In retrospect, the rhetoric of Holyrood’s driving spirits looks overblown, and, in some cases, ridiculously wide of the mark. 

Tony Blair spoke about a better way of governing, that would ‘bring power closer to the people, closer to the people’s priorities’. 

Donald Dewar rhapsodised ‘a turning point: the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland’. George Robertson infamously predicted that devolution would ‘kill Nationalism stone dead’.

The 25th anniversary of this governing project in 2024 was a lost opportunity to objectively assess its record. With only a few isolated exceptions, there was little appetite for such an exercise.

Devolution’s creators continue to view it as a sacred cow to be uncritically worshipped, and its current Nationalist operators see it as a convenient means to the ultimate end of independence.

Instead of dispassionate analysis, the default position was to call for ‘more powers’.

This is a triumph of hope over reality, as evidence mounts of devolution’s failures across its policy outputs, key institutions, and operating culture.

Devolution’s cheerleaders recite its claimed successes, including ‘free’ personal care for the elderly, ‘free’ prescriptions, ‘free’ university tuition, banning smoking in public places, the ‘baby box’, minimum unit pricing for alcohol, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

Some of these policies have been criticised as superficial gimmicks, while others have had negative intended or unintended consequences and still others could easily have been introduced without the paraphernalia of a devolved sub-state.

The Scottish income tax system has become increasingly complex and divorced from the UK system, producing the highest overall tax rate in the country, with no obvious positive impacts on the quality of public services, while raising concerns about economic competitiveness and the retention of talent.

Across key areas of public policy, including health, education, economic development and transport infrastructure, Scotland’s performance when assessed against objective criteria has been very poor.

Illustrations of this are not hard to find, in the areas of hospital waiting lists, key morbidities, abysmal addictions figures, widening educational attainment gaps, repeated postponements of upgrades to strategic road networks, and the impact of the island ferries fiasco on local economies, communities and the public purse.

An electoral system which was specifically designed to prevent the polity being controlled by a single political party has actually resulted in one-party domination of the government and legislature for 18 years, with the prospect of more to come.

The Scottish parliament has produced a catalogue of poor outputs. 

Its failures as a legislative body have been matched by its obvious ineffectiveness as an agent of accountability, with a mediocre committee system, low calibre debates, a declining quality of chairmanship by Presiding Officers, and an executive-dominated culture.

With a few honourable exceptions, the quality of Holyrood’s members has steadily declined, to the point where it functions as a forum for narrow political activism.

The number of ministerial posts has increased since devolution. 

Donald Dewar’s administration contained 21 ministers. By 2024 the number had risen to 29, although John Swinney reduced this by four when forming his government that year.

The increased number of ministers has not improved professionalism. Increasingly, the ministerial ranks have been populated by campaigners and activists who specialise in political posturing, but have little appetite for the hard tasks of governing. This has contributed significantly to the failures in policy ­creation and public service delivery.

Standards of ministerial behaviour have also been problematic. 

No system of government is immune from occasional instances of ministerial misconduct, but Holyrood has been particularly prone to scandals and ethical crises engulfing ministers, including past and serving First Ministers.

The civil service in Scotland has fared especially badly under devolution. 

The institution has swollen from 14,000 in 1999 to more than 27,000 in 2025, but this has been accompanied by a steep decline in quality.

Its values, culture and performance have been undermined by poor leadership, under whom standards of delivery, impartiality and accountability have fallen.

There is an unwillingness to offer the conventional constructive challenge to ministerial initiatives. 

The civil service has become accustomed to supporting ministers who regularly stray beyond the powers allocated to them, to pursue ultra vires political initiatives.

Collectively, ministers and civil servants have veered towards enthusiastic support for the agendas of privileged insider lobby groups, with favoured access.

This has led to the promotion of particular, narrow, policy preferences. 

The most notable example was the attempt to change the law on gender identity, which was pushed by a set of powerful activist organisations and supported by ministers.

Beyond Holyrood, local government has become increasingly cash-strapped in a heavily centralised statelet where the purse strings are tightly controlled in Edinburgh and local powers strictly limited.

Devolution’s arrival was accompanied by a great deal of rhetoric about the importance of a broader ‘civil society’, including a vast array of third sector bodies and non-governmental organisations, as a counter-balance to the power at Holyrood.

However, the increasing importance of this sphere has caused problems. 

Governance arrangements vary considerably with different rules and regulations applying to appointment processes, board sizes, remuneration schemes, transparency and accountability.

There has been no attempt to tackle these disparities. 

In addition, many of these bodies have become significantly reliant upon Scottish Government funding, making them effectively clients of the centre.

Poor standards of conduct, and ethical issues have arisen across the third sector. 

The idealism of a vibrant ‘civil society’ within a healthy democracy, has morphed into insular cronyism.

Why blindly allocate ‘more powers’ to an obviously dysfunctional constitutional project, or tinker around with piecemeal reforms designed to improve isolated elements of a failing system? 

A genuinely radical approach would be to assess the entire devolution package, be honest about its failures, and give serious consideration to alternative models.

These could include, for example, a fundamental decentralisation of powers away from a defunct Scottish Government and parliament, and into a reformed, enhanced system of local and regional governance, which brings power closer to the people, costs less, and works more effectively. 

Difficult, but not impossible.

This would be a worthwhile exercise towards the regeneration of our civic culture, meaningful accountability, enhanced policy making and service delivery.

Sadly, the political and cultural establishment in Scotland has no appetite for such an exercise, and the entrenched vested interests in the status quo will wail in horror at the very idea.

* Robert Pyper is Emeritus Professor of Government and Public Policy, University of the West of Scotland