New Scottish Labour MP on what Westminster can learn from Holyrood

Richard Baker, the MP for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, describes speaking in the chamber as “terrifying”, and something he had to adapt to after 12 years out of politics.

Mr Baker, who was formerly an MSP for North East Scotland, also discussed what Westminster can learn from Holyrood, citing how parliamentary time is organised, and the method in which parliamentarians vote.

Discussing his first time speaking in parliament, Mr Baker admitted he was “terrified”.

He said: “Speaking in the chamber for the first time is nerve wracking, even though you've been a member of another parliament for 12 years.

“I was out of politics for nearly a decade so it's something I'm still getting used to again. For my maiden speech, I was standing there shaking visibly and very nervous about it. I don't think that's just me, you see the same with lots of veteran MPs.

“I think there is something very intimidating about being in Westminster in that chamber. When you see the green benches of Westminster on TV so many times, there’s still that feeling of ‘am I actually here?’ They are so close together, you’re sitting right by the front bench, and it’s a bigger chamber than Holyrood, that’s what people forget.

“When you’re there with your 129 MSPs you’ve each got your desk, you make your speech from it. Westminster is more claustrophobic, everyone is sitting cheek to jowl.

“I was nervous asking my first question, but that’s nothing compared to PMQs, where there’s hundreds of people in there and there’s people baying at you.”

Turning to the differences, Mr Baker, who was an MSP for 13 years, expressed pride at his time in Holyrood, and suggested Westminster could learn from some of its modern practices.

He said: “Although some people default into talking about Holyrood by saying ‘oh Westminster is the bigger parliament it’s got that stature, it’s got a history’, and it does have all those things, but I also think there’s so many areas where Holyrood does stuff better.

“For example, the way we organise parliamentary time, where here you could be waiting for hours to be called to give a short speech, where in Holyrood you know you are going to be called, you have that certainty. It helps you prepare for debates better, I think it’s a good process and helps you maximise your impact both in the chamber and the constituency.

“There are also far more sensible sitting regimes in Holyrood, I am still getting over the fact that I am voting at 10pm, which must be so difficult for people with young families.

“Also the voting process. Going through the lobbies is great, it’s quaint, it’s historic, but doing ten votes here takes two hours. To do ten votes in Holyrood when you just press a button takes half an hour, or less than that. I see why people love tradition and so many things about Westminster, but I think there are areas where Holyrood has shown how a modern parliament should run.”

Reflecting on his time away from politics, Mr Baker, who previously worked for Age Scotland, said the debate was now more “toxic”.

He explained: “Politics is even more vicious, personal and direct, and people seem to go from zero to 100 on the anger scale, even more quickly than they did before and this seems to be in greater numbers.

“Even social media forms which are reasonably sanguine, in terms of places for comment and discussion like Facebook, even those have become just absolutely filled with anger and vitriol.

“I think there's something that's not good happening in our political discourse, which affects you whether you're in Westminster or Holyrood.”

However, the 50-year-old also explained there were areas where Holyrood wasn’t good enough, particularly around holding ministers to account.

He said: “I think a great sadness of Holyrood is is a committee system, which started with so much hope about that would be the place outside the chamber, beyond the yahoo of frontline politics, where you could actually scrutinise and hold the executive to account, and you’d work together to do that. I just don't think it happens. I think the whip applies very clearly in many of the committees.

“Here, I’m hopeful that through the select committee structure, you can do far more to push ministers, push government, and have that ability to scrutinise and call to account parliamentarians from a cross-party perspective.”

While suggesting his time in Holyrood helped prepare him for Westminster, Mr Baker also suggested there were still conventions to get used to.

He said: “I do like the way we do political debate in Westminster, I think actually the conventions often help. They might seem stilted, quaint or outdated, but in many ways, although they are probably all those things, they do help the cause and tenor of debate.

One of the things in Scottish politics, it’s such a small world, when you go to Holyrood you inevitably know many of the people, which makes it easier to have an impact.

“When you arrive here, and you’re one of 400 Labour MPs, 200 of your colleagues are new, going to PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) meetings is like going to a music concert, and that does take some getting used to.”

The chair of Scottish Labour parliamentary party, Mr Baker insisted they worked well as a group, and were united ahead of the Holyrood election.

He added: “We’re there to work to support ourselves, to support Ian, the team in cabinet, and we’re there with a relentless focus, knowing we have a really important election in 2026, and we want to ensure we have a really strong message here for Labour MPs working for our constituencies, and for our colleagues in Holyrood.”