Hamish Macdonell: Neither is bragging, but Tories keep SNP in power

SO MUCH attention has been focused on the "will-they won't-they" courtship between the Liberal Democrats and the SNP over local income tax that another more mature relationship has been all but ignored – between the SNP and the Conservatives.

This time last year, the Tories started a tentative process of negotiation with the new Scottish Government which led to their support for the budget.

Amid cries of "Nat-Con trick" and "Tartan Tories" from Labour, the Conservatives quietly secured some major concessions from the Scottish Government and the SNP got its crucial first budget through the parliament.

It was the most unlikely of alliances. Such is the hatred of the Tories in some parts of the Nationalist movement that the SNP used to have a policy of not doing any deals with the Conservatives at all.

However, not only was the deal done but another could be on its way this year as well.

Last year the Conservatives forced the Scottish Government to up the level of new police officers from 500 to 1,000, increase money for drug rehabilitation and accelerate cuts in business rates: all significant achievements.

This year, the Conservatives are looking first for further investment in police, drugs and business rates to carry last year's promises through to their conclusion. But they will be asking for more, too.

Although the Tories are keeping their "shopping list" as confidential as they can, it is understood that they will be asking for funding for two eye-catching initiatives, one in education and one in health.

The education policy will be 6 million to part fund an outdoor adventure training week for every 11-15-year-old in Scotland while the health policy will be of a similar size in financial terms and will either be in dentistry – training dental hygienists to therapist level so they can go into schools – or it will be a health screening programme, possibly for men of 40 and above.

Neither of these initiatives will cause the Scottish Government much difficulty on moral or political grounds. John Swinney, the finance secretary, may, though, have to wrestle and squeeze other budgets to find the money. It will not be an impossible task, however.

All Mr Swinney would then need to do is secure the support of the independent MSP Margo MacDonald (saving the velodrome at Meadowbank, possibly), get the Greens to abstain again and the Scottish Government will have the votes it needs to get its budget through.

If that pattern is followed, then the Conservatives will be able to go into the 2010 general election and the 2011 Scottish election with a list of concrete achievements behind them for the first time since 1997.

When Annabel Goldie took over her party's leadership in 2005, she was characterised as conservative with both a small and a big 'C', someone who was never going to be adventurous in policy terms and who was little more than a caretaker leader, the person to take her party through the 2007 election and then step down.

What is now clear is that Miss Goldie had a plan. Right from the start she questioned the wisdom of further coalition administrations, making it clear that she favoured minority government.

Even after his election victory, Alex Salmond's instinct was to try to reach some sort of agreement with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, believing that minority government would be too difficult to cope with. Only Miss Goldie seemed pleased to see the end of coalition rule at Holyrood and since then she has put her plan into operation.

When looking for deals with the SNP, she has deliberately not come forward with the sort of policies which the Nationalists would reject automatically, like private sector involvement in the health service or school vouchers. Instead she has chosen the more consensual, more moderate and big impact policies in her manifesto.

If she gets a deal this year on outdoor adventure camps and dentists in schools, then she will not only have a list of achievements to print on campaign literature, but she will have demonstrated competence and good sense.

Indeed, it is worth comparing the Conservatives decision to deal with the SNP on the budget with Labour's extraordinary decision to put forward one amendment on the final day's debate, see it accepted by the Scottish Government and then abstain on the formal budget itself. That decision spoke of confusion, lack of planning and a hopelessly chaotic approach to minority politics.

The Greens talked a lot last year about a "confidence and supply" model in minority parliaments. They hoped to strike a deal with the SNP which would see them support the Scottish Government on its budget, on any no-confidence votes and then on other legislation on an issue-by-issue basis.

But if there is one party which is actually adopting something approaching a "confidence and supply" approach, it is the Tories.

The Scottish Government could not survive without its budgets. It got its first one through with the help of the Conservatives and may get its second one through thanks to those same Tories.

So while the Liberal Democrats get all the publicity simply because local income tax is such a controversial and major policy, it is the Tories who keep the SNP in power.

It may be a relationship of convenience for both parties: it is probably the political equivalent of a guilty encounter between office workers, one neither of which wants to admit to their friends the following day. But it does appear to be working.

Scotland ruled by the SNP and the Tories? That was certainly not something Donald Dewar had in mind when he drew up the Scotland Act.