The SNP leader has called for consensus, but is already creating more division, says TERRY MURDEN
Let’s face it, Scotland doesn’t do success with any great enthusiasm. Just ask Reform leader Malcolm Offord about the reception he received to his now infamous ‘six homes, five cars and six boats’ statement on his personal wealth. Creating thousands of jobs and paying millions in tax on the way.
That just won’t do. Far better to support a party leader who has overseen a decline in standards in health and education, has failed to hit drugs and housing targets and is pushing businesses to the brink as a result of a punitive tax regime.
The SNP’s victory in the Scottish elections was not so much an endorsement of John Swinney’s leadership and his party’s success as a reward for failure.
It was underpinned by the advance of the anti-growth Greens, who have their own cunning plan through pay ratios and higher taxes to rein in the wealth creators and force inward investors ‘tae think again’. Welcome to Scotland 2026. A country where under achievement is a cause for celebration.
The SNP’s return to power was attributed to concerns over the cost of living, though the driver was Sir Keir Starmer’s failure to tackle it (and just about every other policy area) and the underlying myth generated by the SNP that it can deliver independence.
Worryingly, all this is defined by an exercise in self-delusion typical of the one party state that Scotland has become. As such there is a growing adoption of Orwellian doublethink. Division is unity. Self-interest is collaboration. Obstruction means progress. And, regarding the SNP’s record, failure is success.
In Saturday’s Victory Speech – which itself might have come straight from the pages of Ninetee Eighty-Four – Swinney brazenly claimed the election results were an endorsement of independence, despite unionist parties winning a clear majority of votes cast and which would be more pertinent in a referendum.
He declared that it was anti-democratic of the UK government not to listen to Scotland’s calls for independence, while telling his cheering supporters that Reform’s Mr Offord would not be invited to talks with the new government, thereby dismissing the views of three-quarters of a million Scottish voters.
This is the same SNP leader who said after Thursday’s results he will be a First Minister for “all of Scotland”. Instead of creating consensus and stability, he is stirring a fragmented pot.
He continued his deluded spirit of cooperation, by saying he would engage with business leaders on their concerns, at the same time stating he would introduce legislation for a cap on food prices. The plan has been condemned by business leaders as unworkable and unlikely to achieve his goal of cutting the cost of living. Similarly, we can expect more rent controls and first time homebuyer subsidies despite the property industry warning against such moves.
This attempt to claim power and authority where it exists only conditionally is a dangerous path. Swinney may be running a minority government, but he is assuming absolute power, and as the 19th century historian and politician Lord Action said, ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
Acton was cautioning against concentrated authority, particularly unchecked power. Eliminating opposing voices and ignoring those who seek to advise are the first steps on that journey.
Holyrood needs effective opposition and it must not be snuffed out, however much its rivals dislike its policies. Anas Sarwar, who led Scottish Labour to its biggest defeat, has also said he would not have invited Mr Offord to talks, while Gillian Mackay, co-leader of the Greens, said her party would not engage with Reform.
On a practical level, this is unworkable, not least because it would disrupt the business of parliament, including the committee structure. If Mr Farage gets into Downing Street in 2029, as Mr Swinney predicts, does that mean the SNP leader would cut off talks with the UK Government?
Fundamentally, dismissing one party from Holyrood business is disrespecting the will of the people who have elected Reform as the joint second-largest party at Holyrood. No parliament that adopts such a position can describe itself as democratic.
A Federal Government must be on the agenda
John Swinney has made it clear that he is like a dog with a bone. He will not let independence drop and it will be pursued relentlessly.
Westminster governments cannot continue to ignore it, not least with three nations now being led by nationalist parties.
A starting point would be to form an English parliament to create a UK-wide balance with the other nations and eradicate that other piece of ignorant and arrogant political doublethink whereby the UK equates to England, embodied in the use of the national anthem to represent England at sporting events.
In a federal system, the UK parliament becomes responsible for issues such as foreign affairs, defence, public health (most obviously during a pandemic), welfare, monetary policy and overseas trade. The Scottish parliament would, by this process, have equal power with the English parliament, this time with quite clear territorial authority, and each given enhanced control. In economic terms this should include tax, employment law and borrowing on international markets.
It would stop, or at least reduce, the silly games being played between Holyrood and Westminster, such as the recent claims over who persuaded Donald Trump to drop the whisky tariffs, and who was responsible for the demise of Grangemouth.
These playground taunts do not impress voters, apart from feeding the prejudices of those who’ve already decided who to blame.
Terry Murden was Scotland Editor and Business Editor at The Sunday Times, Business Editor at The Scotsman, and Business and City Editor at Scotland on Sunday. He is now Editor of Daily Business
Leave a Reply