Holyrood is falling well short of being the legislative powerhouse its founders hoped for

The Scottish Parliament was created to address a ‘democratic deficit’ in Scottish politics. What devolution really addressed was a growing legitimacy deficit. A system of government that allowed a party to govern, through the Scottish Office, without a Scottish ‘mandate’ was the primary reason for the emphatic victory for devolution in the 1997 referendum. The Tories had been returned at successive elections, but a feeling grew that its mandate won across the UK as a whole was not enough.

But it would be wrong to assume that devolution has entirely closed the legitimacy gap. Distrust in politics and politicians has reached levels that ought to cause concern. A turnout of 53.2 per cent in the recent Holyrood election is hardly commendable. There remains a job to be done to win back public trust in politics.

The SNP embezzlement case, especially the responses from the party’s leadership, will only contribute to distrust and potential delegitimisation but this is not the main source of the distrust. Failure to offer serious policy responses to mounting social and economic challenges is whittling away at trust and feeding support for easy populist responses. The fiction that Scotland is exempt from the appeals of right-wing populism should by now be obvious. We have gone beyond the point where spin and the highly selective use of evidence and statistics can cover the tracks of policy failures.

It was commonly asserted that Northern Ireland suffered from a ‘policy deficit’ after the Good Friday Agreement. The emphasis on constitutional politics meant insufficient attention had been paid to everyday public policy matters. This appeared to contrast with Scotland, where devolution was established in response to perceived policy failures linked to the legitimacy deficit, most obviously the case of the poll tax. But Scottish politics in recent years has developed a policy gap through the prominence of constitutional politics.

Policy-making has become subsumed within permanent campaigning for a second independence referendum. Governance has taken a back seat. The long and winding journey from policy idea to implementation has been truncated. Policy formulation has too often involved dreaming up a newsworthy pronouncement without thought to delivery, far less evaluation. The consequences are poor delivery and failed outcomes.

The Scottish Parliament has never become the legislative powerhouse its founders hoped for but a much poorer version of the House of Commons. The executive branch has become even more dominant in Scotland than it is in London. Scrutiny is far weaker. The chamber in each institution, as expected, offers political theatre but this spills over much more often into Holyrood’s committees than happens in the Commons. Exceptions exist but only highlight the overall weakness of Holyrood’s committees. Reforms already underway seem more about increasing theatricality than effectiveness. Increasing the opportunities for backbenchers to take the limelight is unlikely to improve scrutiny but will provide copy for the local media. Holyrood is not Hollywood, it does not exist to entertain but to legislate, scrutinise and deliberate on serious policy challenges. It needs to be more effective and MSPs need to be more independently assertive as parliamentarians if policy-making is to improve. 

Other changes are essential to improve policy-making and outcomes. The Scottish Government does not have a monopoly of expertise. Ministers need to listen – really listen, not just go through the motions of consultations – with people and bodies with real expertise and not the echo chamber fostered through grants to sections of Scotland’s third sector. Local government needs to be much more assertive. Cosla has become a pale imitation of the body that regularly challenged the Scottish Government, reflecting the demise of local government. Local government needs to be empowered – and that means properly financed. The slow progress on creating a network of regional governance (the missing piece of Scotland’s governance structures) needs to accelerate. The arrogance of the centre lies at the heart of many failures.

Denuding local government of power and resources inevitably undermines good outcomes.
Institutional reform is necessary, but it is not enough. Difficult choices lie ahead, and the longer they are delayed, the harder they will become. Scotland has hidden behind an unjustified rhetoric of superiority that masks inaction across many policy areas. The comforting belief that Scots are more progressive than other UK citizens, based on selective evidence, has been debilitating and has held back real progress.

Burnishing supposedly progressive credentials, delivering speeches making promises that are not kept, and putting forward policies that are ill-conceived cheapens politics and damages trust. Responding to complex issues with simple ‘solutions’ and failing to listen to legitimate criticism leads to an almighty mess, fuelling division and doing more harm than good – as exemplified by the gender recognition fiasco.

Easy waffle about a wealth tax while so little action has been taken on the council tax, that most egregious example of maldistribution of wealth, is lazy, evasive and downright dishonest. Nobody seriously expects the introduction of anything recognisable as a wealth tax in the next five years, just as nobody really expects another independence referendum during this period. If a majority in Holyrood is serious about redistributing wealth, then they can make a start with the council tax. Reform will be unpopular amongst many and no doubt the fear of revolting middle classes, as witnessed following the 1985 rates revaluation, has created inertia. But governing, serious governing, is not just about making happy-clappy pronouncements but requires taking on powerful interests.

The 2014 referendum saw the mobilisation of sections of Scottish society who had previously never voted (and in many cases were not even registered to vote) with promises of a much fairer Scotland. These electors have since been abandoned and they have, in turn, abandoned politics. The potential still exists but leadership is absent.

There are so many neglected areas of public policy that priorities will need to be set. The current devolved set-up, negotiated post-2014, involves very different fiscal arrangements from the outset of devolution. Much emphasis has been placed on how the parliament can spend money on a wider range of matters. But the concomitant arrangements mean that devolved government is now more reliant on a healthy and growing Scottish economy to provide the tax base to pay for this spending. Less growth means less money to spend on public services. Blaming London leads to the debilitating politics of grievance. If a governing party cannot manage this then what hope has it in managing the much greater challenges of independence? The lopsided thinking on this needs to be corrected.

Nobody would seriously suggest that sustainable economic growth can be easily achieved but it holds the key to so many improvements in social and economic outcomes. Growth will increase the tax base, provide greater resources for public services and reduce pressure on those services. Well paid, secure and satisfying employment is the key.

For too long the Scottish Government has indulged in followership, fashioning populist policy rather than showing leadership. Governing requires a willingness to confront difficult issues and make difficult choices. Parliament needs to be more assertive and avoid falling into a student union debating society.