SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has announced he intends to stand at the 2026 Holyrood election – but has brushed off speculation it’s a move to take over from John Swinney.
Mr Flynn, 36, was re-elected as the MP for Aberdeen South in July’s general election and has now submitted an application to seek his party’s nomination for the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine seat to become an MSP.
If successful, Mr Flynn said he would remain an MP until the next Westminster election but would not draw two salaries.
Writing in the Press and Journal newspaper, Mr Flynn said he was throwing his “bonnet in the ring”.
He added: “I don’t want to sit out the upcoming battles that our city, shire and country face in Holyrood.
“From funding the energy transition to funding childcare, from free higher education to higher household bills, from GP appointments to GDP growth, the debates will be many and varied.
“In my mind, it is clear that we are at a crucial junction in our nation’s story.”
More on Aberdeen
Related Topics:
He also said he hoped to help his party “build the case for independence”.
Image: SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn. Pic: PA
Mr Flynn has often been touted as a potential future party leader.
Advertisement
He did not run in this year’s SNP leadership race to replace Humza Yousaf and instead threw his backing behind eventual winner Mr Swinney.
As Mr Flynn is not an MSP, it would have been difficult to become first minister at Holyrood.
However, the potential move to the Scottish parliament would put him on the right track towards Scotland’s top job.
When asked by the Press and Journal about his leadership hopes, Mr Flynn said: “I don’t think the SNP is going to have a leadership contest for very many years.
“I’m fully confident in the manner in which John Swinney is rebuilding the party and refocusing government.
“I appreciate the desire that many people have to speculate in and around what my ambitions are or aren’t.
“Of course I want to do everything I possibly can to help my party and help my country and that will never change.”
Image: Pic: PA
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The deadline for applications to be considered for selection as an SNP candidate for the next Scottish parliament election closed on Monday, but the formal selection process will not begin until next year.
Mr Flynn said it “didn’t fill him with any great delight” to go up against sitting MSP Audrey Nicoll for selection to the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency.
When contacted by Sky News, Ms Nicoll said: “As a constituency MSP, my focus will remain to work tirelessly for constituents regardless of any internal party selection processes.
“I look forward to any contest, where of course it will be for branch members to select those they wish to represent them in Holyrood in the 2026 Scottish parliament elections.”
Ahead of the 2021 Scottish election, the SNP changed internal rules to require MPs to resign their seat at Westminster to fight for selection to Holyrood.
This led to then MP Joanna Cherry to pull out of the selection contest for the Edinburgh Central seat, and at the time she said the rule change “hobbled” her in her Holyrood selection bid.
Mr Flynn said he believed party rules were “election-specific”.
Ms Cherry, who lost her Westminster seat in July, wished Mr Flynn well but said the SNP rule against dual mandates was “person specific”.
Posting on X, she added: “It served its purpose and I predict it will be removed.”
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
In his column, Mr Flynn said he would have to “box smarter and work even harder” as he pointed to examples of SNP politicians who have held seats in both parliaments before, citing Mr Swinney and the late former first minister Alex Salmond.
He added: “I’m positive about the prospect of walking the path they previously trod.”
Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.