The internal dynamics of Scotland's Scottish National Party (SNP) have heated up recently, particularly following the announcement of Stephen Flynn's candidacy for the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine seat at the 2026 Holyrood elections. Flynn, currently the SNP's Westminster leader and MP for Aberdeen South, has sparked significant tension within the party with his decision to vie for this seat, currently held by fellow SNP member Audrey Nicoll. This move not only overlaps with his existing Westminster constituency but has also led to strong reactions from party members.
Flynn's declaration to seek the candidacy was not met with open arms. Speaking on BBC’s The Sunday Show, he admitted the situation is “not pleasant” for either him or Nicoll. The political body is roiling over his intentions, as inside whispers suggest some believe he effectively pressured Nicoll to step aside during their pre-announcement phone conversation, which Flynn fervently denies. He described these claims as lies, stating, "I don’t want to be having these discussions on television, trying to defend myself over lies and fabrications… but that's the reality of politics."
On top of this personal conflict, Flynn's pursuit of dual roles has reignited debates over party rules. The SNP has traditionally frowned upon dual mandates, particularly after it altered internal regulations to prevent members from holding seats simultaneously at Westminster and Holyrood. This reform was partly aimed at internal critics like Joanna Cherry, who had frequently voiced dissent within the party. Flynn, meanwhile, contended he was under the impression these rules were merely “election specific,” and if the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) has the chance to reevaluate these policies before 2026, it might signal significant internal adjustments.
Intriguingly, First Minister John Swinney acknowledged the historical precedent of holding dual mandates, mentioning he himself had done so briefly during the early days of devolution. Swinney noted, "The party has got to come to its conclusions about these specific issues and it will do this in the fullness of time." The uncertainty surrounding Flynn's future roles synergizes with broader discontent within the SNP as the party strives to streamline its operations amid economic challenges.
Adding to the turbulence, Flynn is perceived not only as maneuvering for his own position but is also speculated to have potential as a future leader of the SNP. Despite this insinuation, he maintains his motives are primarily about effective representation for Aberdeen and not personal ambition. He expressed to the media, "I'm ambitious, I'm seriously ambitious for Aberdeen and for Scotland," but reassured followers, “there's not going to be leadership contest for a long time.”
His push for chosen candidacy faced public backlash from fellow SNP figures, including comments from former Minister Emma Roddick, who urged Flynn to reconsider his decision. Speaking on the matter, Roddick reflected, “Party members set this rule for good reasons. Rightly, Douglas Ross was criticized for holding two roles simultaneously. I hope Stephen Flynn rethinks.”
Meanwhile, the internal strife continued to spill out publicly, raising eyebrows as unnamed sources released critiques of Roddick's own past as someone who held dual roles. This led to accusations of hypocrisy against her—a practice some members of the party have deemed counterproductive. The outcry from the SNP’s ranks drew responses from Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville, who took to social media to chastise negative briefings against party members, urging colleagues to “leave yer ego to the side.” Her tweet emphatically outlined the need for party unity, especially as they face external electoral challenges.
The lot cast within the party coincides with troublesome financial news for the SNP, as it has struggled to secure major donations leading to job cuts within its ranks. Recently, the NEC announced it would be reducing the number of positions down from 26 at party headquarters, igniting discussions about accountability and the allocation of their resources. Flynn described this measure as “tough, but necessary.”
With much still unresolved, Flynn’s approach to balancing both roles as he campaigns for Scottish independence, alongside his parliamentary duties, will undoubtedly remain controversial. These internal conflicts, alongside the need for change within the party, encapsulate the reality of Scotland's current political climate. Observers will be keeping a close watch on how these proceedings evolve leading up to the 2026 elections, particularly as both the SNP and Flynn navigate these tumultuous waters.
Despite his statement emphasizing the importance of electoral choice—letting the members decide—Flynn's campaign could fracture party lines if not managed with considerable tact. Insulating relationships within the party may prove challenging, especially when dealing with colleagues who were once allies. His insistence on proceeding with his intentions might leave him confronted with the very challenges he seeks to combat. This complicated time for the SNP raises questions about not only Flynn's political future but the wider ramifications for party cohesion as Scotland gears up for what promises to be another pivotal election.
Looking back at the fierce debates, shifting allegiances, and strategy divisions within the SNP, the focus will increasingly shift to how the party can rise above internal confrontations—especially as grassroots activists and voters grapple with the realities of political representation and leadership ambitions within their ranks.
