Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Devolution ten years on: 'The parliament has been good for Scotland'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 June 2009
TEN years ago tomorrow, Edinburgh regained a badge of honour as a capital city when it officially became home, once again, to the Scottish Parliament.
After being absent for nearly three centuries "home rule" returned in an event formalised by the opening by the Queen of the revived parliament in its temporary home on the Mound.

Today, a decade on, some people still remain unsupportive of the pa
rliament. A poll commissioned for this week's anniversary showed only a minority – 41 per cent - thought the parliament had been "a good thing".

While only 9 per cent viewed the parliament as bad, this still leaves a lot of Scots who are unconvinced that the parliament's creation has been beneficial to them and their families.

Historians won't find it hard to explain this reluctance to embrace devolution in practice, even after such an overwhelming public vote in its favour in the 1997 referendum.

The parliament was beset with difficulties from the off, with rows over the construction costs at Holyrood and MSPs hit by scandals galore – one even bringing down a First Minister.

It is to be hoped that such negativity is in the past. For surely there can be no doubt that parliament has been good for Scotland, with more local decision-making allowing Scottish solutions to Scottish problems in health, education, transport and crime.

Edinburgh in particular has undoubtedly benefited from having the parliament here, as a new focal point for an aspirational Scotland – and all the business that brings, to say nothing of thousands of well-paid public sector jobs.

There's every chance that the public image of Holyrood is finally on the rise, too, with favourable comparisons being made of the regulation of MSPs' expenses compared with allegations of mass freeloading at Westminster.

This perhaps explains why the same poll which found that only a minority of Scots thought the parliament had been a good thing also detected a desire to hand it more power. 47 per cent said Holyrood should decide on tax and spending, with only 22 per cent wanting London to retain those powers over a devolved Scotland.

Perhaps most encouragingly, only 28 per cent backed an independent Scotland, which suggests that demand for us to go solo is static despite the popularity of Alex Salmond's SNP government.

A decade on, Scots may not be entirely happy with devolution. But they are not ready yet to throw themselves headlong into the unknown waters of independence.





The full article contains 420 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2009 8:47 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The Scottish Parliament
 
1

Unimpressed one,

30/06/2009 12:24:46
"For surely there can be no doubt that parliament has been good for Scotland"

The EEN seems to be in denial, a bit like the EU, that just because politicians have talked up an institution doesn't mean to say the electorate support it. The consensus would seem to support the fact that Holyrood has not delivered.
2

Linmal,

Livingston 30/06/2009 13:18:53
I don't think it has been a good thing. Moving civil service departments to places like Kilwinning and Glasgow, costing millions of pounds and losing many good employees who naturally didn't want to uproot their families. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Opening up the countryside. To who, one or two walkers who then go and get lost, resulting in other people risking their lives to save them. Can't really think of anything else they have done.

What we need is less government, not more.
3

Jim Taylor,

30/06/2009 14:22:56
You have got to be having a laugh.

Holyrood is everything it shouldn't be.

Ridiculous political interfering in our lives and draconian ban laws.

Political posturing from amateur politicians.

And the cosy old boys network as shown by the concordat between the Parliament and COSLA whch says that Holyrood will not interfere with local authority control.

So much so that my MSP refused to make represntations on my behalf about a council related matter because it was none of his business.

And all in an expensive hive of an archtectural merit equivalent to an outdoor khazi outback of a mineworkers terraced dwelling in Nitten.

Holyrood isn't better. It's just different.

The Laws coming from it aren't better, just different.

The quality of the politician's isn't better, just different.

The master isn't better. Just different.

There again, I guess that the editor of a local newspaper has eerthing to ain from Scotland's Parliament, being part of the old boy's network.




4

donald,

glasgow 01/07/2009 07:16:23
It is no substitute for a proper Scottish Parliament.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.