The Devoted Decade
By Heather Graham
Monday 2nd November 2009
Monday 2nd November 2009
It’s been ten years since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, but even after a decade of home rule, Holyrood is still a contentious issue among many. While for some it has failed to live up to expectations, for others it provides a sense of optimism about Scotland’s future.
Founded on a promise to “do right by the people of Scotland” by First Minister Donald Dewar, home rule has enabled many positive changes to take place. The highly controversial fox hunting ban was first implemented in Scotland, setting a precedent which allowed the passage of the Bill in England and Wales more than two years later. Similarly, the ban on smoking in enclosed public places was first implemented by the Scottish parliament, paving the way for legislation covering the rest of the UK. Without this successful example to follow, it seems unlikely that the ban would have been enacted in England and Wales over fears of possibly damaging the economy. Aside from acting as a kind of unofficial testing ground for new legislation, Scotland has undoubtedly benefited directly from its autonomy. The NHS has perhaps been the biggest such beneficiary of Scottish devolution, with the phased abolition of prescription charges and free personal and nursing care both presenting marked departures from the future of the increasingly privatized NHS in England.
While the Scottish Parliament has undeniably achieved a great deal, it has also seen its fair share of fiasco and scandal. Indeed, the very foundation of Scottish devolution was upset by the ever escalating cost of the parliament building. Initially predicted to cost between £10m and £40m, the final price tag soared to over £400m due to extensive construction delays of more than three years, leading to heated criticism and even a formal enquiry. The expenses incurred by MSPs have also provided more ammunition for Holyrood critics, with the scandal over questionable claims reaching as similar a scope as those of Westminster. Abrupt U-turns on political issues have further blighted the Scottish parliament, with promises including the abolition of student debt and council tax being quickly abandoned. Even the recent row over the decision to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber almost caused an American boycott of both Scotland and the United Kingdom at large.
By no means a decisive issue, the first decade of Scottish home rule can be seen to consist of both positives and negatives. Linked with this, the question of whether Scotland should take devolution further and become independent from the UK has once again been brought to the fore. Perhaps in another decade, the dichotomy of the reality of the Scottish parliament will have subsided and presented a clear answer to that question.
Founded on a promise to “do right by the people of Scotland” by First Minister Donald Dewar, home rule has enabled many positive changes to take place. The highly controversial fox hunting ban was first implemented in Scotland, setting a precedent which allowed the passage of the Bill in England and Wales more than two years later. Similarly, the ban on smoking in enclosed public places was first implemented by the Scottish parliament, paving the way for legislation covering the rest of the UK. Without this successful example to follow, it seems unlikely that the ban would have been enacted in England and Wales over fears of possibly damaging the economy. Aside from acting as a kind of unofficial testing ground for new legislation, Scotland has undoubtedly benefited directly from its autonomy. The NHS has perhaps been the biggest such beneficiary of Scottish devolution, with the phased abolition of prescription charges and free personal and nursing care both presenting marked departures from the future of the increasingly privatized NHS in England.
While the Scottish Parliament has undeniably achieved a great deal, it has also seen its fair share of fiasco and scandal. Indeed, the very foundation of Scottish devolution was upset by the ever escalating cost of the parliament building. Initially predicted to cost between £10m and £40m, the final price tag soared to over £400m due to extensive construction delays of more than three years, leading to heated criticism and even a formal enquiry. The expenses incurred by MSPs have also provided more ammunition for Holyrood critics, with the scandal over questionable claims reaching as similar a scope as those of Westminster. Abrupt U-turns on political issues have further blighted the Scottish parliament, with promises including the abolition of student debt and council tax being quickly abandoned. Even the recent row over the decision to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber almost caused an American boycott of both Scotland and the United Kingdom at large.
By no means a decisive issue, the first decade of Scottish home rule can be seen to consist of both positives and negatives. Linked with this, the question of whether Scotland should take devolution further and become independent from the UK has once again been brought to the fore. Perhaps in another decade, the dichotomy of the reality of the Scottish parliament will have subsided and presented a clear answer to that question.