Scotland Devolution at 25: Successes, Failures, and the Path Ahead

Today we recognise the 25th anniversary of devolution in Scotland, analyzing its successes and failures within the system of "multi-level governance". Speakers reflect on the Scottish Parliament's establishment in 1999, realizing the "settled will of the Scottish people", and noting initial achievements like free personal care and the smoking ban. A major theme is the alleged centralization of power in Holyrood, often failing to reach local communities and councils. Critics argue that constitutional focus has hindered progress on essential services like health and education. The discussion emphasizes the need for constructive cooperation between the Scottish and UK Governments to improve governance and delivery for the people of Scotland.

Key Takeaways:

• The Scottish Parliament (Holyrood) was established in 1999 following the Scotland Act 1998, fulfilling a long-held ambition supported by figures like Donald Dewar and John Smith.
• Early devolved administrations delivered significant policies, including free personal care, the smoking ban, and free university tuition.
• While devolution moved power from Westminster to Holyrood, power has often centralized in Edinburgh, hindering local government and the flow of decision-making down to communities.
• Some critics argue that Holyrood's Committee system, intended for strong scrutiny, has been weakened, leading to flawed legislation.
• Intergovernmental relations have been strained by polarization and constitutional wrangling, particularly since the 2014 independence referendum and subsequent calls for a second one.
• Despite record funding, public services like the NHS and education in Scotland are criticized for falling short of standards and experiencing rising waiting lists compared to other parts of the UK.

Discussion:  What specific structural or political changes could ensure that the original intent of devolution—bringing decisions closest to the people affected—is achieved in Scotland's future?

Source: Devolution in Scotland
Volume 773: debated on Wednesday 22 October 2025

Transcript

Amy: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament, a new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today we're looking back actually at 25 years of Scottish devolution. We'll explore the um original promise and some of the, well, the operational hurdles that came up. The starting point, famously put by John Smith, was this idea that the new Scottish Parliament in 1999 would be the settled will of the Scottish people.

Ivan: 0:32

That's right. And it's crucial to grasp it wasn't just about having a parliament building. The whole point was to uh boost accountability within the UK framework. And those early years under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, they really did make waves.

Amy: 0:46

Some significant policies came out of that period.

Ivan: 0:49

Absolutely. Groundbreeding stuff for the time, free personal care, no university tuition fees. And Scotland actually led the UK on banning smoking in public places. Quite a start.

Amy: 0:58

And the way Parliament was set up was um designed for that kind of action, wasn't it? The Scotland Act 1998 made it unicameral.

Ivan: 1:05

Correct. No second chamber like the Lords. Instead, they put a lot of emphasis on powerful subject committees.

Amy: 1:12

These were meant to be the watchdogs.

Ivan: 1:14

Precisely. They were designed to be the main place for scrutinizing the government, holding the executive to account, amending laws. That was the theory.

Amy: 1:23

But theories sometimes meet reality. Where did the problems start to uh emerge?

Ivan: 1:29

Well, many observers point to a shift after 2011 when the SNP won an overall majority. There's criticism that the committees started to lose their well, their teeth.

Amy: 1:38

How so?

Ivan: 1:39

It comes down to how the committee chairs get picked. Unlike Westminster's secret ballot, in Holyrood, the party leaders basically appoint them.

Amy: 1:47

Ah, so if your position as chair depends on staying in the party's good graces.

Ivan: 1:51

Challenging the government's plans becomes a much trickier proposition, doesn't it? It potentially weakens that scrutiny function.

Amy: 1:57

And if scrutiny is weakened, you risk poorly thought-out laws getting through.

Ivan: 2:01

Exactly. And we've seen examples where that seems to have happened. Policy failures that followed.

Amy: 2:06

Can you give an example?

Ivan: 2:07

Well, the deposit return scheme is a recent one. It caused a lot of uncertainty, especially for businesses, before it had to be uh put on hold. Arguably more robust scrutiny might have flagged issues earlier.

Amy: 2:18

And there was another one, football-related.

Ivan: 2:20

Ah, yes, the Offensive Behavior at Football Act. That was another piece of legislation that faced huge criticism for being poorly drafted and um difficult to enforce. It was eventually repealed in 2018. It shows the real cost when scrutiny perhaps isn't as strong as intended.

Amy: 2:38

It's interesting. There's almost a paradox here, isn't there? Power devolved from London to Edinburgh.

Ivan: 2:43

But then critics argue power became quite centralized within Scotland, from Holyrood down.

Amy: 2:49

A power grab from local communities, some have called it.

Ivan: 2:52

It's definitely a tension. Think about the nationalization of police and fire services. Local councils saw their responsibilities shrink in some areas. Power moved upwards within Scotland, even as it moved downwards from the UK level.

Amy: 3:05

Which must create a bit of confusion for voters. Who's actually responsible for what?

Ivan: 3:08

That feeds directly into something academics call the expectations gap. The idea, floated back in 2001 by James Kellis, is that people might feel let down because the Parliament hasn't quite lived up to its potential, maybe because of these um complexities of governing across different levels.

Amy: 3:26

So people expect more delivery, but the system itself creates challenges. You mean the independence debate?

Ivan: 3:41

Yes. Since the 2014 referendum, the repeated calls for another vote have really dominated the political landscape. It's led to, shall we say, quite strained relations between the Scottish and UK governments.

Amy: 3:53

And the argument from critics is that this focus on the Constitution, the legal battles, the political rows.

Ivan: 3:58

It distracts from the day job from delivering on domestic priorities. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Amy: 4:02

Like what specifically?

Ivan: 4:03

Well, things like improving educational attainment, tackling NHS waiting lists, addressing Scotland's tragically high drug death rates, these are huge challenges that need sustained focus and cooperation. The constant constitutional friction arguably pulls energy and resources away from that.

Amy: 4:20

So looking back over 25 years, from that initial vision of accountability to today's picture of centralization challenges, scrutiny questions, and constitutional standoffs, what's the path forward?

Ivan: 4:33

There seems to be a growing consensus across different viewpoints that the system itself needs a rethink. Constructive revision. As you know, no law, not even the Scotland Act, is set in stone forever. The real push needs to be towards making the existing powers work better, shifting the focus from the constitutional arguments back to delivery, back to partnership. That's likely the only way to really address that voter frustration we talked about. Optimizing how multilevel governance actually works on the ground.

Amy: 4:58

Which leaves us with a final thought, perhaps. If a devolved parliament finds its ability to scrutinize and deliver hampered because its powers and its political oxygen are consumed by constitutional disputes, can any system of devolution truly meet its aims without resolving those fundamental questions about ultimate sovereignty and financial levers first? Something to ponder. As always, find us on social media at bench report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.