Brian Taylor: John Swinney's had a tough week? Stand by for more

Only it didn’t work out quite as planned. Ms Robison seemed, understandably, more apprehensive than aggressive. And the First Minister, while dispensing hope, was still obliged to give ground, including on primary school meals.

Welcome to contemporary governance. Post Covid. Post cost of living crisis. Mid global conflict.

And so the Manichean role-play by Scottish ministers failed to land. Then again, Mr Swinney and Mr Robison definitely contrived to convey a series of key messages.

Forget Bad Cop / Good Cop. Consider instead another political dichotomy. The declared aim of the Scottish Government is to eradicate child poverty. But how?

Is that objective best achieved by tax and spend? By raising more money from devolved income tax, increased council (or property) tax and possibly a wealth tax? Then distributing the cash to those who are struggling.

Or is it best achieved by encouraging enterprise in order to grow Scotland’s economy? To provide jobs, and enhanced revenue from existing tax rates, spending that cash upon anti-poverty measures.

In essence, this is – or should be – the core of contemporary Scottish discourse. And it is a central element of the internal disquiet which has beset the SNP.

Not, I stress, the only element. That debate derives from other issues. Leadership, party governance, anxiety over that endless police inquiry into SNP finance – and above all, arguments over the most effective way to secure independence.

Incidentally, when I mention leadership, I do not suggest for a second that there is any serious challenge to Mr Swinney’s position. Rather, I am talking about cumulative concern deriving from the rather rapid turnover of SNP chiefs – and the concomitant resurgence of Scottish Labour.

But, within that broad discourse, there is room for debate on fiscal issues. Not least because the SNP broadly accepts that the best way to advance the cause of independence is for its principal advocates to govern sensibly and consensually within devolved powers.

Which means a debate about tax. Now, to be clear once more, this does not involve a bitter, factional battle within the SNP, as has occasionally surfaced in other parties. This is not Gaitskell v Bevan or Healey v Benn.

Still, there are two broad perspectives on the SNP benches at Holyrood and also among their now depleted ranks at Westminster. Those whose focus begins – and sometimes ends – with redistribution. And those who favour economic growth as a mechanism to tackle poverty.

Read more

Brian Taylor: Here’s how SNP hopes to recover in time for the next election battle

Brian Taylor: Why we should all worry about who wins this race for the White House

Kate Forbes is most clearly associated with the growth argument. She advanced that cause as Finance Secretary, then leadership contender, then from the back benches – and now as Deputy First Minister.

Indeed, her restoration to the front rank amounted to a declaration by John Swinney that he was determined to make room for her arguments.

Not that he is an unwilling disciple of his deputy. Anything but. He himself has placed economic growth at the core of his mission.

He emphasised that vigorously in his Programme for Government this week – although that was somewhat overlooked in the controversy over spending cuts.

No passing mention, mind you. But a substantial section stressing the need for prosperity to increase revenues and thus enable action on poverty; the need for thriving businesses, for enterprise. The need, in short, for government to create the conditions for investment and growth.

That argument was also advanced by Shona Robison in her finance statement. Boosting growth, she said, remained a “top priority”.

And that would influence her thinking on taxation when she sets out her Budget at the end of this year. Although she also emphasised later that her room for manoeuvre would be “dictated” by decisions taken by the UK Chancellor.

Scotland’s overall tax burden is already greater than elsewhere in the UK. That additional revenue is derived, quite deliberately, from higher earners. But I believe ministers are alert to the prospect that they might undermine growth if they go too far in hiking tax.

Consider another element. The decisions announced this week would have been almost impossible to advance had the SNP still been in a governing pact with the Greens.

Put simply, the Greens do not acknowledge the significance of GDP growth, arguing that such calculations do not accurately measure genuine popular well-being. Hence, GDP growth was explicitly left out of the Bute House pact – something I always believed was unsustainable.

So the absence of the Greens from power liberated Shona Robison. She announced £500m in cuts, including to active travel and nature restoration. Further, she scooped up £460m from offshore windfarm leasing, diverting it to daily spending.

All done and dusted? Absolutely not. These are in-year announcements, designed to plug an immediate gap posed largely by higher than budgeted pay settlements, heavily influenced by deals done at Westminster.

(Image: Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes)

Now Ms Robison has to draft a Budget for the next fiscal year. And the SNP lacks a majority. Mr Swinney acknowledged as much when he insisted that his approach would be consensual.

They need chums to get their Budget through. The Greens? Not looking good at the moment. Lorna Slater called the move on school meals “a betrayal”.

But Shona Robison might seek to reinstate key environmental programmes – if she has the cash.

Labour? Behave yourself. They want to replace the SNP, not support them in office.

The Liberal Democrats would also take some persuasion. Might the new Scottish Tory leader be prepared to talk – if the Budget is founded on business growth?

Again, that would be a big ask. The Tories cut Budget deals with the SNP in the past. But that was before the referendums of 2014 and 2016 polarised politics more sharply than previously.

Finally, another element largely overlooked this week. Reform of public services, with the aim of greater flexibility – and presumably greater efficiency.

That, including the ongoing revision of health and social care, might yield results. Eventually. The SNP need to demonstrate progress by 2026. Otherwise? It’s a fair cop.