A recent report from the think-tank IPPR Scotland has highlighted significant dissatisfaction among former members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) regarding the state of politics and policymaking at Holyrood. The report, based on 'exit interviews' with former parliamentarians, indicates widespread feelings of 'deep frustration and disillusionment' with how the Scottish Parliament operates.
Criticisms of Holyrood's Functioning
The survey revealed complaints concerning the quality of both questions posed by opposition members and answers provided by cabinet secretaries. Former MSPs also expressed discontent with the effectiveness of Holyrood's committee system and the general standard of debate. Some critics noted that the committee system, which is intended to scrutinize legislation akin to the House of Lords at Westminster, appeared to be manipulated by the governing party, leading to a rubber-stamping of government proposals rather than robust examination.
One particular instance cited involved the consultation process for legislation concerning self-identification laws for transgender people. Despite claims of extensive consultation, the report notes that a stream of 'experts' appeared before committees, with a near-universal stance in favor of the proposed changes. This process, according to critics, undermined genuine debate and diverse viewpoints.
Author's Counterpoint
Euan McColm, writing in the Daily Mail, contends that many of the former politicians now voicing these criticisms are the same individuals who participated in the erosion of democratic standards at Holyrood. He suggests that while these former MSPs enjoyed their parliamentary roles and salaries, they failed to uphold the principles of openness and accountability upon which the Parliament was founded.
McColm questions the value of the IPPR's recommendation for a Citizens' Commission on Scotland's Democracy, which would involve the public in reviewing democratic processes. He expresses skepticism about the motivations of individuals who volunteer for such assemblies, drawing a parallel to his view that a desire to become a politician should disqualify someone from the role. He asserts that taking advice on democracy from those who allegedly weakened it is akin to seeking fire safety advice from an arsonist.
The article implies that the criticisms detailed in the IPPR report, while reflecting genuine issues within the Scottish Parliament, are voiced by individuals who bear some responsibility for the problems they describe. McColm observes a pattern of what he perceives as arrogant defiance from the government and a lack of focus from the opposition during the period in question, suggesting a systemic issue rather than solely external failings.