They, presumably, just want it sorted out. But the action taken last week, which may be a precursor to more significant disruption over the coming months, has greater political significance than the immediate consequences of the dispute. In fact this action, and the responses to it, reveal a lot about the way politics in Scotland will be conducted over the next few years.

This is a dispute in which low-paid workers are, not unreasonably, angry about being asked to accept what is in effect a real wages cut. At its core, this boils down to a dreadful financial settlement from the Treasury, which as a way of welcoming the SNP to Government allocated it the smallest increase in Scottish spending since devolution. This in turn led to some difficult budget decisions for the SNP administration.

In such circumstances you might expect the Nationalists to take up the pikes, put on the Mel Gibson woad and make some robust points about the disastrous results of London control. But there was a distinct lack of rhetoric last week about Scotland being at the mercy of London ministers. Instead we had appeals for new talks between unions and employers.

For those who like to make the charge that the SNP always blames England for Scotland's problems this must have come as something of a disappointment.

The reality is that at this stage the SNP is far more interested in demonstrating what it can do, even with the limited powers of devolution, than ratcheting up the rhetoric. Why? Because it knows that proving itself in Government will be crucial when it comes to a referendum in which people will be asked to choose between a Scottish/SNP administration in Edinburgh and a Tory or Labour Government in Westminster.

But the dispute tells us far more than just the SNP's strategy on independence. Salmond and Swinney's response to the strike – that it's not for them to resolve – demonstrates what is perhaps the SNP's core belief after independence: the idea of decentralisation; putting power into the hands of local communities.

Fully realised, putting this principal into practice has the capacity to change the way we think about Government in Scotland, but it also carries huge political risks. In line with its community instincts, the SNP has already all but abolished ring-fencing – the mechanism by which central Government dictated to councils precisely how they must spend their money. This prompted claims by Labour that virtually every organisation that ever received funding was about to be left penniless. This argument collapsed somewhat when indignant Labour councillors refuted their own national leadership's claims. But although ineptly carried out, the attack did highlight one danger of "localist" policies – that national Government can get the blame for decisions made by others. What Cabinet minister wants that?

A second, potentially more significant, difficulty lies in the fact that community control inevitably puts a limit on the power of central Government. In education, the SNP's sensible idea of reducing class sizes for the early years of primary is dependent on councils implementing the policy. Glasgow has already declared the city to be a small-class-free zone. Only legislation, it says, will cause it to change its mind. But it is this type of legislation – forcing local councils to carry out the wishes of central Government, that goes against the SNP grain.

In theory, allowing councils to act freely is no bad thing. If some councils press ahead with class size reductions and others refuse, there would be a decent body of evidence to compare outcomes and make better decisions.

It is the political dangers that make big changes so difficult. The SNP wants a local income tax to replace the council tax but is not yet prepared to allow local authorities to set the rate. The potential variation in charging could prove just too damaging. In health, the party is proposing beefed-up health boards with an elected element. But all political parties are wary of too much regional variation in care because of the impact of the so-called postcode lottery.

What is clear, however, is that the SNP is trying to give as much power to local communities as it feels is politically feasible. It's wrestling with this central dilemma – people say they want more control over their lives, but are we ready yet to take on that extra responsibility and kick the habit of blaming someone else – the Government – when things don't go according to plan?

• Ewan Crawford was private secretary to SNP leader John Swinney, 2001-2004