Humza Yousaf

Millie Mitchell (MM): You first entered government in 2012 as minister for external affairs and international development. What was the conversation like when Alex Salmond asked you to take this role on?

Humza Yousaf (HY): First of all, I suppose it was quite unexpected. I was only elected about a year before. I was only 27, so at the time I think I was the youngest member of our parliamentary group. I was working as a parliamentary liaison officer [PLO] for Alex Salmond [first minister 2007–14], so I was close to the then first minister. That largely involved being part of the first minister's questions preparation team, passing messages between the first minister and the backbenchers and being the liaison between the two.

I got a call from Alex Salmond's chief of staff – a chap called Geoff Aberdein – as I was on my way into Edinburgh to say I was to come to Bute House and not to say anything more to anybody who asked. It was a very cryptic message. So I made my way to Bute House. That wasn't terribly unusual because I was the parliamentary liaison officer. I was phoned again by one of the senior comms team to say, “Make sure you come in the back door, not the front door,” which was rather unusual. But by that point I had already entered Bute House and I had already come in through the front door. There were no television cameras, which I think was what the comms officers were worried about. 

I was ushered into the cabinet room in Bute House and still had no idea what was going on. There was no hint of a cabinet reshuffle at that point – no social media chattering, nothing. The UK government had done a reshuffle maybe in the same week, or certainly only a week or two before, and who was moving where had all been briefed to the press in advance. But there was not a hint of a reshuffle [here]. I started to get slightly worried.

I remember in Bute House during Alex Salmond's time there was a cook called Lizzie, and she used to cook for us on a Wednesday night when I was doing first minister’s questions preparation. She said to me, “I'm terribly sorry that I won't see you anymore.” I said, “Why? What has happened?” She said, “Oh, you don’t know. Nothing. Nothing.” And she went away. So then I phoned my wife at the time panicking that I was about to get sacked from my job as a PLO and not quite sure why I'd have to be brought to Bute House for that to happen and what I'd done. I was trying to wrack my brain for what I'd said in interviews. 

Then I was ushered into the drawing room where Alex Salmond was. At that point, the news started to break around a reshuffle. I remember he said to me, “I want you to join the government. I want you to be the minister for external affairs and international development. You'll be working under Fiona Hyslop, who will be your cabinet secretary [for culture and external affairs]. It's an important role because it is representing Scotland on the global stage and I can think of no better person to do that than you.” And then he took my hand in the very firm grip and said, “Welcome aboard. Scotland looks forward to your service,” in a rather dramatic fashion.

Then I left the drawing room and in the first minister’s private office area I got my photograph taken. The funny thing about the photographs, which became a bit of a viral meme, was that you have to do one smiley picture and one very serious picture. They’re right next to each other on the Flickr page. They look quite funny, because you've basically got pictures side by side of me doing this [Humza Yousaf makes smiling and serious faces]. It became a bit of a viral meme.

MM: As you mentioned, you were working with Fiona Hyslop as your corresponding cabinet secretary. What was your working relationship with her like? Did you have a clearly defined brief within the wider portfolio?

HY: Anybody who has ever worked with Fiona will know that she is absolutely all over the detail, but also likes to be very clear about who is doing what. I went to see her straight away and she had already printed off her responsibilities from the Scottish government's website and already highlighted the ones that she thought I should have and the ones that she would retain. She was very good to work with, not just because we had these defined areas of working, which were very helpful and actually just made life a lot easier. It was easy to know what Fiona was dealing with and leading on and where I was to concentrate my efforts.

She took her role and responsibility as a senior cabinet member – and therefore a kind of mentor to somebody like me – very, very seriously. She was always there and always available. So we had a really good working relationship. Despite what I say about the highlighter, she was never short in coming to me to say, “Look, there's something I think it would be good for you to do, which might not quite be in your area of responsibility, but I think would be really good for you to lead on.” Or equally, “I need you to cover for me and that will be good experience.” She was good at giving me more and more experience as a very junior minister entering government for the very first time.

MM: In 2014, Scotland held its independence referendum. What role did you play in preparing for a potential ‘Yes’ vote in your capacity as a minister?

HY: From a ministerial perspective, there was a lot of interest, as you can imagine, from the consulate corps and internationally more generally. Virtually every time I was travelling overseas – whether it was in Brussels or India or the Gulf – the issue was raised by those I was meeting on a regular basis. As you can imagine, there was a huge amount of global interest. So I was navigating that. I say ‘navigating’ that, because we wanted to make it clear that this was a legal process that was agreed between two governments and that ultimately whatever the result was it would be respected by both parties involved. That was a very important message globally. And then at home there was a huge amount of interest from the ambassadorial and consulate corps both in London and Edinburgh, so there were a fair number of conversations.

I was also involved in developing a number of chapters of the Scotland’s Future white paper. It was hundreds of pages long, but I was involved largely around the chapters to do with immigration, citizenship and overseas aid. Should Scotland become independent, then what would the overseas aid function look like? Fiona led more on the foreign policy chapter, but I was given the lead responsibility for citizenship, immigration and overseas aid.

MM: In 2016, you became minister for transport and the islands. In this post, you had to deal with issues relating to ScotRail. How challenging was that period for you personally and what led you to announce the plans to nationalise the franchise?

HY: If you don’t mind, can I just go backwards slightly? Only because it’s important to put on record. My junior ministerial position of minister for external affairs and international development had various different titles attached to it depending on who was the first minister and which reshuffles had taken place. At one point it was minister for Europe and international development. I only mention that because it was really important during the Brexit referendum which was taking place. I was also appointed by my party to lead the SNP's Remain campaign. You can imagine the interest there was in the work I was doing, given the fact that we had the Brexit referendum.

Of course, I took part in the aftermath of that, trying to navigate through the complexities of our relationship with Europe. Post-Brexit referendum, the role became one where I spent most of my time saying that Scotland did not want any part of Brexit, because we had obviously voted against it. It became a role where, on the one side, Europe and the EU were very favourable to what Scotland and the Scottish government were saying about how Brexit was a mistake and was going to be an unmitigated disaster. Then, of course, the UK government looked at us with extreme suspicion – even more so than they normally would – given that they were wanting to plough ahead with Brexit and we were seen as a destabilising force.

Your question was about being minister for transport and nationalising ScotRail. I will speak to you very frankly for the purpose of the transcript and the project you're doing. It was Nicola Sturgeon [first minister, 2014–23] who appointed me to that role. I remember her saying to me that she was humming and hawing a lot about whether or not to give me a cabinet position, but ultimately wanted to put me in the transport position because that is the portfolio, she said, that really tests a minister. It's one where you either sink or swim. There have been examples of both – Stewart Stevenson [minister for transport, infrastructure and climate change, 2007–10] effectively got sacked from the position and then on the other side we have people who progressed from being transport minister to cabinet like Derek Mackay [minister for transport and islands, 2014–16, and finance secretary, 2016–20]. So it was a test.

She said, “Look, I want to give you the job of minister for transport.” I had a fairly tricky reaction to that. It would be fair to say that there were maybe one or two expletives from my end. Not because the job was not one that was of huge interest. It absolutely was day-to-day. But I think anybody knows that the minister for transport job almost feels like one you will struggle to win. There will always be challenges in that job and there'll always be fires that you have to fight right across the transport system. I think also in a lot of our minds were the challenges that my colleague Stewart Stevenson had faced before. He effectively had to leave office because of his response – and perhaps an interview – to a really bad weather storm in the winter. That is how precarious the job of minister for transport can be. 

I went into it at a time when there were challenges for our transport network and our rail network in particular. The rail performance was not the way that it should be. I don't think it was nearly as bad as perhaps our opponents in some sections of the media were claiming, but that's their job. But it certainly wasn't where it needed to be and it wasn't meeting the high standards that we had. And all it takes in the minister for transport job, as I've already referenced with Stewart’s example, is one incident for things to – excuse the pun – become derailed. That's really what happened early on in my time as transport minister when a train managed to stall across the four rail lines at Haymarket (it may have been Waverley, certainly one of the Edinburgh train stations), effectively blocking any train from leaving or arriving into Haymarket at peak time midweek. You can imagine the chaos that caused in the morning. People were unceremoniously dumped off their trains and the weather was bitterly cold. You can imagine the reaction to that. I think an urgent statement was demanded from me. It almost felt like the pressure was on for me to get my hard hat on and go fix the train myself to get it moving.

That then added to the pressure that was being heaped upon ScotRail at the time. You can actually get real-time data that’s publicly available on rail performance. You can watch it and see it daily. Suddenly all of the journalists were looking at the PPM – the performance measure for the rail network – and any time it dipped questions were being asked. Demands for heads – primarily mine – to roll were being made. It was one of the most tricky and difficult times in my ministerial career. I'd never faced anything like that as minister for external affairs and international development. There had been challenges. There had been the odd storm in a teacup, but nothing like the intensity of the pressure that I was facing at that point.

For me, believing our rail network should be in public hands for me was also ideological. I believe in a rail network that works in the best service of people and that profits should be re-invested back into that transport network as opposed to going into the pockets of shareholders. For me, I never had any difficulties around the nationalisation of ScotRail, but there were obviously contractual issues that had to be looked at and worked through. We had a contract with Abellio [who operated the ScotRail franchise from 2015–22]. My relationship with Abellio was very important, both with their teams in Scotland and the UK but also the team in the Netherlands who I met when I was out there as well.

Akash Paun (AP): In 2018, you were appointed to cabinet for the first time as justice secretary. What did Nicola Sturgeon task you with in that post?

HY: Aside from first minister, the post of cabinet secretary for justice was probably the job that I enjoyed the most, but it came with huge, complex challenges. At the time, the first minister reminded me that prison populations were higher than they should be – and were projected over the coming months to go even higher – and that we had a good record to maintain around lower levels of crime and significant drops in violent crime and homicide. The other point that the first minister stressed to me was that we had a very good record of maintaining a healthy number of police officers. We had come into office with the promise of increasing police officer numbers by 1000 and had done that. At the time, we had recently given more flexibility to the chief constable and said, “We're not holding you to the 1000.” But we also didn’t want the numbers to drop too considerably because that would have given us a problem. There were challenges around how the police were resourced and obviously their funding. I would say the main challenge was around the prison estate. And then, of course, ensuring the safety of our citizens and also ensuring the justice system worked better for the victims of crime. So those were the main points. 

Entering cabinet was a huge moment for me, as was entering government. As you’ll be aware, I became the first person of colour and the first Muslim to be in cabinet in the devolution era. That was a huge moment. I remember there being real pride in the community. One of the very first people to congratulate me was Anas Sarwar, who is now leader of Scottish Labour although he wasn't leader at the time. He is from a different political tradition, but I felt it was very dignified of him to be one of the first people to come to me to say, “It's a really proud moment for us to see you in that in that position.”

AP: What was the approach you took to trying to reduce prison overcrowding?

HY: Let's first be clear that the cabinet itself had its differences on how to deal with that issue. Most of us believed that putting more money, resource, energy and effort into community sentencing and rehabilitation was the way forward. But there was a smaller group within cabinet who were perhaps more conservative with a small ‘c’ in relation to punitive policy than I would have expected. Those individuals were progressive on a whole host of other issues, but on issues of punishment and the prison system they were more slightly more conservative. So there was a bit of an internal discussion – and at times even an internal battle – that I had to have as cabinet secretary for justice to pursue the reforms that I wanted to pursue.

I brought forward measures such as the presumption against short sentences. This was not a ban, because we were very clear that we didn't want to tie the judiciary's hands entirely. That would be wrong to do, given the separation between the government and judiciary. But it was a demonstration and a signal to the judiciary that we didn't want people in prison for sentences of less than a year. It didn’t make sense from a punishment perspective. It certainly didn't make sense from a rehabilitation perspective at all. Short sentences of a year or less are seen to be completely ineffectual when it comes to rehabilitation. I also argued for and was successful in getting more funding for community sentences as well.

The other area I tried to focus on was how to create a group of peer mentors – ‘navigators’ as they were called. How to fund that project to try to make sure that people with experience of going through the prison system were supporting those in the revolving door of prison, often going through hospital and then back into prison... How to make sure that we were upscaling that project because it was clearly having success in the areas that it was in. There is a lot more I could say on this, but that is it in summary on prison reform.

AP: Not long before you took the post of justice secretary, several different police forces had been merged into the single national Police Scotland. Did you feel that was working well as an organisation? I know there’s debate about whether it was over-centralised and whether it had been an effective public service reorganisation. What was your experience?

HY: I was always a big fan of it. I thought it made absolute sense. That's not because I believe in centralisation full stop by any means. Not at all. In fact, one of the first things I did as justice secretary, was go to the first minister at the time and argue – and she accepted the argument – for not merging British Transport Police with Police Scotland. Although I could see the arguments for it and why the party was seeking to do it, it was riddled with complexity and difficulty that Police Scotland and British Transport Police just did not need. They were both working fine as separate entities and organisations. 

For me, I was a big believer in amalgamating the forces into Police Scotland and creating one overarching organisation. I thought it worked far better with that one central command. The police is such that it is a hierarchical organisation. Having eight chief constables was never a smart move. It’s much better to have a centralised command structure and the sharing and pooling of resources where we could. The efficacy of that was demonstrated by the savings that Police Scotland were able to make.

But also I just thought it made a lot of sense for the victims of crime. They should be treated in the same way with the same approach regardless of what division they were in. I always remember a quote from Rape Crisis Scotland – I’m paraphrasing here but effectively saying –that the approach to reporting and investigation of sexual crime felt much better under Police Scotland than it did under the different divisions and decentralised structure. To me, that was ultimately what the centralisation was about.

AP: In that post you also oversaw the introduction of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, which was quite controversial. What led you to the decision that Scotland needed stronger laws in this area – and looking back now, do you think the critics of your original proposals made any correct points? Is there anything you think you didn’t get quite right?

HY: For me, the hate crime bill was exceptionally important. We knew it would be controversial, of course. I think it's fair to say we didn't quite realise the level of controversy it would cause and largely I would say that was down to bad faith actors misinterpreting the legislation. Now that doesn't mean that government isn't at fault, and I wouldn't have been at fault for not explaining thoroughly what was in the legislation and what was not in the legislation. We've tried to do that for various different pieces of legislation that have been mired in controversy. I'm afraid that if you don't do it right from the start, then the narrative runs away from you and that's clearly what happened with the hate crime bill. But some of the outlandish and outrageous claims that were made about hate crime bill, of course, have never materialised. People are not being sent to jail for offending people or for naughty words or for jokes told at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.

None of that, of course, has materialised because the hate crime bill is doing exactly what we need it to do, which is making sure that those with protected characteristics are afforded the same protection as those of us who are protected because of race. Protection around stirring up offences in relation to racial hatred had already existed for a number of decades. Because of this bill, that has now been extended to a whole host of other protected characteristics. The threshold for criminality around stirring up offences was deliberately very, very high. There was also the introduction of additional aggravators and that was the less controversial part of the legislation. The controversial part was around stirring up offences.

I suppose – to answer the reflective part of your question – I think there were things the government could have done better for sure and things I could have done better without a shadow of a doubt. I think having much more clearly explained what the hate crime bill was going to do, and also what it wasn't going to do, in a much more simple, easily understandable fashion would have helped. It definitely wouldn't have stopped the bad faith actors, because we are living in a time, I'm afraid, where almost every issue is being sucked into a culture war. Freedom of speech is like a red rag to a bull when it comes to those who want to fight a culture war. The hate crime bill ended up with global interest. It was the first time I started to receive abuse and death threats from overseas. I’d had them domestically and abuse and racism and Islamophobia. Perhaps less so in terms of death threats and even rape threats towards my wife. But the hate crime bill just opened the door to some of the most bitter abuse that I’ve probably ever had in office and from across the world, I'm afraid to say. 

But ultimately, I chose to engage as much as I could. I deliberately engaged with almost every detractor of the bill that I possibly could. A lot of the time I was able to smooth over some of the difficulties and tensions that some of those organisations had voiced – I think in good faith. But also working cross-party and working closely with people like Professor Adam Tomkins [MSP for the Glasgow Region 2016–21 and convener of the Justice Committee 2020–21], who was the head of the committee that was scrutinising the bill of time and was one of the most sensible voices of the Conservative ranks. But it was a tricky time legislatively. 

I should have said it when you asked the question, but one of the key issues the first minister asked me to focus on was ensuring that victims felt the criminal justice system was working for them. There was a feeling – and I think this tends to be a case over time – that victims can feel like the justice system doesn't quite work for them and perhaps is more weighted towards those who offend. And I think the hate crime bill was really important to say to victims of hatred of any type that the law will protect you, that the law is there to stop you from being abused because of your sexuality, because of your disability, your colour, your religion and so on and so forth. It was a challenging bill for all the reasons I mentioned, but one that I'm very, very pleased that the parliament passed and ultimately that we saw through.

MM: Moving on to 2021, when you became health secretary whilst the pandemic was still ongoing. How did it feel to inherit responsibility for the NHS during a public health crisis?

HY: When I was appointed as health secretary, I started to wonder what I’d done to the first minister to annoy her so much! To have given me transport, justice and then health in the middle of a global pandemic. It became a running joke in the media, with commentary of “What has Humza done to piss Nicola Sturgeon off so much?” But I am assured by her to this very day that it was due to her trusting me as opposed to anything else. It was difficult. 

I had an inkling that I was going to be appointed health secretary probably a few days before the election took place in 2021. Obviously we knew that the first minister, who had just been re-elected, would be appointing her cabinet. I was fairly certain I would still remain in cabinet. I still had a good rapport with her, as well as a good reputation amongst my colleagues. But I got a very strange phone call from the then first minister's chief of staff effectively in a roundabout way asking whether I had private health insurance or not. The answer was no, I didn't. I said to her, “There's only one reason you’re asking me that and it is because you're wondering whether I could be health secretary or not.” And she went, “No, no, nothing is decided.” Liz Lloyd – who was then the chief of staff – is very good at holding her water and keeping many a secret, I’m sure. But at that point I did wonder whether she was meant to give the game away as much as she did. Anyway, that was a few days before I was appointed.

I was then appointed at Bute House. I was excited by the challenge. I knew it would be incredibly difficult. Everybody knows how difficult the job of health secretary is, and particularly still in the midst of the global pandemic. We were at the beginnings of the Delta wave at that point if I remember correctly. Of course, we had no idea that we were staring in the face of further variants to come, such as the Omicron variant that would emerge later that year. So I knew it would be hugely challenging and very difficult. But I suppose that given all the jobs that I had before, I was not a stranger to stress or day-to-day challenges. I remember Nicola Sturgeon – who was once a health secretary herself [2007–12] – saying to me, “It's a job that stays in your heart. It doesn't matter how long you have it for. It's one that stays right there.” She’s absolutely right. It is because of the incredible people that you get to meet that that are frankly knocking their pan [a Scots phrase meaning working very hard] day in and day out, going above and beyond. 

So it was not as big a surprise as perhaps it should have been due to Nicola’s chief of staff at the time, but it was certainly a massive honour. I remember telling my wife and her reaction perhaps betrayed a little bit more concern and worry about the stress of the job than I had let on at the time.

MM: Around this time, the SNP entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens. What impact did this have on your role and your priorities?

HY: It didn’t impact massively at all, actually. There was an area around health and we talked about gender healthcare for young people in particular – again a political hot potato, but more than it should be given it affects so few young people. I think anybody – regardless of which side of the debate you're on in relation to self-ID – should acknowledge that young people shouldn't have to wait as long as they do for appropriate healthcare. But that was basically it. That and the agreement to support Gillian Mackay’s members’ bill on abortion buffer zones, which was something that ideologically we were always going to do as a party and we were absolutely supportive of anyway.

I was a massive proponent and supporter of the Bute House Agreement, which might seem like a joke given that I ended it but I made that point at the time. I thought at the time it was serving an important purpose and it did serve an important purpose at that particular time. But it really didn't factor into my day-to-day thinking around the health service at all. I had a global pandemic and was desperate not to reintroduce any restrictive measures if we could avoid them. There were still some in place. And I was trying to just deal with whatever the virus had to throw us. As I say, there were more variants and more transmissible variants to come. Trying to recover the health service was a big enough job, let alone having to make sure that the agreement with the Greens was maintained. But as I say, there was not a huge amount for me to have to work through in the health space with the Greens at that point.

MM: Given that you were still navigating so much of the pandemic, do you think that detracted from your ability to do other things within the health brief that you would have wanted to do otherwise?

HY: I think that's a really fair question. I think with the health brief… It's not just health, it's health and social care. They are huge areas of not just government but of society that touch upon everybody's life. If you did not have a global pandemic, of course, there are other things that you'd be focused on. There's just no two ways about it or getting around it, because the global pandemic took up so much of my energy and effort. That wasn't just dealing with, for example, the immediate spike in cases that came with a new variant. It was the huge impact that the pandemic had already had and the cumulative impact it had on things like social care or, for example, hospital occupancy. We still are suffering from that challenge. Still to this day our A&E performance is nowhere near where any of us wants it to be. One of the biggest reasons – if not the biggest reason for that – currently is because we have delayed discharge at the back end of the exit door of the hospital and we have challenges at the front door. The impact of the pandemic on social care is still felt very much to this day. There's a significant amount of impact that the pandemic had at that point which is still being felt today.

That's quite a long answer to your very short question. The short answer is, of course, the pandemic took up virtually all of my time, and if the pandemic wasn't there, then of course I'd have been focused on perhaps looking at more systemic reform where we could.

AP: Specifically on those other potential reforms you could have been looking at, the SNP's had a long-time commitment to creating a national care service and there has been an ongoing debate about whether and how to make it a reality. What progress were you able to make towards that objective?

HY: Ultimately, I was at a place where the entire national care service was being threatened to be derailed. What has happened now [in September 2024, council leaders and unions withdrew support from the national care service proposals] was being threatened at my time. The local authorities were threatening to walk out the room. The trade unions were threatening to walk out the room. The only people that were looking to support the national care service should have been the government. But I was able to set up a national conversation and forums that would take place involving – I think importantly – the voices of those who receive care, but also bringing the trade unions and COSLA [Convention of Scottish Local Authorities] into the room. These were big forums with hundreds of people. And in the back channels, I was meeting regularly with senior management, particularly with COSLA and our trade unions, to see what compromises could be made within the legislation to make sure that they were on board for the national care service.

I thought that was always going to be tricky. Ultimately what we’re doing is looking to potentially take some power or even funding away from local authorities and try to have a national approach to our care service. It needs it. I mean everybody is in agreement that there is far too much of a lottery around care in the current framework. Not just in Scotland, it's mirrored in the rest of the UK too. So a lot of my time was spent keeping COSLA in the room and making compromises with the trade unions, which I thought were important and necessary. That allowed us to continue to publicly have the conversations as well, not just with those two bodies, but also, most importantly, with people with lived experience of care as well.

AP: In 2023, Nicola Sturgeon stepped down and you took over as SNP leader and first minister. You were described at the time in the media as the “continuity candidate”, at least compared to the two other contestants for the leadership. Is that how you saw yourself? What were the big changes you wanted to make when you became first minister?

HY: It's an interesting question. Firstly, when it comes to what you want to do as first minister, I didn't spend all of my ministerial career thinking about, “I want to be first minister one day and when I am first minister I'm going to do XYZ.” I dealt with the portfolio I had at that time and didn't think about, “Well one day I might be in the top job and therefore this is what I'll do the first hundred days.” 

Nicola resigned on Wednesday 15 February 2023. She let me know on Tuesday night, at quarter to ten at night. But she effectively resigned, or announced her intention to resign, on the 15th of February. And basically by Friday, maybe Saturday at a push, you really needed to make up your mind whether you were going to stand or not. You have two to three days to figure out whether you're going do it. Those two to three days are spent in a bunker with your loved ones – primarily for me my wife – figuring out whether this is something that we want to do, what are the pros and the cons, and taking advice from very trusted people in your life.

I suppose my point is that what you're not doing on those two to three days is writing up a manifesto of “this is what I'll do in my first hundred days” or first year or however long you might have in the job. Actually you begin to do that and draft that up as you're fighting the election contest. But that in itself is challenging because – by the way – you've got 19 hustings in the space of so many weeks, the televised debates and so on and so forth. So you're constantly on the go and on the move. But there is a piece of work that has to absolutely be done of: should I become first minister? And thinking about what my priorities are. I tried to make sure that I was very realistic in what I was offering, because I knew how difficult the financial position was for whoever would win that contest, and so it transpired.

In terms of your question about being a continuity candidate, I never viewed it as an insult even though it was meant to be that way. For me, I thought Nicola Sturgeon was the most successful leader that the SNP has ever had and one of the most successful politicians in Europe in terms of her election successes. To this day she is still loved by our membership and it is ultimately the SNP membership that votes for the next leader, so whatever anybody else thought about Nicola Sturgeon was irrelevant at that point. The fact that my opponents were calling me “continuity to Nicola” could only ever be seen as a good thing, so we totally embraced it – as opposed to trying to push against it – during the election contest. My chief rival in the contest – now the deputy first minister [Kate Forbes] – I think quickly tried to move away from that attack, because an attack on Nicola amongst our membership went down like a bucket of cold sick.

AP: Early on in your time as first minister, you requested a section 30 order from Westminster to enable a second independence referendum, which Rishi Sunak declined. What was the conversation like that you had with the prime minister? How much of a priority was it for you as first minister to try and push forward the case for independence?

HY: Well, look, you can't be leader of the SNP and not continue to try to advance the case of Scottish independence. There existed this impasse – and there continues to exist to this day an impasse – between the Scottish government and the UK government. It was the topic of conversation during our first telephone conversation. It was done, I think, on the day I was sworn in by parliament before I was even sworn in by the Court of Session, but I’d need to check my dates. 

The conversation that took place was a telephone conversation, and I referenced the fact that I'd be asking for another section 30 order and the prime minister made it pretty clear that he’d not be granting that section 30 order. I said to him and gave him all the reasons for the arguments and told him that we will continue to pile on the public and political pressure. The majority of the Scottish parliament and the mandate that we have are undeniable. Rishi Sunak was not one for hanging on the phone for longer than then he had to with the Scottish government. He made it pretty clear that if it was a subject I wanted to return to then we'd have the agenda and future meetings. But he wasn't changing his position and I obviously wasn't going to change mine, so we were at an impasse and – as I say – that impasse continues to this very day.

MM: In terms of your approach to leadership, were there any lessons you learned from watching Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in the role of first minister?

HY: I think Alex and Nicola were both incredible with people. Maybe it seems like stating the obvious, but if I did compare them to the likes of Theresa May, Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss… Boris Johnson is different – I politically disagree with him but he’s an engaging individual. But compared to a number of other political leaders, they (Alex and Nicola) had the real human touch. They were exceptional with people and had a very high level of emotional intelligence. Being able to work alongside them for all of my political life and learn from them was incredible. It definitely shaped my approach to how I dealt with people. 

Look, each of them is different. I wasn't consciously looking back and thinking, “Well, what can I learn from Alex and Nicola on this issue?” I knew that Nicola’s relationship with Alex was strained – I'm afraid to say – towards the end of his life. With Nicola, the relationship was still there, but I think she deliberately wanted to keep a distance, and I think that was wise given the police investigation which had started 10 odd days into my time as first minister. So, I didn't feel like I had Nicola to hand if I needed advice from a former first minister. And, as I say, the relationship with Alex was already a bit strained.

You've got to make the role your own and I think you’ve got to use the unique skills that you've got. I've got many weakness – I'm certain of that – and flaws. But also I knew where my strengths were around connecting with people and around the ideological underpinnings I had. I was unashamedly progressive, not just on the issues of identity which often dominated – sometimes much to my frustration – but also around fiscal policy and the economy and making sure that it was clear that I believed that we needed greater redistribution of wealth in our system. One of the things that I did as first minister was introduce an additional tax band. No apologies for doing so.

I think with leadership you absolutely learn from not just people like Alex and Nicola. The other person I learned a great deal from was the late Bashir Ahmad, who I worked for when he was an MSP [2007–09] for only a couple of years before he passed, but who was somebody I knew as a family-friend for my whole life. So you learn from people all the time. I have a great amount of respect and admiration for people in politics that are from different political parties too. Some of them I speak to to this day and some sadly have passed on. But you have got to make the role your own.

AP: In April 2024, you announced the decision to change some of the climate change targets, which led to disagreement with the Scottish Greens and then to your decision to dissolve the power-sharing agreement with them. Can you talk us through that period and how you eventually took the decision to terminate the Bute House Agreement?

HY: I’ll save the play-by-play account for my memoirs, I’m sure! [Humza Yousaf laughs] I’m being flippant! To give you the overview, the Bute House Agreement was coming under considerable strain, so my challenge and difficulty was that I didn't only have external opponents, I had internal opponents too. I had those who had never accepted my victory in the leadership contest and – although they were only a small group – when you are technically a minority party within the parliament, small groups of people who are malcontent can still make your life really difficult. They were, I think, feeling more empowered as opposed to less empowered and the Bute House Agreement was coming under attack left, right and centre. And I mean that from the political left, from the political centre and the political right, as well as society more generally.

There came a really difficult interview – which essentially became the straw that broke the camel's back – that Patrick Harvie [Scottish Greens co-leader and then minister] did on The Sunday Show around the Cass Review [of gender identity services] – already a politically sensitive, hot potato subject full of toxicity. Patrick Harvie didn't take the collective responsibility line that the Cass Review was a scientific document and should be given thorough consideration. In a very difficult interview, I think he was asked four or five times, “Do you believe it to be a scientific document?” and he evaded the question. 

My phone was burning hot from people who were absolute supporters of the Bute House Agreement in the past, who I would describe as moderates and sensible – some even were architects of the Bute House Agreement – phoning me to say that, “We've got to get out of this agreement, and certainly before the Greens dump us.” That was all the intelligence we were getting. We were getting intelligence saying that the Greens’ membership were going to roundly reject the Bute House Agreement. Patrick and Lorna [Slater, Scottish Greens co-leader and then minister for green skills, circular economy and biodiversity] will disagree with that and do very publicly, but certainly all of the intelligence from other Green members was that this was going to be dumped by the Greens.

So I had a decision to make about whether to continue. We were coming towards first minister’s questions [FMQs], when undoubtedly that dreadful interview that I mentioned was going to be raised. Do I take the initiative and end the Bute House Agreement myself, or do we wait to get dumped by our junior partner? Ultimately I took the decision to do it, and my real regret is not taking more time over that decision. I made my mind up on the Tuesday night that week that I was going to end the Bute House Agreement and did so on the Thursday morning. I wish I'd taken more time to speak it through and come to some kind of almost mutual agreement with Patrick and Lorna, which probably wasn't possible. But at least if I'd taken some more time and had some more conversation, it might have softened the blow somewhat. 

Ultimately, it may not have changed the outcome. I don't think it would have from conversations that I have had with others. They may still have said, “Well, it's your choice to end it. You can take a week over it. You can take 10 days over it. You can explain the logic to us all you want, but ultimately it's your decision to end it. And if you're going to end it, then we don’t have any trust in your leadership as first minister and we're going to vote against you in a vote of no confidence.” Ultimately, it may have made no difference whatsoever, but I made that decision. Of course, with advisors and advice that was given, but it was my judgement to execute. Nobody else executed it.

It became pretty clear within hours after FMQs that the Greens were going to vote with the Conservatives and the opposition against my leadership as first minister. And so there commenced a frantic few days and ultimately me coming to the conclusion on Saturday night that I would resign on Monday. I met with my advisors on the Sunday to make that clear.

AP: What advice would you give to ministers coming into office for the first time about how to be effective in their role?

HY: I have been lucky enough – honoured enough in fact – to be a government minister in various different roles over 12 years. Although I’m in the backbenches now, lots of advice was given to me as a government minister over those years by lots of different people. If I could share a few bits of advice that were given to me that still stick with me to this very day…

The first bit of advice I was given by a very senior civil servant when I first came into government, within the first 24 hours – in fact probably within the first few hours. It was “Take some time to think about the two, three or four really big, transformative policy changes that you want to make within your portfolio.” There will be lots of other things that you will do that will be smaller but still impactful, but what are those three to four really big changes that you want to make? Be guided by those changes. Those changes should always be rooted in your values and always be something that truly believe in, because that way you will put your effort and endeavour towards them.

Another bit of advice that I was given that I still think is good, whether you’re a minister or not, is have good and proper work-life balance. That can be difficult, especially when you first get appointed as a minister. You want to spend all your time – every minute of every day, every hour of every day – throwing yourself into your portfolio. But being a workaholic – being an anything-aholic frankly – is not a good trait, because, doing that, you sacrifice time not just in your constituency but with your friends and your family and that is what keeps a person grounded. Not having that appropriate balance doesn’t make you a very good minister at all. I learned that the really hard way with the stress of the job, feeling that pressure and feeling that stress and not being able to cope with it, because I didn’t have that adequate support around me. So definitely have a good work-life balance where you can.

I suppose third of all some advice, which again may sound obvious but I think is really important, is: own mistakes. We all make them. Trust me, I know that, having been in government, as I say, for almost 12 years. It is always the cover-up that is worse than the conspiracy. You are far better, if a mistake is made, being up-front about it, being open about it, and being honest about it. And, for the most part, believe it or not, your opponents – be they in the political benches or in the media – will be far more forgiving of you than you might well expect.