(Image: Derek McArthur)
This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politicsnewsletter.
The SNP has long described itself as the party of independence. But increasingly, the argument within its own ranks is whether it is still the party that can achieve it.
Considering the uproar the topic of Scottish independence has caused internally in the run-up to conference, the opening debate on the country’s constitutional future was remarkably dull.
Some of the angriest voices I had spoken to in the weeks beforehand refused to show up for it.
For them, the motion being proposed was a meaningless attempt to placate an internal rupture which had opened over the party’s independence strategy.
More than 50 branches, as well as the party’s largest affiliate body, had backed consideration of an alternative strategy before conference. It asked for an agreed route to independence, a national campaign and eventually using the general election as a defining vote.
But the amendment was ultimately rejected, with the party’s national secretary Alex Kerr casting the deciding vote against.
Instead, delegates got a resolution from Young Scots for Independence which focused on winning over undecided and No voters.
That’s a legitimate argument that has to be made.
Independence cannot be achieved without convincing enough Scots that it would leave them better off, or at least secure enough, to take the leap.
But for many grassroots activists, that is not enough.
Read more Unspun:
- The SNP is taking a Greens gamble Sturgeon warned against
- Time for action as creatives face eviction from nation's arts spaces
- Should Andy Burnham accept the SNP conference invite?
Following the debate, I asked SNP members whether what they had heard left them more confident that independence could actually be achieved.
“Meh,” one told me plainly. They were uninspired that the party’s leadership would act on the resolution.
Another told me nothing new had been achieved by the debate, warning they did not “trust” the party leadership to provide the answers they were looking for.
Others, however, remain completely wedded to John Swinney’s independence strategy and his determination to create a democratic mandate strong enough that Westminster is ultimately forced to respond.
The Scottish Government has already published its draft referendum Bill. However, ministers themselves acknowledge it can only be introduced once the necessary powers have been secured.
That is precisely the problem.
Keith Brown, the SNP depute leader, told conference that SNP members would drive support for independence “through the roof”.
The problem is that the SNP leadership hasn’t put in the work to achieve that.
John Swinney argued this week that independence campaigning had “turned a corner”. But this week, Ipsos Scotland managing director Emily Gray said the public remained “divided” over independence, arguing there was “no recent indication that has changed”.
That is important because Swinney's strategy ultimately depends upon Scotland reaching a point where Westminster can no longer credibly ignore the demand for another referendum.
Earlier this week, a Survation poll commissioned by the SNP offered the party some encouragement, putting Yes ahead by 52% to 48% once undecided voters were removed.
But polling from More in Common paints almost the exact opposite picture.
It found that, among those likely to vote in a referendum tomorrow, 52% would vote against independence and 48% would vote in favour.
The numbers consistently fluctuate by a few percentage points, but ultimately the divide over independence remains.
Polling tracked by What Scotland Thinks shows surveys throughout 2026 repeatedly putting the two sides within a few points of one another, with the result also varying considerably between pollsters.
That presents two problems for Swinney. First, the SNP has still to demonstrate that it can turn the long-standing constitutional divide into a clear and sustained majority for independence.
Second, even if it succeeds, he must explain how that majority is converted into another referendum.
The Young Scots for Independence movement looked to tackle the first part of that problem, calling for “clear, accessible, evidence-based resources” addressing the economy, pensions, mortgages, currency and public finances.
Scott Lamont, proposing the motion, described it as a “statement of direction” and said he wanted answers put “in the hands of every member and every activist”.
But after years of a stalemate, some activists want more than another prospectus.
David Birkett, the North East representative on the SNP’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee, said: “If all we do is produce a glossy document selling voters to the dream, without a viable way to achieve it, it risks becoming nothing more than a glossy coffee table distraction.
“If we just do the aspirational bit, we’re putting the cart before the horse, and that is always a poor strategy.”
These disagreements will not just disappear because of a vote at party conference.
If Swinney wants to prove the SNP is still the party that can deliver independence, he must show it can build the sustained majority his strategy depends on, and explain how that majority would ultimately translate into constitutional change.