THIS weekend’s SNP conference saw a significant defeat for the party’s leadership.  

Delegates voted for the creation of a separate Scottish currency “as soon as practicable” after independence and opposed the leadership position set out in the Growth Commission report.

The leadership had advocated that sterling should continue to be used for up 10 years until Scotland had secured fiscal stability and its current budget deficit ended. 

Meanwhile the Bank of England should effectively remain Scotland’s central bank to maintain business confidence and, as the Growth Commission put it, protect Scotland’s large financial sector, “of greater importance than in any other economy.” 

The commission held out the prospect of City of London banks relocating to Edinburgh when Britain left the EU.

This perspective rightly angered many in the SNP. It meant the loss of control of monetary policy. It also meant, as set out in the Growth Commission report, eliminating a budget deficit equivalent to roughly 8 per cent of GDP and requiring cuts in public spending of a size hitherto only seen in Greece.  

Scotland would be run by the banks — not by its people.

So was the vote a victory for the left? Yes. But only with two very major qualifications.

First, it was not a clear victory. The one amendment passed did not remove the commitment to the Growth Commission’s “six tests” for introducing a new currency.

Second, and far more important, it was not won politically on left terms. The argument was about the form of independence. It was focused on freeing Scotland from continued subordination to England’s financial system.  

It was not about its content: that using sterling would continue Scotland’s subordination to neoliberal, big business dictation. 

If it had been, this would have blown open the wider debate about the EU membership and the EU’s pro-market, neoliberal rules about deficits and competition.  

While up to a third of SNP voters voted to leave the EU, this is not a debate that has taken place inside the SNP itself.  

Only a few brave souls, such as former deputy leader Jim Sillars, have challenged the leadership’s portrayal of a worker-friendly, liberal and internationalist EU.

So where does this leave the SNP’s leftists? They have delivered a symbolic blow against the leadership’s deference to the Edinburgh financial establishment. But its neoliberal policies continue.

The SNP as a party is now committed to an early independence referendum linked to an early adoption of a separate currency.  

Independence may have gained very slightly in popularity since 2014. A separate currency is much less popular. For the SNP on its current trajectory it is not a good combination.

This may be why Nicola Sturgeon has responded positively to a call from Scotland’s Conservatives for discussions on federalism.  

It gives the appearance of movement. It raises the possibility of new powers. But it will be on Conservative terms and within neoliberal assumptions.

In response SNP leftists might do well to urge a dialogue with a quite different perspective on federalism: that of Labour’s Richard Leonard’s as recently outlined at the STUC. 

This stresses the real powers that could be delegated to Scotland outside the competition terms of the EU single market — powers to establish a Scottish investment bank to drive industrial development, to secure comprehensive public ownership in posts, transport and energy and to use public procurement to require collective bargaining rights and a real living wage.  

That would begin make a left agenda clear and explicit — whether federal or independent.