Ewan Crawford: Tackling the big issues will strengthen SNP

If it was Northern Ireland we would start off with an academic from Queen's University. A little later we would interview Jeffrey Donaldson or a fellow Unionist, followed by either Mitchel McLaughlin of Sinn Fein or Alex Atwood of the SDLP. The personalities and time slots might have changed from time to time, but the essential formula would stay the same.

General media analysis of the SNP's performance at Westminster elections in Scotland has a similar, routine feel to it. The party polls around 20 per cent (it always does); Jim Sillars slates Alex Salmond (same again) and the search goes out for "sources" unhappy at the disastrous strategy pursued by the leadership.

This year it's been argued the SNP made a mistake in basing its campaign around opposition to planned cuts to the Scottish budget. In fact for the party to have pursued anything other than this strategy would have been odd and electorally damaging.

Some critics of the leadership's approach appear to think the election was some sort of deliberative think tank seminar at which the SNP could have floated new ideas.

That's touching, but the reality of the electoral environment is a little less benign. Westminster elections are always a battle for the SNP to be given any sort of a hearing. In these circumstances it needs to hammer home a core message – demonstrating its willingness and ability to stand up for Scottish interests, which in turn means fighting to protect the budget for public services. In the event, an increase in the vote and a return to second place was a creditable result.

So what now? The SNP has rightly decided it is through Holyrood, not Westminster, that it can realise its goal of independence.

In 2007, according to academic research, the key to victory was the coming together of a powerful coalition of voters. It is a paradox, and a frustrating one for party strategists, that by no means all independence supporters vote for the SNP. But three years ago the party managed to persuade an unusually high number of independence supporters to vote for it, alongside another group – those who said they did not want to leave the UK but who clearly believed the SNP offered a better devolved government than Labour.

For the SNP this second group is crucial. It seems reasonable to assume that if not yet persuaded, these voters will at least be open to the arguments for independence.

There have, of course, been some fundamental changes since 2007, most importantly the state of the economy and in particular the collapse of the banks and the subsequent bail-out.

It would be a mistake to assume this will all blow over soon and that voters disposed towards the SNP but not yet independence will forget about it. The SNP needs therefore to confront this issue head-on.

Firstly this means having the confidence to take on the opportunistic arguments of those who say the bail-out demonstrates the folly of independence. For years during the growth of RBS and HBOS we were told these banks would simply not have existed as powerful multinationals outside the secure embrace of the UK.

Now the argument is this: the rescue of those banks that would not have existed under independence shows Scotland cannot be independent. That's not the most intellectually convincing of positions.

But exposing the paucity of the attack won't be enough. Under Alex Salmond, continued by John Swinney and with the support of key figures such as Andrew Wilson and Jim Mather, the party made all the running on economic thinking in Scottish politics for ten years. It should do so again. There are big issues to discuss: should the economy be re-balanced ? If so, how? Should there be a retreat from the policy of low corporation tax? (in my view, no). How does Scotland turn its unrivalled renewable energy potential into real economic gains? How can economic growth be used to strengthen public services and Scotland's competitiveness?

By putting itself at the forefront of these debates the SNP can continue to build a positive coalition for change – because all these questions can only be resolved if tax policy is transferred from Westminster to Holyrood.

However, it's important to remember that it's not just the economy, stupid (Bill Clinton, incidentally never said it was). Debates over where public spending cuts are to fall will highlight one of the great scars on our national life – the fact that Scotland is a ferociously unequal society.

The degree of inequality in our country offends many of our preconceptions of what it means to be Scottish and its results can be heart-breaking. There are secondary schools in Scotland where no child achieves five Higher passes. It would be idiotic to assume this was because all the children at these schools are somehow academically incapable. The problem obviously lies in wider social conditions and levels of aspiration.

Cutting class sizes is important, but a national effort to raise standards in the worst-performing schools – something that cannot be the responsibility of education policy alone – would be genuinely liberating and challenging.

Over the next few months with the two Millibands and one Balls competing to become the next UK Labour leader, we will hopefully hear some fresh thinking, not just about the future direction of Labour, but about the future of society as a whole.

Here in Scotland the prospect of a similar debate within the People's Party appears slim. Iain Gray seems determined to fight next year's election on a combination of negative campaigning on broken promises.

In response, such is the nature of Scottish politics, the SNP will have no choice except to engage robustly. But these skirmishes should not be allowed to obliterate the positive approach that proved so successful for the Nationalists three years ago.

Ewan Crawford was private secretary to SNP leader John Swinney from 2001 to 2004.