Swinney’s Windsor banquet row tests SNP principles in Trump era

Scottish First Minister John Swinney attended a state banquet for U.S. President Donald Trump at Windsor Castle this week, a appearance that has sparked a debate about whether his diplomacy signals a shift from the SNP’s traditional stance on independence and on engaging with the United States. A column by Jonathan Brocklebank for the Daily Mail frames Swinney’s attendance as a test of his political principles, suggesting the encounter reveals a dose of realpolitik in the SNP’s approach to national and international questions.

The column notes Swinney had previously voiced skepticism about the propriety of a state visit under the Trump presidency, arguing that any such trip should hinge on a clear policy shift by Washington. It also recounts Swinney’s stance during the 2024 U.S. election cycle, in which he indicated support for Kamala Harris over Trump, in part because of perceived issues around Trump’s stance on Scotland’s constitutional status. The author asserts Swinney’s position on the visit appeared to have evolved by the time the king hosted the Windsor banquet, prompting questions about whether personal or strategic considerations were driving the change. The account describes Swinney seated at a long banquet table in St George’s Hall, sharing conversations with the U.S. president and other senior figures, and notes his smiles and social rapport reportedly contrasted with the more combative posture of some counterparts.

In the column’s view, Swinney’s conduct at the Windsor event — and his later gestures in other gatherings linked to Trump’s visit — illustrates a broader pattern: British and Scottish politicians sometimes prefer to play the role of accommodating partners with global power rather than maintaining a hard line on principles when there is a potential upside for Scotland. The piece highlights that Swinney has previously emphasized the importance of Scotland seeking tangible benefits from international engagement, even as he publicly signaled caution about engaging with leaders whose policies he views as inconsistent with Scotland’s interests.

A focal point of the critique is the claim that Swinney’s approach amounts to a balancing act between principle and pragmatism. The columnist points to episodes over the past year in which Swinney appeared to soften his rhetoric or to extend a form of diplomatic warmth toward Trump and his circle, including an Oval Office meeting aimed at discussing Scotch whisky tariffs. The article characterizes such moves as the kind of realpolitik that helps keep channels open with powerful governments, while critics argue the strategy risks eroding foundational positions on independence and on human rights concerns associated with Trump’s administration.

The piece also recounts reactions from within Swinney’s own party and from political observers. It notes that SNP member Chris Law generated controversy by criticizing Swinney’s dinner with Trump on social media, claiming that such a gathering could be seen as endorsing actions or policies he opposes, including violence in Gaza. The post was later removed, according to the column, when it was pointed out that the SNP leadership itself had participated in similar forms of diplomacy. The episode is presented as a case study in how political allies balance accountability with the opportunity to secure access and leverage in a global power dynamic.

From the columnist’s vantage point, the more Swinney engages with powerful figures abroad, the more the line between principled opposition and strategic accommodation becomes blurred. The piece juxtaposes Swinney’s approach with the public posture of Nicola Sturgeon, suggesting that Swinney has managed to cultivate a degree of diplomatic practicality that, in the author’s view, Sturgeon did not demonstrate to the same extent during her tenure. The implication drawn is that Swinney’s diplomacy has yielded tangible gains, such as discussions about whisky tariffs and a reported Oval Office meeting, even if it has come at the expense of a clearly articulated, hard-edged stance on other contentious issues.

Supporters of the SNP’s approach might argue that engaging with global powers is a necessity in a connected world, especially when negotiations can bring economic or diplomatic benefits to Scotland. Critics, however, contend that such pragmatism risks normalizing policies or alliances that run counter to long-standing Scottish positions, including skepticism about the use of state visits as symbolic gestures that may undercut political principle in the pursuit of small, immediate advantages.

Ultimately, the column frames Swinney’s participation in the Windsor banquet as a test of leadership under extraordinary global pressures. It invites readers to weigh the potential upside of maintaining lines of dialogue with the United States against the perceived costs to the SNP’s credibility on independence and on human-rights issues tied to Trump-era policy. The piece closes by asking whether Swinney’s approach represents a temporary adjustment driven by circumstance or a longer trend toward prioritizing practical diplomacy over ideological purity, with implications for Scotland’s standing in international politics and for the SNP’s political arc in the years ahead.