Swinney's Call for Independence Referendum: A Boring Cycle

London, United Kingdom Jul 17, 2026 ALN: If past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour, then the first conversation Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, has with the UK’s incoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, will be predictable, and ultimately fruitless.

Mr Swinney will say that the SNP won a landslide victory in the recent Scottish Parliament election on a pledge to hold a second independence referendum, and that the Scottish Parliament has a larger pro-independence majority than at any time in its history. Ergo, Mr Burnham’s first move in office would be to deny Scotland’s democratic will.

Mr Burnham will retort that at the 2024 General Election in Scotland, Labour won a landslide victory on a platform, at least partly, of not having a second independence referendum, and furthermore that Mr Swinney planted his flag on turf marked ‘SNP majority’ and is seeking to move that flag retrospectively.

So, Mr Swinney will ask Mr Burnham to grant the Scottish Parliament temporary powers under Section 30 of the Scotland Act, in order for the Scottish Parliament to exercise those powers to grant a legal referendum. And Mr Burnham will say no.

Key Points:

• I know what Scotland really needs - more MSPs at Holyrood
• The government has to pick a lane - high tax or high growth
• A Sturgeon inquiry won’t help us in the long run
• Enough is enough - Scotland needs new political parties to emerge

So far, so boring.

However, there is an alternative world in which both men engage in a more strategic, mature conversation which would suit both individuals, both their parties and both their constitutional ideologies.

This would involve Mr Swinney parking the idea of a second independence referendum, and instead focusing his energy on the idea of a new Scotland Act.

There is precedent. There have already been two new Scotland Acts since the Scottish Parliament was created. The first was in 2012, when the Scottish Rate of Income Tax was created, as well as the power to replace Stamp Duty, to rename the Scottish ‘Executive’ to the Scottish ‘Government’, and various other small measures including minor borrowing powers. The second was in 2016, extending those borrowing powers to a limited degree, extending fuller powers over income tax rates and bands, assigning VAT receipts and giving Holyrood more control over its own election arrangements.

In 1997, former Welsh Secretary Ron Davies called devolution “a process, not an event”, and the willingness on both sides to collaborate on additional Scotland Acts appears to take that statement from theory to practice.

There are a few obvious powers Mr Swinney could ask for as part of a negotiation, which would serve the dual purpose of advancing the cause of self-rule for Scotland (at least in his eyes) and providing a more realistic foundation for Scottish economic growth independent of the performance of the Westminster government.

The most obvious, and arguably most important, is to expand borrowing powers. The Scottish Government’s capital borrowing capacity for funding infrastructure investment is severely limited by the Fiscal Framework.

At less than half-a-billion pounds per year, it is a puny power when considered in the context of Scotland’s infrastructure deficit. If one looks at road infrastructure alone, ignoring other transport infrastructure, digital infrastructure, public service building infrastructure and so on, £500 million is practically insignificant. To put it in context, the average cost of building a dual carriageway in the UK is £40 million per mile; current borrowing powers, therefore, are enough to build a mere 12 miles of dual carriageway per year, whilst building absolutely nothing else at all. Between the A9, A75, A77, A82 and A96, there are around 500 miles of road requiring dualling. Under current powers, this would take more than 40 years, without a single other capital project of any kind being funded in the meantime.

'Extending borrowing power would be game-changing, but there is more Mr Swinney could request' (Image: PA)

Extending borrowing power would be game-changing, but there is more Mr Swinney could request. The most obvious tax power to request would be Corporation Tax. Scottish nationalists often talk about mirroring the undoubted success of Ireland, and much of that economic strength has been built on Ireland’s low level of corporate tax, which has attracted multinational headquarters, provided good jobs and created a solid tax base.

Furthermore, the full devolution of VAT is now possible as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU. Devolving, and then cutting, VAT could provide Scotland with another competitive advantage and stimulate economic activity. The same could be said of Capital Gains Tax, which could be cut and tailored to generate growth.

Of course, the Scottish Government’s history is to take devolved taxes and increase them, rather than cutting them; strangling economic growth rather than releasing it. However, the powers of a new Scotland Act represent exactly the sort of fiscal accountability which the opposition needs the government to have in order to create the case for change. Fiscal responsibility is good for everyone.

So, it seems clear what’s in it for Mr Swinney. But what’s in it for Andy Burnham? There’s a joke which does the rounds: a Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite walk into a bar, and the barman says “what would you like Andy?”. Few know what Mr Burnham thinks, or what he will do, but if we can be sure of one thing it is that he is a genuine devolutionist.

Instinctively, therefore, he will both understand and relate to a call for more power to be devolved to Edinburgh. Moreover, he should have a conceptual understanding of the benefits of pre-emptive devolution as opposed to reactive devolution. The Scotland Act of 2012 was a unionist reaction to the SNP’s landslide of 2011; the 2016 version was a reaction to the 2014 referendum scare and the 2015 SNP Westminster landslide. This, on the contrary, would be an opportunity for the UK Government to set out the positive and proactive case for decentralisation.

Mr Burnham could also attach some strings. For instance, he will, presumably, be instinctively in favour of Mayors for Scotland’s cities. We know that the SNP is instinctively opposed to this, preferring instead to concentrate power in Edinburgh, but it is a pill they may have to swallow in return for more power for the Scottish Government.

It must surely be obvious to unionists and nationalists alike that devolution is definitely not going backwards, and is extremely unlikely to stand still. Britain remains a starkly centralised country, in global terms, and devolution is therefore overwhelmingly likely to constantly expand.

We have two rational, capable leaders. It cannot be beyond their abilities to collaborate rather than to collide.

Andy Maciver is founding director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast.