The Courier & Advertiser (Fife Edition)
Do the problems Jack McConnell faced in 2001 sound familiar, Mr Swinney?
When Jack McConnell became first minister in late November 2001 it was against the backdrop of rising frustration and anger at the Holyrood building scandal.
Just three years into the devolution project, Scotland was on to its third first minister after the tragic and untimely death of Donald Dewar, swiftly followed by the muddle, not a fiddle, of Henry McLeish’s expenses regime which led to his resignation. The parliament was feverish, the Labour Party in trouble.
Jack’s mission was to bring back a sense of calm and control. He encapsulated this job with a speech in which he declared he would “bring stability, direction and action on Scotland’s priorities to the heart of government and in short he’d do less, better.” The punctuation of such a phrase was critical. What’s more it was a ripe flank for the then SNP opposition to exploit, accusing the Labour-led executive of complacency and a lack of ideas.
Is any of this sounding familiar? Following that speech, First Minister Jack McConnell sacked four ministers and slimmed down his cabinet. Something many expect John Swinney to do this week.
As a student of political history, I felt the need to look up the record of First Minister’s Questions in 2001 immediately following that speech. And what was I to find there but one John Swinney, then leader of the opposition, on his feet to ask Jack McConnell: “When he said he would ‘cut the crap’ from his administration… are we to assume the crap to which he referred was the five Labour cabinet ministers whom he sacked on Tuesday?”
The very next week Mr Swinney returned to the chamber as leader of the opposition to highlight shocking waiting times and mismanagement at NHS Tayside.
There’s little comfort in knowing that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Twenty years on, the SNP find themselves grinding day by day through a tumultuous period in their political history.
When John Swinney declared his candidacy for leadership, and therefore FM, he declared he would govern from the mainstream. So what might it look like if he chooses to do less, better? Well I’ve taken a moment to re-read the Bute House Agreement and Humza Yousaf ’s legislative programme from last year to get a sense of what, along with a few political careers, might be for the chop?
The combination of the Greens leaving government and Kate Forbes re-entering it must mean renewed focus on the economy.
What this means in practice is surely a more “business-friendly enabling environment” – corporate-speak for fewer regulations. Might this mean the SNP step away from ratcheting up environmental standards? Surely it means a clearer focus on North Sea oil and gas development and less focus on a “just transition” – particularly now the 2030 climate change targets have been parked? Being able to be “pro” oil and gas jobs is of course critical to the SNP’s plans to compete with the Tories in the North East, and Stephen Flynn will surely be driving this agenda hard.
The deal with Greens also saw the government committed to active travel – shorthand for investing in cycle lanes and paths, often at the expense of road building.
The Greens also wanted New York-style rent controls and another round of enhancing tenants’ rights despite much of the housing sector, while not opposed to that, rather preferring the government
well, actually built some houses. Might the new first minister choose to reset a little here and tie-in building the social homes Scotland needs with his desire to grow the economy?
On the social side of the agenda, the SNP had a plan to legislate for misogyny, having chosen – following lobbying from women’s organisations it should be said – to leave women out of the controversial Hate Crime legislation three years ago.
Pursue this legislation and you either incur the wrath of gender critical campaigners by defining misogyny as something that can happen to all women including trans women, or you legislate on the basis of biological sex knowing this is out of kilter with all the policies that came before. Doing so risks losing the support of much of your youth and LGBT support.
Might you be able to take the first path but only if you counter it with a strong attempt to ban conversion therapy?
Will Kate Forbes be able to hold her nose through that?
It may be that FM Swinney is forced to follow the playbook of Rishi Sunak and broadly try to avoid legislation and lean more heavily into executive power?
In that sense, John Swinney could be very powerful, but after 17 years it’s likely only to be power that puts out fires, stitches voters together and coasts towards 2026 with the wind very firmly in his face.
It must mean a renewed focus on the economy