SNP must separate their governing role and the pursuit of indy

Headlines in media coverage of the big stories post-conference showed a party unsure of how to respond to the new Westminster’s predictable volte face on austerity. We have, as Anas Sarwar urged us to do, read the lips of the new Prime Minister and have learned little other than that the situation is more dire than we could have imagined and the only solution is more spending cuts. Surprise, surprise!

The only new element in Labour’s approach is a determination to make sure all elements of the UK take what they consider to be a “fair share” of the misery. And by “fair” I mean Labour’s definition of fair, which seems in involves Scotland more of the misery than, for example, Wales.

It’s been obvious for months that Keir Starmer resents the Scottish Government’s limited attempts to mitigate his attempts to move universal benefits such as free tuition fees and free prescriptions to a means-tested model. Now he’s determined to block that mitigation.

READ MORE: Crown Office handed report on SNP Branchform investigation

John Swinney has no option other than to bow to the cuts. The Scottish Government has a legal responsibility to balance the books and has done so since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999.

Its only wriggle room is deciding where the financial axe must fall. Its role is thus reduced to acting as the fall guy for decisions taken elsewhere. As a result, we’ll see more of reversals like Wednesday’s backpedalling on the promise of free school meals for all primary pupils.

It’s important that the SNP articulate a proper, unified and consistent response to the position they have been forced into accepting. Instead, we have the First Minister’s “optimism” that his government can still have an impact on child poverty despite the £500 million worth of cuts the devolution settlement will force it to inflict.

Yet, at the same time, Finance Secretary Shona Robison concentrated on the “profound effect” on the Scottish Government’s ability to deliver services. This is not evidence of a co-ordinated message.

There were similar misfires throughout the SNP conference. Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s plea for “brutal honesty” in the party’s response to the election result encompassed a vague encouragement to “re-root ourselves in the priorities of the Scottish people” without spelling out what those priorities are or what SNP policies he believes do NOT reflect those priorities. Excluding those key details is the equivalent of talking in code.

I know what policies I believe in – redistribution of wealth, a welcoming approach to immigration, acceptance and support for LGBT+ communities for starters – but I don’t know if these are what Stephen Flynn is referring to or if they are the “priorities of the Scottish people”.

I do know that if they’re not, they should be. Sometimes it’s up to political parties to show leadership rather than just parrot whatever vague cliches they believe the public want to hear.

Similarly, I could have done without Kate Forbes’s (below) dire warning that “people” could move out of Scotland if the Scottish Government rises taxes again. We have heard many such warnings over the years from those who care more about the “bottom line” than whether people can afford to eat at the same time as heating their homes. Mainly, these tired arguments are used by opponents of Scotland having control over its own finances. I don’t need to hear them from SNP ministers.

(Image: PA)

The SNP have always been that broad church where those of different political persuasions can join together to support the common cause of independence. But there is only so far that glue can stretch. It’s all very well to argue for shared values but during turbulent times like these there’s surely a responsibility to define what those values are, or should be.

A lot of tired old arguments were dusted down at the conference, including suggestions that the SNP need to focus more on the “why” of independence rather than the “how”.

There’s no doubt that inspiring, creative ideas about the opportunities independence offers have more appeal than dry lectures on constitutional arrangements and the minutiae of referendums.

However, it’s also true that this argument lets the SNP off the hook when it comes to planning the delivery of independence. And when there is no coherent plan for that delivery, people can’t see the point of campaigning for it with no clear end in sight. The SNP have much to contend with and tread a difficult line during their current bout of self-analysis. Listen to those advocates of “brutal honesty” and open the door to pro-Union critics who will seize upon the self-flagellation as evidence that their attack on SNP policies was right all along – or stick to their guns on the principles which have guided their decisions and be derided as arrogantly ignoring the “priorities of the Scottish people”. You can’t please everyone.

READ MORE: Douglas Ross torn down in free school meals row as SNP blame 'austerity agenda'

I’ve argued before that it is impossible for the Scottish Government to properly deal with the challenges of running the country at the same time as leading the campaign for independence with the required imagination and passion.

The last attempt to combine these two missions ended badly. The role of independence minister created by Humza Yousaf (below) was a well-intentioned attempt to square the circle. The idea seemed to be to free a prominent member of the Government from departmental duties to concentrate on articulating and campaigning for the benefits independence would bring. It failed.

In the reality, the role seemed to be reduced to continuing to bring out a string of independence policy papers with less and less impactful results. The role was abolished after Yousaf’s departure and the sad truth is that it is not missed.

This is doubly frustrating when you consider that there are elements of the Yes movement working tirelessly and creatively on behalf of independence, but their efforts are not harnessed to any effect by Scotland’s largest pro-independence party.

The financial challenges being imposed by the Starmer government are so demanding that no improvement is likely in the foreseeable future. These are not just financial – although the spending cuts are serious – but also political.

The whole concept of devolution is under attack, as if we have somehow “gone too far”. The notion of a Scottish Government acting in accordance with the specific needs north of the Border are regarded as an expensive, unnecessary luxury by a Labour government unimpressed with its value.

Of course, the Scottish Government should be inspired by and driven by the benefits independence will bring in every aspect of its policy-making, but it’s simply too busy to mastermind the independence campaign as well as meeting the new demands posed by Starmer’s Government and, on top of that, running a good number of Scottish local councils.

(Image: NQ)

It also has to properly analyse the message of the Westminster election and use it to prepare an effective campaign for the Holyrood election in 2016. With all that it’s hardly surprising that independence supporters feel frustrated when governmental demands continually drag politicians’ attention away from what most members see as their top priority.

It’s time to grasp the thistle and come up with a better way to pursue independence. Humza Yousaf was right to believe someone other than the First Minister had to devote all their time and energy to independence. The fact that the role of minister for independence was a failure does not mean the idea was wrong.

In his early days as first minister Yousaf described himself as “first activist”, a nod to the dual roles of the post which no-one has properly been able to combine.

READ MORE: Scottish Greens cast doubt on whether they will support SNP Budget

A combination of internal wrangles and duff advice spelt the end for his time as first minister but isn’t it time that someone like him, someone with the skills and passion of an inspiring campaigner, was charged with re-energising and refocusing the independence campaign while the government is otherwise engaged?

Otherwise, the tension between the two roles could tear the party apart.