 180m high turbines along the Moorfoot Scarp in view of Midlothian, parts of East Lothian and South Edinburgh, including the castle, are localised. It is said significant effects of Torfichen wind farm would reach to Gorebridge 5.6km away, about three and a half miles! Locally three wind farms have already been refused on wider landscape grounds. Surely the opposite of localised is 'widespread', as used by Nature Scot in their representation 'widespread visibility of the turbines from many areas of East Lothian and Midlothian... and would result in adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Why should a minority party decide the shape of Scotland to come? Why no strategic plan instead of landowners deciding where wind farms should go? Now the pact has ceased, and the New National Park has been scrapped, this has to be looked at again. All governments make mistakes but, as we have seen lately, it is how and if they rectify them by which they are judged by the electorate. Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian Green dreams Scotsman writer Paul Wilson will certainly not feature on the Green brigade's Christmas Card list ("Mighty growth from Scotland's Acorn could prove elusive', Perspective, 19 June). He strips away the green film to reveal hard, indisputable facts not the green fiction politicians and those of a green persuasion would have us believe. Soaring electricity costs are costing jobs and are not being replaced by the green jobs so beloved and promised by clueless politicians and their followers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So where is the cheap electricity we were promised? In the last year wind and solar could only provide 35.8 per cent of our electricity while gas was 29.9, nuclear 14, Drax using trees to produce electricity was 7.3, and imports from Europe totalling 11.5 per cent kept the lights on. The Scottish Government, keen to 'lead the world', said they would achieve net zero by 2045. Yes and pigs can fly. China has set its net zero target as 2060 and India 2070. Both huge maybes. As Paul Wilson says, the green jobs bonanza that politicians promised for decades has failed to materialise and the UK is shedding jobs by the thousands. At least the Scottish people can show their anger in May 2026 and throw out the green charlatan MSPs and their hoards of mega-expensive climate advisors. Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian Minimum brains It appears the SNP administration is still keen on introducing a minimum income guarantee payment of £11,500 to every Scot, whatever their status. This would cost £8 billion-plus. Maybe the nationalists think it a vote-winner. This in spite of every country that has ever tried to implement anything similar finding it to be unworkable and financially disastrous. An 'expert' group was commissioned by SNP ministers in 2021 to work it all out. That alone should send shivers down the Scottish spine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Be afraid, be very afraid. This could make the ferry fiasco look like a drop in the ocean. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh The Never-Never Like Nessie, growth remains elusive for this government. The Bank of England has just prioritised control of inflation over any immediate interest rate reduction which could have stimulated growth. But worry not! Grand plans are in hand. Following on the heels of last week's Spending Review setting out the UK Government's priorities for the next four years or so, a £725 billion, ten-year infrastructure investment plan for the UK has just been announced. Moreover, the Government's much awaited Industrial Strategy is imminent. The devil is always in the detail of big plans and aspirations. Often overlooked, the devil here may lie in the detail of the approval process for capital projects in the public sector. The appraisal techniques that are used are set out in the Treasury's Green Book – the UK's Bible of 'best practice'. (Scotland has its own version which largely follows this.) The Chancellor announced that the Green Book is about to be revised and updated, making capital project approvals quicker and easier, so the taxpayer gets a bigger bang for their buck, especially for projects (eg new homes) in areas of deprivation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, it is unclear how this will work in practice. One concern relates to the level of analytical rigour required, which may prove over-challenging for parts of the public sector. If that's true, then, somewhat perversely, Green Book 'enhancements' could have the effect of slowing down approval rates, with knock-on effects for the speed at which any related growth impacts are realised. 'Never Never Land' is the fictional domain where children never grow up, or some other imaginary ideal. There is a fear here that despite good intentions, when facing increasingly fierce and uncertain macro-economic headwinds, and the micro-challenge of delivering growth-inducing capital projects on the ground, that the plans and aspirations of this government run the risk of being equally fanciful. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns Write to The Scotsman
