NATIONAL readers will remember where they were on September 18, 2014. But 10 years on? Is Wednesday a day to celebrate or mourn? Are programmes pondering the post-indyref decade as something to aim for or avoid?
Opinion is divided.
Many Yessers will be at the Scottish Parliament on the 18th for a rally organised by Believe in Scotland. It’ll be a politician-free event like other gatherings in Dumfries, Orkney and Aberdeen and the special “politician-free” commemorative book produced by this paper.
Has the movement become a politician-free zone?
Some ex-SNP MPs did speak at an event yesterday in the Glasgow Science Centre organised by Alex Salmond and former SNP and Alba MPs spoke at another conference by the left-leaning pressure group Conter.
What’s hard to find is any public event organised by the SNP for the Yes-voting masses.
So, on September 18, what will they be doing?
It was the first question I asked SNP leader and First Minister John Swinney in our interview at Dundee’s V&A design museum.
“Lots of campaigning this weekend and an event on Wednesday that will set out our optimistic case for independence.”
Not exactly answering the question.
But maybe not entirely Swinney’s fault.
By event, I meant something that raises the pulse, held in the public domain that all independence supporters might attend.
By event, he meant a speech and debate in Holyrood.
A small point, but maybe also a telling difference of terminology and meaning.
Is the SNP raising the pulse outside the Holyrood chamber?
Mebbes aye, mebbes naw.
The SNP indeed hijacked the very word Yes for branding but their celebratory instincts are exclusive, formal, parliamentary and non-participative.
A bit like the leadership’s own relationship with members, voters, supporters and even its MPs and MSPs.
And very like the yes.scot website – relaunched last December with just one new post since. I mention that.
“I’ll fix it.”
“Fine, but it makes yes.scot look like a front, just a tick-box exercise for the SNP.”
“I’ll fix that.”
And if Swinney’s steely look is anything to go by, he probably will.
But the bigger problem of disconnection between party, members and movement remains. It feels like the SNP’s efforts around the 10th anniversary are muted and performative. Something Swinney disputes:
“The party needs to leave space for the movement and not crowd things out with our own events.”
Hmm.
We talk a bit about campaigns and that terminology mismatch pops up again.
My idea of a campaign involves music, film, public events and canny, strategic messages driven home on 48 sheet billboards, TV and radio. Though sadly not the “new platform” announced by Keith Brown last year – a humble podcast that rapidly bit the dust.
My idea of a campaign would focus on the theft of Scotland’s renewable energy resources while many citizens are mired in Europe’s worst fuel poverty. Something like the campaign suggested by Graeme McCormick who wants a team of lawyers hired “to go over legislation like a rash and find loopholes that test Scotland’s unfair [higher energy] charges in the courts”.
Yip, that’s my idea of a campaign, with local meetings highlighting energy theft and young filmmakers getting hired by the SNP to illustrate and humanise it.
Something targeted, newsworthy, risky, non-parliamentary and likely to get talked about.
Swinney’s idea of a campaign is rather more parliamentary. It consists of more speeches in Holyrood and weekends on the doorstep hammering messages about black holes in public spending and Labour austerity first deployed before the General Election.
Isn’t it time to move on?
Is there enough excitement and any real anger towards the Scottish Tories and Labour who made the SNP look like the party of rationing and means-testing last week via sleekit votes on peak rail fares and Winter Fuel Payments?
A slightly thunderous look crosses Swinney’s face.
“Did you not hear me in the chamber challenging Douglas Ross?”
“Yes, I did, but there’s a worry about managerialism …”
“I totally reject that. I’ll take no lessons from Douglas Ross about economic management or how to protect the welfare system after all he’s presided over.”
The SNP leader is clearly frustrated and leans back, placing his hands behind his head.
“Look, people will just … They need to see the style of different people. So, I’m John Swinney. I am who I am. They see how I go about my business. Part of my job is to provide confidence that Scotland can make its way to independence and I’ll do that by running a well-grounded government that’s delivered a helluva lot for people but also by confronting the arguments of Unionists.”
And that’s fair enough. I often ponder how irritating it must be for Swinney, who joined the SNP when it was a deeply unpopular and probably career-ending choice and now finds himself criticised by Johnny-come-latelys like myself who only swung into action in 2013.
Or at least we thought we were.
Now, committed activists who’ve lost health, time and income over the last 10 sprinting years are asking if it’s worth slowing down, hammering on or even continuing to organise at all.
They need to see purpose and, as a friend puts it, a bit of “growl”.
Yes, Swinney did growl during his Winter Fuel Payment speech, making headlines when he accused Craig Hoy of behaving badly.
But that was just because the MSP and Scottish Tory chair kept interrupting him.
And maybe this crystallises the problem. Is parliamentary interruption truly the extent of Conservative bad behaviour?
How about their privatisation that trashed the railways and deregulation that wrecked the buses? Now, I’ll grant you, it was the media that singled out the Hoy rebuke, but his party’s more serious crimes against democracy needed a more powerful and colourful calling out to attract attention.
Something like: “You bloody hypocrites” in parliamentary language …
I cite Alex Salmond’s recent observation that nothing has got better over the past 10 years. This clearly irks. Swinney lists the architecture for an independent country put in place over the past 10 years – especially the new Scottish Social Security system: “That lets us deliver welfare on our terms, not Westminster’s.
“We have our own tax authority in Scotland able to generate tax revenue. We have a National Investment Bank to invest in our journey to net-zero. So, I totally reject the argument we’ve made no progress – and we’ve made life better for thousands of children.”
Once again, it’s worthy stuff but not likely to set the heather alight. Laying independence architecture is like laying the foundations of a new house – totally essential, but hardly cause for ringing the calendar.
And on independence itself, is there a goal, a date, a strategy? Basically no.
“The strategy is to build greater levels of public support for independence. The key to winning is getting more support.”
What about the Scottish Parliament elections coming up in 2026? Will there be a de facto referendum?
Evidently not.
“You can have all the mechanisms you want, if you can’t get a majority it’s all a bit academic.”
“Doesn’t excitement create support?”
“Westminster today is sitting with its arms folded saying we are not prepared to engage. The only way around that is Scotland delivering a message that it’s not acceptable.”
“But that argument last election resulted in you losing a lot of seats.”
“I’ve been very clear we didn’t make an urgent and clear enough case for independence as a solution.”
So here we go again. Urgency – is that what we’re seeing?
“I’m not going to give you a phoney date. I’d be insulting you if I did. I can’t give you a date for the moment it’s going to happen. But I will give you my absolute solemn commitment as someone who’s devoted their entire adult life to independence that I’ll never tire to make the argument to convince people. It’s what my leadership’s about and I want to win it.”
Swinney goes on to set out the demographic changes that have brought 600,000 youngsters onto the electoral roll.
“By 2030, it’ll be a million. The independence generation is emerging into our society today and making its presence felt.”
So is that the plan? Should this generation, the party, the Yes movement and the Scottish Parliament just hang on, waiting for the arithmetic to change, repeating slightly updated versions of the arguments that haven’t been clinchers for enough people so far?
What about wowing people with crafty use of our own renewable resources?
I ask Swinney about the Holyrood-run ScotWind auction which raised £755 million for the Scottish Exchequer, but according to Common Weal, could have raised closer to £16.5 billion, based on experience in England and the US, if over-cautious price caps had not been applied.
Swinney focuses on the money ScotWind has actually raised but continues: “The leases were sold at that level to maximise the opportunity for Scotland.
“Let’s see what finally gets realised as a consequence [of our pricing strategy] because that’s when you can answer the question [about underselling].”
I ask about another bold money-raising proposal – a land tax, approved by SNP conference a couple of weeks ago, along with proposals for a wealth tax. Will the SNP enact them?
There’s a lot of shuffling around, some mention of the short timescale since the conference, a recap of the “bold” tax decisions already taken raising tax rates on high earners and a suggestion Holyrood may lack the competence to deliver.
“Do you actually want a land tax?”
“Well, we’ve got to make our choices. I’m going to look at these things. I can’t sit here and write a budget.”
Sure – but that’s not what I was asking.
For a man who has been in or near the SNP leadership for the past 25 years, during which time the disappointing inadequacy of successive land reform proposals has been endlessly rehearsed, Swinney seems perpetually surprised by what bubbles up.
The leadership always needs more time to consider solutions its own members have thoroughly debated and adopted – sceptics might fear the land tax will follow the publicly-owned energy company to become water under the bridge.
What about the Citizens’ Convention proposed by Believe in Scotland (BiS) in contrast to the SNP deputy leader, Keith Brown, who talked last year of a politician-only convention.
“I think BiS proposals are interesting and have the beauty of engaging punters. I’m very attracted to a Citizens’ Assembly model and I’m very sympathetic.”
“What would be its purpose?”
“To design some of the model of an independent Scotland because in 2014, the White Paper was developed by the Scottish Government – other perspectives exist.”
“Will you fund it?”
There’s a long gap.
“That would be an interesting question.”
I ask whether Swinney thinks roughly the same performance and organisation that saw the SNP lose dozens of Westminster seats will produce a better result in 2026. What has actually changed in party organisation since July 4?
Swinney answers with what we already know.
“There was a survey of members.
“There were review sessions.
“There was feedback on the survey at party conference with polling data and a frank exchange.
“That was me delivering on my commitment to have respectful, honest, candid debate within the party.
“And all of this was followed by themed policy discussions led by ministers to let members have a say.”
Now, I sat in three of those sessions watching the metaphorical paint dry.
Members do not get a say with a minister choosing questions to paraphrase for other ministerial colleagues to answer without challenge or comeback. Yip, I’ll grant you no other political party does any better. But folk expect more from the SNP – real communication after years of obedient lip service.
During the themed policy discussion with Angus Robertson, for example, there was just one question and answer about that ill-judged meeting with the Israeli ambassador. Were there really no more cards in to speak? And did that stiff, limited “discussion” help clear the air? No, it did not.
And there’s the rub.
This year, SNP delegates were organised, radical and practical while platform speakers resolutely ignored what they just said.
It was political Two Tone.
The conference was Common Weal – the SNP leadership was dad dancing.
Call me old-fashioned, but “giving members a say” means enacting the motions they overwhelmingly pass.
Will they?
There’s no question Swinney is sincere.
He looks younger and – thanks to his daily run – actually fitter than he did leading the party first time around. Clearly, he’s in it for the long run.
But the question remains. Is that enough?
