Constitutional matters are set to dominate, but there are calls for more action on domestic issues
For the last 20 years the Scottish Parliament has wrought great change on Scotland, so what does its future hold, asks Gina Davidson
The old adage that a week is a long time in politics has perhaps never been as true as now.
Momentous events are overtaken by further momentous events in a never-ending furious cyclone of news, be it Brexit, climate change, misogyny, antiSemitism, Islamophobia, leadership challenges, Scottish independence, health service crises, schools crises... it is exhausting for the electorate and politicians alike. Indeed, it can be hard to see any possibility of those charged with running the UK, and those at the helm in Scotland, of having room to think about the future.
An anniversary, such as that of the opening of the Scottish Parliament, however, has been turning minds to what the next 20 years might have in store for Holyrood and its MSPS.
The last two decades saw the Parliament embed itself into Scottish life; legislation has changed how and where people can smoke, the care elderly folk can receive at home, who is able to own land, the kind of higher education to which young people can aspire, how safe women can feel on the streets
and in their own homes. Its initial set of powers have evolved and increased since 1999, thanks to the Calman Commission, the Smith Commission and the resulting Scotland Act of 2016 – the most significant being in income tax and social security.
So what then does the future hold?
One thing for sure is, thanks to Brexit, there will likely be more constitutional wrangling. Leaving the EU has already caused devolution a headache. When the UK government passed the Withdrawal Bill without the consent of the Scottish Parliament it was the first time Westminster had legislated on a devolved matter without MSP consent. And there were fears of a “power grab” as it was dubbed by the SNP, that powers returning from the EU, on devolved matters, would be retained at Westminster, rather than coming straight to Holyrood.
In the midst of the failure of the UK government to get a Brexit deal through Westminster, those concerns still exist and there is yet to be agreement on how Legislative Common Frameworks will function. But in the last few weeks the First Minister has made clear her intent for further change.
While Nicola Sturgeon has not yet named a date for another independence referendum – though it will be sometime in 2021 – it’s clear she believes that, at the very least, more devolution is required for the Parliament to function post Brexit.
As a result she has proposed cross-party talks and a Citizens’ Assembly to look at what those further devolved powers would be, echoing wider discussions among opposition parties about the Parliament’s future. Scottish Labour has already committed to demanding the devolution of employment law for instance, while Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser, has raised the issue of post-brexit “quasifederalism” for the UK with a new “charter of Union” between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Speaking in Holyrood about the future, Nicola Sturgeon certainly believes the constitution should be the future focus of the Parliament. “There is, surely, one point of clarity that has emerged over the last three years – even for the most ardent opponent of Scottish independence. The Westminster system of government does not serve Scotland’s interests, and the devolution settlement, in its current form, is now seen to be utterly inadequate to the task of protecting those interests,” she said.
“Brexit has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the heart of how Scotland is governed. And – whatever our different views on independence – it should persuade all of us that we need a more solid foundation on which to build our future as a country.”
However for many, MSPS included, the idea that the Parliament will be focused on more constitutional change in the future, rather than dealing with more tangible issues, is disheartening. Ruth Davidson, Scottish Tory leader, in particular has said that the SNP has used the constitution as an excuse for inaction. “I have a more positive view of Scotland’s future. I reject their mantra that says we have to have a break-up before we can possibly hope to prosper. I don’t see Scotland as subjugated, put upon or as held back.”
In a recent speech former Labour First Minister Jack Mcconnell also appeared exasperated at continued focus on the constitution, saying that he still believed devolution was the “right” solution for Scotland. Instead, he said the Parliament should be judged now – and going forward – on three tests: “is it producing good law? Is it holding the executive [Scottish Government] accountable? Does it speak for the country?”
He said he believed that tests one and three were
“When I look back to what we did in the beginning it was ambitious and radical and we’ve got very timid”
being met, but that there was failure when it came to the Parliament holding the government to account. He believes there must be reform in terms of how Holyrood is elected – limits being put on the amount of time politicians can be on the “party list” for instance – and that committees should have elected conveners similar to Westminster, to give them more independence from their parties.
The latter is a suggestion that current Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh has said is already being considered by members of the Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and if approved, it could be introduced after the May 2021 elections.
Jackie Baillie, an MSP in Holyrood since the beginning, believes that there is a place for elected committee conveners, as she says she’s seen too many decisions made by committees overturned when government ministers apply pressure to the members of their own parties to change their votes.
Procedural and constitutional matters aside, what should the Parliament be turning its collective mind to? For Baillie, it’s back to basics, about remembering why the Parliament was established in the first place – “how we can improve people’s lives – that has got to be the focus”.
“When I look back to what we did in the beginning it was ambitious and radical and we’ve got very timid,” she says. “I feel we’re not using the powers the Parliament has in the most powerful way to effect lives. We need to be more vigilant, to be clear about priorities and to be more ambitious.
“It’s not just about legislation – we have some such as the 12 week waiting time which is not worth the paper it’s written on – it’s about how and where we choose to spend government money. Let’s get about using it to improve people’s every day lives. Let’s get the Parliament looking at how we reform the delivery of public services – how do we make them more local for people? That’s where I want to see the focus.”
Back in 1999 in his opening speech Donald Dewar knew that change was inevitable, that the institution would not stand still.
The Parliament he said was just “a new stage of the journey begun long ago and which has no end”.
The next 20 years will no doubt prove him right.