This isn't complete as is the main body text and any links (I wasn't sure how I could format photos into a post on here) but -
This deserves some dissecting, as the degree of chutzpah going on here may well be missed by those who have not been following Mr Cole-Hamilton's behaviour closely in recent years. Longjust for all the evidence, but feel free to skip straight to the last tweet for the point.
Mr Cole-Hamilton high-mindedly asserts that "it's time to put the national interest first" and call an election. But what, Alex, has happened that means such a possibility has suddenly opened up? It is - of course - that the coalition has fallen apart. How so?
It's in no small part because of the Greens' reaction to a report into how the NHS should deal with children and young people experiencing distress or discomfort in relation to being male or female (the Cass Report). Why did that report happen?
It happened because the UK government commissioned it, after clinicians, parents and a broader group of women campaigners worked for years to ring alarm bells about what was happening to these children and young people. How has Mr Cole-Hamilton used his voice in Holyrood here?
On 23 April, he asked a reasonable question about how the NHS in Scotland can help improve the evidence base here. But he has not always been so measured in his engagement on this topic.
Discussing SG's decision not to appeal the ruling on the s35 order on the GRR Bill, on 20/12/23, he spoke of "trauma in the legal architecture". His request for meaningful action on "ready access to trans-inclusive healthcare" made no reference to Cass's interim words of caution.
In a speech at a demo against the Section 35 Order in Edinburgh on 19/1/23, he described the debate at Stage 3 on the Bill - where the bill's supporters had to listen to criticism of it before successfully voting it through - as "really dark hours...really dark times".
Other aspects of his judgement in that speech have attracted some comment.
www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-lib-dem-leader-told-29153124
When the Bill was passed, Cole-Hamilton - this week an advocate of "compromise" and "building consensus" - was one of the first up, with the Greens, to applaud the gallery. It doesn't take much political nous to notice the triumphalism in that gesture.
There were women in tears behind me at that point. There had been interruptions earlier from women in the public gallery. I can't believe any MSP who stood to applaud did so without knowing he was "sending a message" more than one way. Here's his 22/12/22 stage 3 speech in full.
He had brushed aside any possible link between the state telling a 16-year-old they are the opposite sex and the issues raised by Prof. Cass.
And talked about "heat and hate".
His intervention during the debate on amendments two days earlier was to argue for allowing a self-ID in law from 16.
At stage 1, on 27/10/22, he suggested the debate had been "hijacked by those who would question the very existence of the trans community, or who fear and vilify its members and would seek to prevent their access to equal rights."
He was wholly dismissive of potential interactions with the Equality Act, that the court later found it was reasonable to worry about.
On 14/12/22, he had supported the SG in resisting any link between the Inner House judgment in the FWS case and the bill: "The conflation of the issue of women’s safety and the provisions of the bill is sad, worrying and, at times, unhelpful."
Throughout the Bill process, Cole-Hamilton dismissed and, at his worst, cast dark aspersions about critics of the Bill. He was one of the leading non-government MSPs who helped create a climate in which they - we - were written off as hateful and/or foolish.
Neither the court judgment over s35 nor the Cass Report have elicited any hint of regret or reflection at any of his past statements.
There's a further thread that could be written about his rhetorical choices during earlier discussions at Holyrood over, eg, hate crime. Meantime, this one I'm writing for a specific purpose:
Mr Cole-Hamilton only has a sniff at an election because of the tenacity of people he has repeatedly, actively sought to (put most kindly) side-line and dismiss. If he does not, for whatever reason, get the election he wants, he should watch how high his horse gets.
Footnote: when MSPs voted on 16/4/24 for SG to make a statement on the Cass Report, three of the four LDs voted in favour of that (a welcome change from the party's past voting here). Mr Cole-Hamilton, however, did not vote.