Farewell, then, Holyrood 2021–26. And, frankly, good riddance. What a bleak, low, dishonest parliament this has been, even by the nonsensical standards of decentralization.
Goodbye to the many prayer servers of the time who read their questions to ministers directly from cards provided by the government. Farewell to parliamentary committees that showed a complete lack of independence, their members evenly divided along party lines, with a few honorable exceptions. To this tired, error-strewn, scandal-ridden government and its lame-duck, long-serving, unimaginative apparatchiks who have overseen half a decade of decline, secrecy and, let’s be honest, merciless beatings: off you pop.
The first three ministers. A major police investigation. Ministers caught in a sequence of scandals, but protected to the end by the first minister. The administration was taken to court twice by its information commissioner for not releasing the requested material. Ferries not delivered. Unreformed public services. Astronomical levels of drug deaths. A long list of policy twists. Heroic levels of welfare spending and public sector wages, despite repeated warnings from economists about unaffordability. Brave Scotland?
The opposition parties, unfortunately, have not fared any better. They have contributed to the loss of public confidence in Holyrood. It is a wild indictment of their weakness that polls suggest the SNP will return on May 7 for a third decade in power, despite its dismal record. Labour’s Anas Sarwar and the Conservatives’ Russell Findlay are unlikely to survive what could be historically poor performances from their parties.
Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75%
I tuned in to First Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, the last such session before parliament closes before the election. I don’t always do this, because it makes little sense: a predictable, stale exchange of views, heavy on heat and light on substance. This was no different. In fact, it was worse than usual, as party leaders boasted of their achievements during the course of parliament while angrily attacking the failures of their rivals. It was smug and selfish. It was entirely part of the way this parliament has run.
Indeed, there is no point in looking back. There is so little to deter us or worth serious analysis. This will inform the votes of some in a few weeks, but not, it seems, enough to bring about meaningful change. John Swinney will return to Bute House, with some new faces around the cabinet table, but this conservative, ultra-cautious first minister is too long to change his approach. The can will continue to be kicked down the road for as long as possible. The hard choices that so many warn are necessary will continue to be avoided unless a fiscal crisis forces his hand.
Sad to say, such a crisis may be just what Holyrood needs if it is to finally grow. In a paper published this week, the Royal Society of Edinburgh called for an end to the tribalism and timidity that have blocked significant policy change in recent years. This would require more than consensus-building rhetoric: it requires political leaders and institutions to make tough choices, honestly explain the trade-offs, and maintain a focus on outcomes rather than announcements. The challenge, she argued, is cultural as much as structural—to move away from polarization and toward a politics that takes lived experience seriously, values evidence over misleading narratives, and judges whether they bring about meaningful change. This reflects the views of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Fraser of Allander Institute and my own think tank, Enlighten. Surely they are not all wrong.
Forecasts show that by the end of the decade the Scottish budget will face a dangerous £5 billion black hole. This edge of the fiscal cliff is fast approaching and poses a serious challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy that, under devolution, administrations can spend more generously than Westminster on social policy. The universalist, freebie culture needs to be reconsidered. Rising health care costs will have to be met. A solution must be found for the funding of social care. The need for efficiency will have to be taken more seriously than it has been until now. The public sector can no longer be a feather in the way it is used to.
None of this will be easy, but politics is not an easy business these days. The problems facing Scotland are reflected in many countries and leaders everywhere are under extreme financial and democratic stress. This burden will not diminish in the years to come: the consequences of Iran’s cost-of-living war look set to be severe and potentially long-lasting.
However, an international crisis does not excuse Scottish MPs from making those tough choices and explaining those trade-offs to the electorate. It’s all Westminster’s fault is a tired, self-deprecating refrain. Time for ministers and MSPs to join the reality based community before reality catches up with them.
I was challenged this week by a senior Scottish businessman on whether there was any point to Holyrood. Had the whole transfer experiment been a mistake? He is not the first to ask the question. Among private sector leaders in particular, the performative nature of Scottish politics and its seeming inability to improve the state of the nation is deeply disappointing. They would not get away with this in their organizations.
For all my grievances, I remain a supporter of Scotland’s parliament, having been at its foundation. For all its faults, it is an essential national institution. I well remember the Scottish Question days at Westminster and Michael Forsyth’s Scottish Grand Committee. These were not happy times and did not come close to addressing Scotland’s democratic deficit. But what we have today isn’t even good enough, and more and more Scots are coming to share that view.
Holyrood 2026–31 must be a different beast to the parliament that preceded it. It just has to be, for all of us.
(Further reading: UK reform has plans for Scotland)
Content from our partners
