The martyrdom of ex-Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross must not be in vain

There have been 25 years to judge whether Holyrood’s procedures are in need of review or if its potential as a place of national debate and scrutiny could be improved upon. It is a measure of the delusions which pervade the place that nobody seems to consider institutional self-criticism a priority.

I have no doubt Scotland’s great issues of the day were more intelligently debated in public forums before Holyrood existed. This was not only at Westminster though, contrary to myth, MPs spent a lot of time debating distinctive Scottish issues and legislation. And they weren’t required to do it via four-minute speeches as Holyrood’s ridiculous rules of debate demand.

Soporific

Pre-devolution, far more attention was also paid to forums like the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the annual congress of the Scottish TUC, the party conferences and so on, involving big issues, big people, big ideas. They couldn’t legislate but they could argue and influence. Ironically, much of that influence was latterly directed towards creation of a devolved parliament.

Holyrood duly superseded these institutions and added a democratic layer to devolved policy-making. The accompanying theory was that it would reflect a Scotland of all the talents; a showcase for our democratic intellects and a font of original thinking. To say the least, it hasn’t worked out like that and expectations have long since been lowered accordingly.

Most MSPs appear content with their three-day week and home-in-time-for-tea formula. It produces legislation which is repeatedly abandoned or found to be deeply flawed, while the dynamic of political debate is stifled by a leaden environment, originally designed to be “consensual” but now merely soporific.

Since the future existence of Holyrood is not in question, it is surely time to ask how it could actually encourage people to believe in it as a vehicle for healthy debate, creativity and progress. Every party should be challenged to make a manifesto commitment to review the workings of the Scottish Parliament with a view to reviving these ambitions.

Saving money

Similarly, any aspirant party of government should commit to a comprehensive spending review after next year’s elections, with every spending silo subjected to intense scrutiny. To me, one of the most remarkable recent confessions came from public finance minister Ivan McKee, who said there are £5 billion of “backroom savings” to be found in the Scottish Government’s budget.

At this point, the issue of wasted money intersects with the quality of parliamentary scrutiny at which Holyrood has repeatedly proved itself not fit for purpose, despite the best efforts of some MSPs. As far as I can find, Mr McKee’s extraordinary admission has never been debated in the Holyrood Chamber with the First Minister held to account for £5bn.

But let’s return to Mr Ross, with whom empathy does not always come naturally. However, his dismissal by the Green Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone, merits textual analysis in his defence. The red card came during First Minister’s Questions when the Scottish Tory leader, Russell Findlay, was challenging Mr Swinney on net-zero targets.

Mr Findlay’s opening gambit was about the impact on agriculture. Quoting from the Climate Change Committee, he said that reaching the targets for this sector would mean “the number of cattle and sheep in Scotland would need to fall by two million over the next decade” while Scots would need to “eat one third less meat”.

Reasonable to expect answers

By any standards, these statistics and their implications are worthy of a serious response. If they are unfounded, Mr Swinney could have said so. If they are the price to be paid for higher objectives, he could have defended them. It would have been an interesting exchange.

Instead, there was bland, dismissive verbiage that added nothing to human knowledge. So Mr Findlay moved on to heat pumps, citing the fact that fewer than one per cent of Scottish homes are fitted with them. To meet targets, that would need to increase to 70 per cent which is before you get to the question of how they would be paid for.

Again, this was a perfectly reasonable subject to expect an answer on but heat pumps are one of many abandoned causes Mr Swinney opts not to talk about. So he completely ignored the question and reverted to sanctimonious mode in order to plead his deep commitment to farmers and denounce the wickedness of Brexit. Yes, Brexit!

Tolerating long-winded evasion

At that point, a more agile Presiding Officer might have gently pointed out that he’d already done farmers and questioning was now onto heat pumps. It is a comment on Ms Johnstone’s unfailing tolerance of long-winded evasion by First Ministers’ past and present that nobody would have harboured any such expectation of her.

Enter Mr Ross, stage right. According to the official transcript, he was not actually recorded as saying anything but whatever form his protest took was enough to get him thrown out. Then it was back to Mr Swinney rambling on about Brexit, which absolutely nobody had asked him about.

In Ms Johnstone’s view, all of that satisfied parliamentary accountability, which she is paid £126,452 a year to defend. In fact, it was a demonstration of why hardly anyone takes the proceedings at Holyrood very seriously or regards it as the forum for national debate and enlightenment that it was once supposed to grow into.

If Mr Ross has helped to point this out, he has surely performed a public service.