I pored over John Swinney's strategy – here's what we must do now

Swinney started with a declaration of intent: “Scotland’s interests are best served only when ­Scotland’s future is in Scotland’s hands. Our nation will only fully flourish when the people of Scotland are in charge of our own destiny with independence.”

He then went on to make his own personal case, arguing that he had “steadied the ship”, and that he had been able to “restore the credibility of my party and my Government so that we could make – and ­importantly win – the argument for Scottish ­independence”.

Looking at the polls, this is largely true, and ­Swinney is right to make the claim that under his leadership the SNP, over the past 12 months, have won 13 local government by-elections – a big shift after a 20-month period without a single victory.

However, the irony is that they have achieved this by attempting to tackle the cost of living crisis, rather than focusing on independence.

Swinney is right to assert the claim that: “We ­restored Winter Fuel Payments for Scotland’s ­pensioners when Labour chose to scrap them. We are taking bold action on child poverty by lifting the cruel two-child cap that pushes thousands of children into poverty – a decision which been welcomed by every anti-poverty charity in the country and which Labour, to their shame, have failed to take at a UK level.”

But on other matters, the SNP’s claims to be ­“tackling the cost of living crisis” seem a lot weaker.

For example, Swinney claims that: “We are offering solutions to the ongoing cost of living crisis – with new policies such as the removal of peak fares on our railways. Our cost of living guarantee ­delivers ­savings for Scots that aren’t available elsewhere. From council tax that is 30% lower than in England, or water bills 20% lower, or no charges for essentials like prescriptions.”

But the big-ticket items, like housing and energy bills, are absent, and only this month the SNP missed a huge opportunity to back zonal energy pricing. The SNP’s housing policy has made no dent in the massive urban and rural housing crisis.

Swinney has steadied the ship but it is still ­taking water, and the sextant, compass and maps are all gone.

But the point of all of this is to manage a range of constituencies, tribes and demographics, to ­ensure electoral survival and persuade people that, ­somehow, the SNP are still the only show in town and the best vehicle to achieve independence, and/or ­govern a pre-independent Scotland more ­competently than anyone else. In some ways, this is an impossible task. In other ways, this is a low bar.

On the one hand, Swinney needs to manage this transition while operating within the fiscal restraints of ­devolution, with an overwhelmingly hostile media around him and with severe and v­ocal dissent from within the nationalist ­movement.

This makes the task one that is just ­immersed in hostility and negativity.

On the other hand, he is faced with opponents and opposition so abject and hopeless that it makes the SNP rise, ­Lazarus-like, over and over.

Swinney has a dual task: to speak to those who want (and need) good ­governance and those who want ­movement-building. He is far better at the first than the second.

His strategy, such as it is, is broadly to (re) build trust, then build an ­unstoppable coalition amid the rubble and decay of the debris of Late Britain for an independent Scotland. I would like to take this ­opportunity to examine this approach and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

Building a Coalition for Yes

TO his credit, Swinney shows some humility saying: “Our renewed unity and sense of purpose is clear for all to see, and that too is giving people confidence once again in the [[SNP]], as the leading advocates of Scottish independence. Some good and necessary first steps have been taken, but they have only brought us to the starting line.”

Rather grandly, he writes: “We are on the precipice of a new global age and that demands a bold new path for Scotland.” I don’t really know what that actually means?

Speaking to the opposition, he writes: “Others speak glibly of a new direction or for the need for reform, but the change Scotland needs is more fundamental”, ­before declaring: “To meet the challenges of this new age, we need a Scotland that is reborn.”

We do.

He continues to lay out his case, ­arguing: “Last time, many people gave the UK the benefit of the doubt, many believing that an incoming Labour ­government might put things right. But an incoming Labour government has only made things worse.

“The evidence is staring us in the face: Westminster is not working for Scotland. Life is just too difficult for too many and the UK is incapable of providing the ­required, essential boost to living ­standards.”

This is self-evident, though worth re-stating, but this is where the cracks in the argument begin to emerge.

At no point in this new declaration do the SNP show the intent, the ­resolve or the track record to offer a ­genuinely radical economic alternative to the ­neoliberalism of Labour/Conservative rule. What they have shown is some ­ameliorative polices to try to counter the most regressive impact of being in the Union. But that’s not enough.

Without many specifics, Swinney ­argues: “It’s therefore time for the people of ­Scotland to take our future into our own hands, so that we can ensure our vast ­energy wealth delivers tangible benefits for our people, including lower household energy bills and a more competitive business environment. So that we can create a dynamic, internationally ­connected economy, ensuring opportunities for all in an economy that works for all.”

This is, in the words of Jonathon Shafi, “Word Soup”.

Having set out his stall, the First ­Minister then attempts to lay out his ­pathway to independence.

He says: “We have to challenge the democratic outrage that Westminster – right now – refuses to acknowledge Scotland’s right to determine her own future.

“We demonstrated in 2014 that an agreed democratic referendum is the correct means to bring about that ­independence. And have no doubt, such a democratic, constitutional ­approach is necessary if our independence is to achieve domestic and international ­legitimacy. Something that is ­essential if we are to receive international ­recognition and a smooth return to ­membership of the EU.”

These words, this plan, are the dividing line between those in the Yes movement, who want a new plan, a new direction, and Swinney’s calculation that this is the route to take the majority of Scotland with him.

The Plan

SWINNEY lays out his ideas very clearly, saying: “First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland.

“I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become ­independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today.

“They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn’t deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it.

“But I will also be urging people who were not persuaded of the merits of ­independence in 2014 to see the state of Britain today and take a different view.”

This is all good and shouldn’t be ­disputed by anybody. Who doesn’t want to build mass support for ­independence? The problem, as we’ll go on to in a ­moment, is the lack of detail, ideas or strategy on how to make that happen and to navigate the many contradictions and challenges that it entails.

He continues: “Second, that means building public pressure around Scotland’s fundamental national rights. The UK parties speak of a partnership of equals, but those are empty words if Scotland does not have the ability to determine her own future.

“We are ready to turn the heat up on Westminster and its anti-democratic stance, mobilising the support, energy and the impetus of people in Scotland behind the simple idea: no ifs, no buts, Scotland has the right to choose.”

This is good, and he’s quite right to lay out the basic anti-democratic nature of the British state’s “offering” to Scotland. But again, the problem is the lack of ­detail, ideas or strategy. There may be more to come but if there was, why not lay it out here?

Finally , the First Minister concludes: “And third, I want to persuade independence supporters that the way to deliver independence is only with an emphatic SNP win in 2026 and the priority is to do that now. History tells us that only when the SNP are doing well is there any prospect of advancing on Scotland’s constitutional cause.

“During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.

“It’s time for the one change that will actually make a difference for Scotland, for the fresh start our nation needs so badly. It’s time for Scotland to craft her destiny by ensuring Scotland’s future is in the hands of the people of Scotland.”

To be fair, framing the SNP as a “fresh start” after 18 years in power is pretty gallus, but there is something among all of this which shines out, and which could be the centrepoint of a more dynamic strategy.

Future Focused

MUCH of the dismay about being trapped within the Union is the ­overwhelming sense of decay and decline that pervades late Britain.

If this feeling reached its apogee at the death of the monarch, it can be seen daily in the appointment of ­ridiculous people to the House of Lords, the ­overarching power of the government within ­[[Westminster]] (as witnessed by the actions of Keir Starmer’s whips’ office against his own party last week) or the immersive deference inculcated by being subjects of a monarch in the 21st century.

The feeling of being trapped in an ­ancient regime that is unreformable and corrupt at its core is overwhelming and debilitating.

Beyond this fusion of ­cronyism and ­decay, though, is the reality of ­collapsing living standards, grotesque social ­inequality and elite grandeur. The ­response is a populist movement of the far-right that eulogises a mythical past.

In among the platitudes and the ­normcore of Swinney’s “plan”, there is an opportunity to really contrast this backward-looking Ruritania, this Britain of fossils and past-glories and relics of Empire.

Countless commentators have ­remarked on how difficult it has become for anyone to “imagine a better future” in timelines that seem dark and economic systems that seem all-pervasive.

There is a glaring opportunity for the case to be made for a new Scotland to ­really address the multiple problems ­facing not just young people but future generations – and for this case to be made by framing Scottish independence as a future-facing project in stark contrast to broken Britain.

What would that look like? It would mean really taking on the multiple ­problems faced by younger (and future) generations, which have been a dark inheritance passed on to them. A ­mammoth, impossible task? Yes, but one worth trying.

Where to start? I would start with the crisis of affordable housing which is life-altering for millions of people.

I would face the existential crisis of climate breakdown and create deep and radical action plans that would give hope and meaning for a liveable future.

I would create the outline of what an “ethical foreign policy” (to use Robin Cook’s words) would look like for a ­future Scotland.

I would begin to meaningfully address the crisis of social alienation and the epidemic of loneliness and mental health that has spooled out of lockdown, late capitalist anomie and digital culture, and particularly affects younger people.

If these seem ridiculous, impossible or utopian ideas, that’s OK. In such dark times, we need to imagine a better ­future beyond the confines of today. As the ­political philosopher Murray Bookchin said: “The assumption that what ­currently exists must necessarily ­exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.”

Framing an independent Scotland as a project for future generations would be a reset for the entire independence movement, and would require a complete overhaul of thinking. But somehow, somewhat improbably, Swinney has stumbled on an idea: "During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one ­million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.”

This has two consequences. First, we begin to sweep aside the fragile excuse that the Unionist community has hidden behind for repressing basic democracy in holding up the phrase “for a generation” and assert that that time has passed.

Second, we go to, engage with and ­inspire the generation that are now ­eligible to vote, and who are ­overwhelmingly pro-independence.

To do this properly, and to begin to ­explore the generational issues I touched on, would require a break from 2014 and an effort to re-imagine the case for ­independence in a much more expansive timeframe.

This wouldn’t be another “campaign” with slogans and attack lines, it wouldn’t be a politics of resentment, it would be a politics of imagination and possibility.

That Britain is in a morbid state is plain for anyone to see, but that must be ­contrasted with a movement that ­offers not just a constitutional off-ramp but an alternative to the politics of fear and ­resentment that activates the populist right. In this sense, we need to rethink the case for independence and recast it entirely.

In the words of Marshall ­McLuhan: “Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.”

Remaining in this Union means ­being engaged in the “slow cancellation of the future”. For Scotland to be ­“reborn” ­demands that we step out of that ­paradigm and away from the ­hyper-nostalgia and denialism that characterises the most ­regressive elements of British and American nationalism.