Evolution not Devolution

Banner image
Published on 23rd Oct 2024

Evolution not Devolution

For over two decades, unionist parties in Holyrood, tied to their Westminster counterparts, have failed to utilize devolution to its full potential. Instead of pushing the boundaries to benefit Scotland, they played it safe, focused on keeping Westminster happy rather than advancing Scotland’s future. In contrast, when the SNP took office, they showed how devolution could work when used properly, pushing its limits to make transformative changes for Scotland, from abolishing tuition fees to improving public services.

But devolution has its limits there is a glass ceiling. Westminster retains ultimate control over Scotland’s future, evidenced by decisions like Brexit, where Scotland’s clear will was ignored. And as long as English-based political parties still have a voice in Holyrood, Scotland’s interests will always come second to those of the Union. The time has come to ask: if devolution can’t take us further, isn’t it time for Scotland to pursue its full potential through independence?

 

In 1999, devolution was hailed as a turning point for Scotland a new era where Scots would have greater control over their own affairs. The Scottish Parliament was supposed to be a beacon of self-governance, designed to bring decisions closer to the people who live here. But over two decades later, we must ask ourselves: has devolution truly delivered on its promise, or has it simply been a leash keeping Scotland from its full potential? More importantly, have the unionist parties ever really fought to make devolution work for Scotland, or have they been too busy ensuring Westminster’s approval?

The truth is, devolution, as managed by the unionist parties, has fallen short. It is time to recognize that devolution isn’t enough it never was. Independence is the next logical step for Scotland’s evolution.  From the outset, the unionist parties Labour and the Liberal Democrats approached devolution cautiously, never daring to push the boundaries to see how far it could go to benefit Scotland. From 1999 to 2007, their focus was clear: maintain a comfortable relationship with Westminster and avoid rocking the boat. While devolution granted significant powers over health, education, and justice, these powers were never fully exploited for the benefit of the Scottish people.

Take tuition fees, for example. In 2000, the Labour-led Scottish government took tentative steps by introducing a graduate endowment scheme, which only partially addressed the burden on students. This half-hearted approach paled in comparison to what could have been done what *was* done later under SNP leadership, when tuition fees were abolished entirely. The unionist government’s reluctance to make bold, transformative decisions marked a pattern that would define their governance.

In healthcare, we saw similar hesitation. While free personal care for the elderly was introduced in 2002, this was a lone bright spot in an otherwise unambitious use of devolved powers. Waiting times in the NHS, health inequalities, and the deeper systemic issues in healthcare were left largely untouched. Unionist parties seemed content to tinker at the edges rather than implement meaningful reforms. In contrast, the SNP would later show how these powers could be used effectively to prioritise public health.

Moreover, key infrastructure projects and decisions around transport continued to be influenced by Westminster’s priorities. Unionist parties in Holyrood were too focused on seeking Westminster’s approval to push for the full fiscal autonomy needed to invest significantly in Scotland’s future. The Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was more concerned with preserving the Union than with using devolution to its fullest potential.

Even after the promises of further powers following the 2014 independence referendum, unionist parties continued to resist calls for meaningful devolution, especially in areas like tax and welfare. Their reluctance to grant Holyrood more powers was a clear sign that they had no intention of allowing Scotland to fully control its destiny.




Enter the SNP. From the moment they took office in 2007, it became clear that they were not afraid to use the powers of devolution to make bold decisions that directly improved the lives of Scots. While the unionist media and Westminster critics attacked the SNP for focusing on independence, the party got to work proving that devolution could, in fact, be used to make Scotland better. Under the SNP, council tax was frozen, prescription charges were scrapped, and tuition fees were abolished entirely, offering a stark contrast to the cautious, Westminster-approved policies of the unionist governments before them. These were policies that reflected the needs and values of Scotland, not the priorities of London.

When the SNP won a majority in 2011, they pushed the boundaries of devolution even further, making significant improvements to public services while also calling for a referendum on independence. In education, for example, while Westminster continued to increase tuition fees, the SNP ensured that higher education in Scotland remained free a clear demonstration of the benefits of devolution when used properly. Post-2014, despite the unionist parties and media continuing to undermine devolution, the SNP continued to govern effectively, expanding free childcare, introducing progressive policies like baby boxes for new parents, and using devolved welfare powers to mitigate the impact of Westminster’s austerity measures.

Even in the face of Westminster’s attempts to claw back power through legislation like the UK Internal Market Act, which threatened Holyrood’s ability to legislate on vital issues like food standards and environmental protections the SNP continued to make progress. The unionist media attacked the SNP at every turn, accusing them of being obsessed with independence at the expense of governance, but the evidence was clear: the SNP was using devolution effectively, while Westminster was the one undermining it.




Devolution has undoubtedly improved Scotland, but it has reached its limits. There is a glass ceiling on what devolution can achieve, and Westminster is determined to keep Scotland beneath it. Time and again, we’ve seen the UK government refuse to grant more powers to Holyrood, even as the SNP has demonstrated how effective devolved governance can be.The unionist parties will never allow devolution to evolve further. Even when promises are made, as they were in 2014, they are quickly broken or watered down. The Scotland Act 2016, touted as “the most extensive devolution ever,” fell short of meaningful fiscal or welfare autonomy. Meanwhile, Westminster continues to make decisions that impact Scotland’s futureBrexit being the clearest example without regard for what the people of Scotland want.

Scotland’s needs are different from those of the rest of the UK. Whether it’s maintaining ties with Europe, protecting our public services, or making progressive environmental decisions, Holyrood has shown that it is capable of governing in a way that reflects Scotland’s values. But devolution, as it stands, cannot allow Scotland to go any further. It’s time for evolution not devolution.The only way forward for Scotland is independence. Devolution, while beneficial, will always be limited by Westminster’s control. The unionist parties have shown that they will never truly fight for Scotland’s full potential, and Westminster has proven time and again that it is unwilling to grant Scotland the autonomy it deserves. The SNP, even in the face of media attacks and Westminster’s undermining, has proven that Scotland can govern itself effectively. It’s time to take that next step and become the independent nation we are capable of being.Independence is not just about leaving the UK; it’s about unlocking Scotland’s potential to govern fully for the benefit of its people. Devolution has run its course. Now is the time to evolve.




Scotlands political landscape has been shaped by centuries of debate over its place within the United Kingdom, and at the heart of that debate lies the question of whether unionist parties the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats are truly Scottish. Despite the appearance of regional autonomy and leadership, these parties remain tethered to their Westminster counterparts, governed by UK-wide policies and priorities that frequently override the specific needs and desires of the Scottish electorate. The result is a political system in which parties that claim to represent Scotland may not, in fact, put Scotland first.

A fundamental question arises: How can parties that are deeply integrated into UK-wide structures and financially dependent on political entities based in another country truly represent Scotland? The answer lies not only in their political behavior but in the very rules that govern their existence. The Electoral Commission, the body responsible for regulating political parties in the UK, requires all registered parties to comply with the same registration rules, financial oversight, and party structures, whether they are operating in Scotland, England, or Wales. These parties must register their names, emblems, and financial accounting schemes with the Electoral Commission, ensuring that they function as legally unified entities across the entire United Kingdom.

This means that Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives, and Scottish Liberal Democrats are not independent Scottish entities they are regional arms of UK-wide political machines, tied to the decisions made by leadership in Westminster. Financially, structurally, and politically, these parties cannot escape the gravity of their mother organizations, despite operating under Scottish leadership in Holyrood. The Electoral Commission’s regulations on accounting units and financial schemes ensure that these parties are intertwined with their national counterparts, subject to the same financial controls and regulations as their Westminster leaders. 

The implications of this are profound. Scotland, under current UK law, is effectively helpless to demand that only fully independent Scottish parties operate within its devolved parliament. Holyrood, while empowered to legislate on devolved matters such as education and health, does not have the authority to change the fundamental constitutional structures that would allow it to regulate the party registration system in Scotland. Even if two-thirds of the Scottish Parliament voted to require political parties to be registered and funded solely within Scotland, Westminster would ultimately need to approve such changes, as party registration and broader constitutional issues remain reserved powers under the Scotland Act of 1998. Scotland’s ability to enact meaningful reform on this front is constrained by a legal framework that protects the union above all else.

This framework perpetuates a political dynamic in which unionist parties cannot prioritize Scotland without first considering the broader UK context. The Scottish Conservatives provide a stark example of this. Despite Scotland voting decisively to remain in the European Union in 2016, the Scottish Conservative Party fell in line with Westminster’s pro-Brexit stance. They not only accepted Brexit but, over time, supported increasingly hard-line versions of it, including a no-deal Brexit if necessary. This demonstrated that when forced to choose between the interests of their Scottish electorate and loyalty to the broader UK Conservative Party, the Scottish Tories chose the latter.

This loyalty to Westminster has consequences beyond individual policy decisions it fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of devolution. Devolution was designed to give Scotland a measure of autonomy, but if the parties sitting in Holyrood are taking their marching orders from London, how can Scotland ever truly govern itself? The Scottish Conservatives’ alignment with Brexit, despite Scotland’s clear opposition to it, shows how the unionist parties will always prioritize the survival of the union over the distinct political and social needs of Scotland.

Similarly, Scottish Labour has struggled to carve out a distinctly Scottish voice. While the party initially opposed Brexit, its leadership has since accepted it, with UK Labour leader Keir Starmer now pledging to “make Brexit work.” This shift has been echoed by Scottish Labour, which has not made rejoining the EU a central platform, even though such a move would align with the will of Scottish voters. Scottish Labour’s unwillingness to oppose UK-wide Labour policy demonstrates again that these parties are fundamentally oriented towards their Westminster leadership, rather than the people they claim to represent [oai_citation:3,Brexit, sovereignty and Conservative unionism in Scotland.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats face similar issues. Traditionally pro-European, they too have struggled to distinguish themselves from their UK counterparts. While they continue to advocate for EU membership, their policy positions and strategies are largely dictated by the broader Liberal Democrat Party in the UK. As a result, they fail to present a truly independent vision for Scotland, instead operating as a regional branch of a UK-wide party.

At the heart of this issue is the inherent tension between unionism and devolution. Unionist parties are committed to maintaining the United Kingdom, even if that means undermining the very premise of devolution. The Brexit negotiations provide a clear example of how this plays out in practice. When powers repatriated from the EU after Brexit could have been devolved to Holyrood, Westminster instead retained control over significant areas of policy, effectively clawing back powers that could have strengthened Scotland’s autonomy [oai_citation:1,Brexit, sovereignty and Conservative unionism in Scotland. Unionist parties, rather than opposing this centralization of power, supported it, further demonstrating their loyalty to Westminster over Scotland.

This dynamic leaves Scotland in a precarious position. As long as these unionist parties continue to dominate the political conversation in Holyrood, Scotland will never be fully able to govern itself. They will always be beholden to their UK counterparts, and their first loyalty will always be to the union. This reality underscores the argument that independence is the only way forward for Scotland. Only through independence can Scotland ensure that its political parties are truly Scottish, representing the interests of the people of Scotland rather than serving as regional branches of UK-wide organizations.

Scotland’s political future cannot be shaped by parties whose loyalties lie elsewhere. As long as the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour, and Scottish Liberal Democrats continue to take their cues from London, Scotland’s interests will always come second. Independence offers a way out of this cycle, a way for Scotland to finally put its people and its interests first. The only way to ensure that Scotland’s political parties are truly Scottish is to remove the constraints of the union and build a future where Scotland can stand on its own, free from the influence of Westminster.