Scotland's politicians need to stop being so prejudiced against so-called 'vested interests'
People who have a vested interest in a particular issue often know a lot about it and their evidence and views should not be simply dismissed
As a new Scottish Parliament session begins, there is renewed focus on how decisions are made and whose voices are heard in the process. That is a healthy thing. Good policy depends on challenge, debate and a wide range of perspectives. It also depends on being clear-eyed about how we assess evidence and expertise.
One pattern that has become increasingly familiar in policy discussions is the tendency to dismiss contributions from industry or trade bodies as representing a “vested interest”, and therefore somehow less credible. The implication is that some voices should be treated with scepticism from the outset, while others are assumed to be more objective.
During the election campaign, the language of “vested interests” was deployed by more than one political party as they sought to win voters’ support or appease their own party members. We heard promises to stand up to those who supposedly represent vested interests, alongside counter-accusations that opponents are beholden to particular groups. It has become a convenient political device, but one that risks over-simplifying far more complex relationships between policymakers and those affected by their decisions.
Increasing polarisation of politics
Perhaps this is simply the latest phrase to gain traction in political discourse, destined to fall out of favour in time. More telling, perhaps, is what its widespread use reveals about the tone of modern debate. There is an increasing tendency towards polarisation, alongside a drift of language from online spaces into mainstream political discussion, where nuance is often sacrificed for more combative framing – and where expert commentary is dismissed as views of so-called ‘vested interests’.
Many of the issues debated during this election, and indeed in recent years, have been framed through this lens. Raise concerns that reforms to private rented housing could reduce supply for tenants, question whether businesses can survive disproportionate rises in non-domestic rates, or argue that restrictive land reform measures might ultimately reduce the delivery of benefits for people, jobs and nature, and the same accusation quickly follows. In each case, expressing caution or highlighting potential unintended consequences is too easily dismissed, rather than meaningfully engaged with.
One clear example during campaigning was the SNP’s proposal for a price cap on essential food items. At a time when the cost-of-living crisis continues to place real pressure on households, the policy is understandably attractive on the surface. Yet retailers and food producers were quick to raise concerns about the potential unintended consequences.
Even likely returning First Minister John Swinney – a politician more commonly associated with a calm and measured tone – spoke of the need to confront “vested interests” when responding to criticism of the proposal. In doing so, a legitimate debate about how workable the policy might be risked being reduced to a question of motives rather than evidence.
A fact of life
The truth is almost everyone who engages in public policy has some kind of interest. That is not a criticism; it is simply a fact of democratic life. Community groups advocate on behalf of the people they represent. Campaign organisations pursue agendas and specific outcomes that they care about. Public bodies are influenced by political priorities, statutory duties and budget constraints. And indeed, campaigning politicians make statements on policies they think will increase their chances of being elected. None of this means their contributions are not valid, it just provides context.
The difficulty arises when the idea of vested interest is applied selectively, as a way of closing down discussion rather than testing it. When that happens, we lose the opportunity to examine the evidence on its merits and understand how policy choices will work in practice.
Those vested interests working in sectors where there will be a requirement for them to be delivery partners have a clear view of the real-world trade-offs required in the practical application of policy. They understand operational constraints, workforce challenges, timescales, costs and unintended consequences because they deal with them regularly. That experience does not make their perspective definitive, but it does make it relevant. They are vital in the delivery of the policy and therefore need to raise legitimate concerns.
Good policymaking depends on bringing together different forms of evidence: academic analysis, lived experience, social values and practical insight. Each should be challenged and scrutinised, not discounted. When policy is developed without sufficient engagement with those who will have to implement it, problems tend to emerge later, usually at greater cost and with less room to adapt. We have seen this too often in recent years.
Practical expertise is important
Scotland has no shortage of ambition, and that’s something to be proud of. But ambition needs to be matched with an honest understanding of what is required to deliver it. That means listening carefully to those with practical experience, and not relying on hypothetical modelling.
As we look to the new parliamentary session, this matters. The challenges Scotland faces, from economic resilience and public service reform to climate mitigation, are complex and interconnected. They will not be resolved by any single perspective, nor by narrowing the range of voices politicians deem acceptable.
A healthy democracy depends on hearing from many different interests and judging what they say by the quality of their evidence and reasoning. No one should be given special treatment – but practical expertise cannot be written off.
Valuing evidence consistently, whoever brings it, offers the best chance of developing policy that is not only well-intentioned, but workable and enduring. Surely that is something everyone wants to see from Holyrood over the next five years. We all want to see a prosperous Scotland, and achieving that will depend far more on building a shared vision informed by a wide range of perspectives than on dismissing certain voices before the discussion has even begun.
Sarah-Jane Laing is chief executive of Scottish Land & Estates
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.