Scottish Parliament at 25: Even a parliament with poor stewardship is better than no parliament at all

Properly tooled-up, the Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved institutions in the world

When I recently interviewed an expert on tackling domestic violence, she compared the various nations and regions of the UK for prevalence of abuse.

After listing the worst-performing areas, she added: “That’s not including Northern Ireland of course – things are way worse there.”

The reason for this, she suggested, was that the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly from 2022 meant no real policy changes could be implemented, and as such matters like dealing with domestic violence bumbled along without meaningful intervention.

This year marks 25 years of the Scottish Parliament

The absence of a sentient and political arrangement meant Northern Ireland didn’t even get to be at the bottom of the league table – they were in a disaster division all of their own.

In contrast, the Scottish Parliament had passed a new law to ramp up action on domestic abusers, extending it to deal with those engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour.

She said that while incidents in Scotland were still far too high, it meant progress was being made in protecting victims, usually women, and bringing their abusers to justice.

There was a genuine feeling among those working with victims that it would help reduce cases and make Scotland a safer place.

So while it is easy to criticise the functions and performance of Holyrood as it approaches its 25th birthday, we need only glance across the water for some context.

Properly tooled-up, the Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved institutions in the world.

It has significantly more heft and influence than its Welsh counterpart, and means that Scots have more access and control over democracy than any other British voters.

The bones of contention ought not to be with the powers it does or does not have – but how they are used.

I have noticed an increasing noise among Scotland’s pro-union community, of which I am a part, to shut down Holyrood and return to the pre-1999 state of play where we are governed like most of the rest of Britain, by Westminster alone.

It’s not just a social media campaign – prominent Conservative Lord Frost regularly highlights the SNP’s failings, and suggests a clawing back of controls to Westminster as a solution.

In my view, he confuses poor governance and policy choices by Scotland’s government with the powers of the parliament.

After all, there has been no lack of shambolic decision-making from the UK Government in recent years.

A list including elements of Brexit, half-baked rail projects, NHS waiting lists and immigration policy all point to a moribund Tory government flat out of ideas.

And when it is replaced by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour later this year, he too will make a litany of mistakes and mis-steps.

When highlighting these, nobody will suggest shutting down Westminster as a remedy.

It will be understood that this is a government which has won a democratic vote fair and square, and the country just needs to suck up the consequences of its choice.

So it should be in Scotland.

I have some sympathy with those who say all the Scottish Parliament can ever do is buttress the SNP’s case for constitutional separation.

That has, after all, been the motive of those running the show for the last 17 years.

Too often the occupants of Bute House have used it as a bully pulpit on matters beyond their remit.

Never-the-less, over its short life, the parliament has been transformative in terms of the policies it has delivered, whether you agree with them or not.

Is there a parent of teenagers in Scotland over the last decade or so not grateful for free university tuition?

People said that was a cynical ploy by the SNP to buy the votes of middle Scotland, and it certainly worked. It opened the door for many to vote for the SNP for the first time.

It also opened the door to higher education for so many Scots for whom it would not have been possible financially had they lived in England.

Great in the short-term, but it has crippled universities financially, forcing them to take more international students to balance the books, often in the place of domestic school-leavers.

It could be catastrophic in the long-term.

For every investment in lifting children out of poverty there has been a tax increase on hard-working Scots on middle incomes.

For every free bus ticket for a young person, there’s an islander stranded because their ferry isn’t working.

And for every feather in the cap of green activists, there’s a working-class motorist who can no longer afford to drive into their own city centre because of contentious low-emission zones.

That’s the political debate. The Scottish Government has got things right and got things wrong.

Every five years, the people have the power to give their verdict on these choices, and make changes accordingly.

I personally find it astonishing they haven’t yet applied this power to the SNP.

But that’s democracy.

I would use the parliament’s powers to lower the tax burden on people and businesses and drive economic growth at every turn, in the cities and the countryside.

Others would hike taxes further and plough the money into whatever anti-poverty measure happened to be in fashion at that moment.

The powerful parliament would cater for either strategy, and it’s not the system’s fault if those in power choose one over the other.

Even the parliamentary terms themselves have been subject of debate.

There used to be elections every four years, which was then upped to five in order to avoid a collision with the 2015 General Election.

Former Labour leader Kezia Dugdale wrote through the week that she wanted that brought back down again.

Yet, when researching the same article I referenced above on domestic abuse, I spoke to a former senior police officer and poverty expert who said the opposite.

Five-year terms weren’t long enough, he argued, as deeply effective policies designed to turn round decades of decline and cultural behaviour needed longer to bed in.

The idea of implementing something, then having it ripped up by a new sheriff in town five years later, was wasteful and ruinous.

The public haven’t been routinely asked about their views in relation to the Scottish Parliament.

My own company conducted some polling on this matter last year, asking more than 1000 Scots what their constitutional preference would be between full independence, more or fewer powers for Holyrood, or a full-scale reverting of political control to Westminster.

The results demonstrated that people just aren’t all that sure.

None of the preferences recorded more than 30 per cent in support levels, including 23 per cent who wanted full powers, in essence Scottish independence, and nine per cent who wanted Holyrood shut down.

And yet there can be a feeling among political and media classes that Holyrood just lacks something.

I’ve heard anecdotally from MPs in the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP that, once they’ve breathed in the Westminster life, they see coming back to Edinburgh as a downgrade.

The grandeur of the Houses of Parliament, the theatre of the Commons’ green benches, and the buzz of London’s political life is not replicated in Scotland’s capital.

Even when huge stories break, the television footage from the Scottish Parliament shows ghostly corridors, a handful of casually-dressed staffers milling about without urgency, and just a sense that – in comparison – Holyrood seems little more than a town hall.

The pub in parliament, affectionately nick-named Margo’s after the late Margo MacDonald, can sometimes bring itself to an atmospheric climax on the odd Thursday night before term concludes.

But it’s no rival to Westminster’s network of hostelries, inside parliament and out, which brim with activity and conniving on what seems like a 24/7 basis.

Perhaps that is why Scottish MPs – even the nationalist ones – grump about coming back up the road.

If even the pro-independence politicians prefer London, you know there’s an issue.

Yet it is worth remembering that the parliament is a political scion – and its next quarter of a century will likely look much different.

There is some distance to travel, but the 2026 election surely won’t return the SNP in the large numbers they have enjoyed since 2007.

That will lead to a different approach.

It’s hard to imagine Labour not having some kind of controlling stake in the government, which will arrive on the back of the party having been in power in Westminster for two years.

We haven’t had such a shared dynamic since 2006, and it will likely herald a new way of doing things.

You might not agree with Labour policies at that point, but expect a more joined-up relationship when it comes to developing devolved and reserved policy.

In theory, that should deliver smoother results for the electorate.

If the SNP does manage to shake itself up and get back into power, it will be more grievance and wedge-driving between Scotland’s and England’s governments.

That’s what the people will have voted for – we’re just going to have to like it.

Because as the situation in Northern Ireland has proved, even a parliament with poor stewardship is better than no parliament at all.

Adam Morris is the former head of media for the Scottish Conservatives and director of Shorthand PR