Devolution itself should be questioned

Amid the huffing, puffing and posturing generated by the independence debate, there is one question that has been neither asked nor answered: has ten years of devolution been a success?

That is, to ask whether Scotland has been better and more-economically governed by a devolved parliament and Scottish Executive than it was under the previous system.

If the answer to that is no, it is difficult to see how there can be any justification for extending devolved powers, let alone for some ill-defined independence, the details of which remain obscure. Devolution has been an expensive experiment for United Kingdom taxpayers. It cost almost £500 million (estimate £50m) to build the parliament and millions every year have been spent on financing MSPs’ salaries and other expenses. What material benefits have resulted from that expenditure? I am unable to discern any.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The governance of Scotland seems to have changed little. That is not surprising as the civil servants in Edinburgh remain similar in function to those in place before devolution. Local authorities continue with their good work as before. In the end all that the UK, and Scotland, appear to have got from devolution is an additional layer of expensive government of little consequence.

Its output of legislation has been less than impressive; in at least one instance, Westminster passed legislation that coincided with legislation in Edinburgh. So two parliaments to do the work of one – with no particular Scottish element.

The Scottish Parliament looks more like a local debating society than a serious legislature. There is little likelihood that the quality of MSPs will get any better on independence. Before devolution, the Secretary of State for Scotland was a powerful voice in the Cabinet. He managed Scottish affairs with the aid of four ministers of state. Scotland was well represented in parliament.

Within the UK, Scottish views were heard and well respected. Since devolution the influence and importance of the Secretary of State for Scotland has declined.

The idea that Scotland, led by Alex Salmond, independent and outside the UK would be an influential player on the world’s stage only has to be stated for its unreality to be apparent. More devolution, and even worse independence, would do no favours to the Scottish people – either politically or economically.

If, as I sense, devolution has produced no material economic or political benefit to the UK or Scotland, there would seem to be a strong case for the repeal of the Scotland Act. That is another issue which could usefully be addressed in the constitutional debate. The Scottish Parliament is not a sacred cow. It should be made to justify its existence.

Stanley Brodie

Dalrymple

Ayrshire