Today is going to be a bit of a Jim Wallace Day here. There have been so many wonderful tributes to him from people in and beyond the Liberal Democrats, a testament to how loved he was and how important he was a figure in Scottish life, not just politics.

But we start with his own words, a speech he gave in 2025 to Scottish Conference, three days before the election was called, marking 25 yesrs of the Scottish Parliament:

Grateful for the invitation to speak. Fascination with anniversaries which end in a 5 or a 0. I once heard the late Rev Gilliesbuig Macmillan, Minister of St Giles Cathedral, say how often he was invited to preach at a 50th, 100th, 125th anniversary of a church congregation, but added that if he’d been invited to speak at 129th anniversary he’d have accepted by return.

But 25 years is as good as any to reflect on the Scottish Parliament – what Donald Dewar described as ‘a new voice in the land’ – its successes or where it has fallen short of our expectations; and what contribution our party has made during these 25 years – and indeed before 1999 in helping to create and shape the Parliament.

When I was thinking about this, three particular memories came to mind.

Firstly, as an 11 year old in my final year of primary school, I was fascinated by the 1966 General Election and used to wait outside the school gates to get the autographs of the candidates arriving for their election meetings. Recognising this political interest, my father decided to take me to a meeting. It was the Liberal candidate, Roy Semple’s eve of poll meeting. As I recall my father saying, “It will be safe, there won’t be many people there.”

One vivid memory of that evening was the learning of the Liberal Party’s commitment to a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. I thought it was a good idea then – and it still is today. 

Six years later, I joined the Scottish Liberal Party, having read Russell Johnston’s pamphlet ‘To be a Liberal’. And one of the real privileges of my life was to lead the party I joined, aged 17, into the Scottish Parliament, which distinguished predecessors had campaigned for, and which we, as a party through the Constitutional Convention, had done so much to shape. And not only into Parliament, but into government too. 

I have another memory of sitting on the Terrace of the House of Commons in about 1997 or 98, being lobbied by those who sought implementation of the Scottish Law Commission’s Report on facilitating the legal procedures relating to adults who lacked the capacity to enter into legal transactions. The prospect of the Westminster Parliament finding the time to legislate for such an exclusively Scottish reform seemed remote; but within weeks of the Scottish Parliament obtaining its powers on 1st July 1999, I had the privilege of bringing in the Bill to advance such a reform.

And my third memory was walking with my daughters from the place of the old Parliament, adjourned in 1707, to the site, albeit temporary, of the new Parliament for the official opening by our late Queen Elizabeth. We had campaigned for a family friendly Parliament and many of us were determined that our children should accompany us to the opening. The Presiding Office, David Steel, was under pressure from the GOC Scotland not to have children in the procession as it could upset the careful timing of the event. My wife wrote an impassioned letter to David making the case for the inclusion of children As David Steel admitted to me, when under pressure from GOC Scotland, om the one hand, and Rosie Wallace on the other, there was only one possible outcome and our children processed with us.

At long last we had the Parliament for which Liberals and Liberal Democrats had campaigned for over a century. And as the Scottish Liberal Democrat who had the privilege of leading the party into that Parliament and then into government, I recognise how much we owe to people like Jo Grimond, Russell Johnston, David Steel, Johnny Bannerman and countless other stalwarts who kept the fire of Home Rule burning through some very difficult and unrewarding times.

But as time marches on, I often feel that we need to remind people why we campaigned for a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. 

Just over ten years ago, as Advocate General for Scotland, I was invited to address a class of first year law students at Aberdeen University. Before going in, the head of the Law School took me aside and said, “Just to be aware. Most of your audience can’t remember a Scotland without a Scottish Parliament.” And that was ten years ago. We have a new generation of young Scots who take the Parliament’s existence for granted. 

We have a generation who may well be politically aware, but who have no memory of the time when if Westminster, if we were lucky, might deal with two exclusively Scottish Bills in a year. We were proud of our distinctive legal system, but conscious in these days that it was a distinctive legal system without a distinctive legislature. 

Let’s recall that the first Act of the Parliament plugged a legal loophole which had led to a man who’d pled guilty to killing a neighbour being released from the State Hospital. Most commentators agreed that Westminster couldn’t and wouldn’t have acted so expeditiously. 

And in the years which followed Liberal Democrats in government contributed to an overhaul of mental health legislation. We implemented Scottish Law Commission reports on the abolition of the feudal system, which England had done in 1290; and modernised the law relating to tenanted property. We gave communities the right to buy land and gave individuals the right to responsible access over land; we established National Parks; introduced free bus travel for older people, free eye and dental checks abolished tuition fees, and introduced free personal care for the elderly and proper proportional representation for local government elections.

Perhaps most significantly, particularly in public health terms, was the ban on smoking in public places. We blazed the trail and the rest of Britain followed.

Nor was the 1998 Act a static settlement. It is a home rule settlement which has shown itself to be flexible in meeting Scotland’s needs and opportunities from the early devolution of powers which allow Scottish Ministers to develop our renewable energy resources; through the subsequent transfer of powers which paved the way for renewing Scotland’s rail infrastructure and enacting a more liberal freedom of information regime. And the powers of the Parliament were further increased by the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016.

But we also believe that there are matters which are much better dealt with at a United Kingdom level: security in defence; sharing risk among a population of over 60 million, not least in addressing the economic and health consequences of global pandemic and the development of effective vaccines. 

And if you wish a list of other benefits of being part of a wider United Kingdom, you need look no further that the Scottish Government’s doorstopper of a White Paper ahead of the 2014 referendum.

Such has been the success of the United Kingdom that the Yes campaign wanted to keep so much of it:

•         The monarchy
•         The currency
•         The Bank of England
•         The National Lottery
•         The NHS Blood Transfusion & Transplant service
•         The Royal Mint
•         Research Councils
•         Air Accident Investigation Branch
•         Maritime Accident Investigation Branch
•         Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
•         Met Office
•         Hydrographic Office
•         DVLA
• and Strictly Come Dancing

But 25 years on, we need to recognise some of the deficiencies which have crept in.

At the Parliament’s outset, the Committee system was seen as being a way in which we could differentiate ourselves from Westminster in a positive way.

In a Parliament where every party was a minority party, the Committees, in theory at least, could be powerful bodies, holding the Executive to account. And by giving Committees both a legislative scrutiny and an investigative role, it was thought that a sense of collegiality among members would enhance their effectiveness and authority.

Arguably, at first, it worked. In these early days, I considered the Scottish Parliament’s Committee system to be a marked improvement on what I had experienced in the House of Commons.

In my experience, all committee members engaged in the process, and whilst Ministers often succeeded, nothing could be taken for granted. Very often a backbench amendment would only be withdrawn on undertakings of further consideration and discussion with the member.

That was a considerable contrast with Westminster, as I had known it. 

On several occasions, I was on the receiving end of Committee members’ scrutiny not least Liberal Democrat MSPs asserting their independence from the Executive.

In 2000, the Cabinet voted against the inclusion of a religion question in the 2001 census, and I had a very difficult time trying to justify the decision before the Equal Opportunities Committee. Indeed, so unpersuasive was I, that I had to bring in the legislation to meet the Committee’s will.

Admittedly, today, I view from a distance; but I have heard sufficient reports to suggest that in more recent times, such a spirit of Committee independence has not been as robust. Dissent from government supporting members is frowned upon. Going forward, the Committees must surely revive their robust and rigorous scrutiny of minsters’ actions and legislation, if for no other reason than it can lead to more effective legislation. Virtue signalling is not a good recipe for effective law-making.

In the meantime, Westminster may claim to have leapfrogged Holyrood in terms of Committee effectiveness. Holyrood committees could rediscover a greater independence, and learn lessons from Westminster with an innovation such as the election of Committee chairs (which would continue to be allocated on a party basis) by secret ballot of all MSPs. 

At this time of anniversary reflection, there is a need to examine the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament.

I always feared that the arrival of the Parliament could pose a challenge to the standing of local government. Prior to the Parliament’s creation, politicians on all sides talked – and I believe genuinely – about ‘parity of esteem’. 

But notwithstanding initiatives at the outset to reduce ring fencing and establish a power of local initiative, predictable tensions have emerged

The Constitutional Convention, whose final report is peppered with references to the European Charter of Local Self Government, concluded that in any future review of local government, 

“… the aim of the Parliament should be, firstly, to safeguard and where possible increase the area of discretion available at the level of the local authority.”

The story of the Scottish Parliament under SNP administrations, however, has been one of increasing centralisation. Local taxation again is dictated by central government. Police and fire services have been centralised in a way which hasn’t exactly covered the idea in glory. Local courts have been closed. Local government funding has been squeezed further than overall Holyrood expenditure, thus limiting the scope for local initiative. As someone who believes in decentralised decision-making, this is very troubling.

Regrettably, the issue of local government reform always seems to raise the spectre of boundary changes and altering the number of councils. There may be limited scope for rationalising council boundaries, to enhance cross-boundary co-operation in the provision of certain services, or to establish, where there is demand, new burgh councils in some of the larger rural council areas, and to devolve appropriate powers to them. However, a thorough-going reform of local government should look at reforms of council finances, both about the mode of local taxation and devising a way whereby local government can be less reliant on central government for its funding. 

A new balance between the Scottish Parliament and local government and local communities needs to be struck. Parliament, in partnership with local government, should have the confidence and vision to ensure that the spirit of local government and local determination is revitalised. The extent to which Parliament can rise to the challenge of reforming local government finance and revitalising local democracy should be a measure of its success in the next quarter century, if not earlier.

In a University of Edinburgh discussion which I had with Nicola Sturgeon last Thursday evening, the final question from the audience was whether in 25 years’ time, Scottish political debate would be as polarised as it is today?

It’s impossible to know, but my response was that if Scotland was going to meet the challenges of the next 25 years – climate change, an increasingly older population, worker shortages, the impact and implications of Artificial Intelligence to name but a few, we had to become less polarised and address these issues sensibly with rational debate. 

For me the liberating feature of the 1999 Scottish election campaign was that after years of fighting elections where the constitutional issue was never far away, it was possible to focus on issues such as education, housing, transport, health. We sought a Scottish Parliament not as an end in itself but as a means to the end of serving Scotland’s people and communities better, not least through addressing the people’s priorities. But, as we all know, the constitutional issue has dominated our politics again. I don’t doubt John Swinney’s sincerity when he says he wants to ‘unite Scotland for independence’. The reality however is that he divides Scotland over independence.

Our challenge, as Scottish Liberal Democrats, is to engage a new generation with stimulating ideas based on ideals, as Jo Grimond did in the 1960s and indeed as we worked up our manifestos in 1999 and 2003 – and so much of them implemented. Our liberal values are no less needed today – arguable more so.  

I believe our Liberal Democrat quest is to champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals – whatever their creed, colour, nationality, gender or orientation. Ours is a belief that the state exists to serve the individual and not individuals to serve the state. The state or nation is not my defining political entity. That’s why I’m not a nationalist.

I have no doubt that under Alex Cole-Hamilton’s leadership, we shall be able to translate our liberal values into an exciting agenda which can engage people’s imaginations and give them positive reasons not just to vote for us – but to see politics and the role of the Scottish Parliament as something that is worthwhile and much to be valued.

 

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social