Brian Taylor

Nostalgia can be a powerful emotion. Perhaps Holyrood’s quarter-centenary is having an impact but there seemed to be a few backward glances on display in Scottish politics this week. The Tories are disinclined to emote about devolution: they never really wanted it in the first place. But they depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of Scotland within the Union. Labour and the Liberal Democrats understandably hark back to the days of their governing pact, right at the outset. The Greens also recall their years in office. The influence, the impact, the electric Ministerial car. Was it only just a fortnight ago? And John Swinney, our accidental First Minister? He too was in nostalgic mode. As he accepted office, he praised each and every opposition party for their endeavours over the past twenty-five years. But there was a significant off-script mention for Baroness Goldie – Bella to her numerous chums. He recalled that, as Scottish Conservative leader, she had frequently sanctioned deals during his early years as Finance Secretary which enabled SNP budgets to carry. I too remember those days, from 2007 on. If memory serves, it was Derek Brownlee from the Tories who negotiated the annual deals, enabling Annabel Goldie to take credit for projects such as investment in Scotland’s struggling High Streets. The Tory thinking then was that they needed a dog in the Holyrood race. That they needed to shed their image as devolution deniers. That they alone could make self-government work, firmly within a UK structure. Those days have gone, as Mr Swinney well knows. Hence presumably the tone of mild regret as he recalled the golden Goldie years. Still in nostalgic mood, it has become habitual to suggest that Scottish politics has become more toxic over the past quarter century. Ah, those early years of blissful co-operation. There is a degree of truth in this. The plebiscites in 2014 and 2016 have tended to create somewhat entrenched silos. But there is a fair degree of baloney on offer too. Politics in Scotland has long involved sharp and fundamental division. It is, frankly, a bit tricky to compromise when one lot wants to retain the Union and the other wants to end it. Admittedly, that division has grown since the SNP acceded to devolved power. However, it has always seemed to me a mite specious to blame the Nationalists solely for that. Presumably, they won because they offered a prospectus which appealed to the electorate – which means their opponents failed. Further, it is frequently argued that Holyrood would run like a dream if only the SNP would abandon their “obsession” with independence. Mischievous Nationalists might equally invite their rivals to end their stubborn adherence to the Union. Neither argument is valid, nor takes us a single step forward.

And so the baton passes to John Swinney. During the period of SNP government, he has been a Minister for 16 years – and an observer for one year. That prolonged period in office gives him the experience to lead. That year, gazing on, gives him the perspective to conclude that the best-laid schemes had gone agley. Hence the reset.

To adapt a line from the Scottish play, nothing in office became Humza Yousaf like the leaving it.

Humza Yousaf faces a crisis – of his own making Intriguing element, confidence. It is the core of every political party’s pitch: put your trust in us. More, it is the foundation of the SNP’s independence offer. Let Scotland gain the confidence to detach from the Union. As ever, though, there is an element of flight in both these propositions. Political parties say: heed us, shun these other charlatans.

We gaze with pity upon Gaza. We contemplate the emergence of wider conflict between Israel and Iran. We calculate the impact – humanitarian, global. Prospects drear indeed. And, like the poet, we conclude that our only response is to guess and fear. True, our influence is decidedly limited. But it is not set at zero. Democracy, Churchill counselled, is the worst form of government – apart, that is, from all the others. Slowly, steadily, it can translate public views into political action by impinging upon those taking decisions. More swiftly, democracy can play a role if incumbent leaders fear a potential verdict at the ballot box in a pending election. Such is the case, at least in fragmentary part, with the current situation in the Middle East. I will not pretend that the impact is other than tangential, even confused. But it is possible to identify pressure points.

Perhaps it is endemic. More probably, it is election fever. Either way, our political tribunes seem more energised and anxious than ever.

Consider with me the public provision of health care in Scotland. Not simply the Scottish version of the National Health Service, established in 1948. Glance back instead to the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, initially formed in 1913, just prior to the outbreak of World War One. Under that pioneering system, doctors had a basic income – but could continue with private patients. Lack of funds did not prevent people from getting care. In short, medical treatment free at the point of need. The core, to this day, of the NHS. Down the intervening decades, it has become totemic, particularly in politics, to praise the NHS. Is it not wonderful? Is it not glorious? Faith in the health service is the closest we have to a shared religion. We still, rightly, laud the remarkable endeavours of medical, nursing and support staff. Many strive well beyond the allocated call of duty. And yet. We still, rightly, rely upon the NHS to cosset us if our health is failing, to address our medical and surgical needs. And yet. The system established in 1948 – or 1913 – is no longer fit for its much expanded purpose. It is not solely or even primarily a question of money. Demand has utterly outstripped supply and the provision of care is inefficient. The NHS is, perhaps, not completely broken. But it is certainly badly bruised. It requires careful, considered attention. Significantly, that opinion is shared by Audit Scotland who warned recently that the NHS, as presently constituted, was unable to cope. Further, public satisfaction has declined. In the British Social Attitudes Survey, covering 2023, just 24 per cent of respondents said they were satisfied with the health service. The figure in 2010 was 70 per cent. For all that we thank and praise individual staff for their care and attention, for all that we are grateful and relieved, we are far from content, overall. It will not do. Things must change.

The Tories say the year gone by is a “tale of independence obsession, abject failures and broken promises.” Labour characterises Mr Yousaf as a “weak leader” in command of a “chaotic and divided” government. Mr Yousaf’s response? A news release wishing everyone a Happy Easter.

Rishi Sunak does not lack such enemies, for all that his fellow Tory MPs banged their desks in approbation at this week’s meeting of the backbench 1922 Committee. One or two have called upon him to quit. Others back him but seem unable to shake off the gloom which shrouds their party’s electoral prospects.

The National Council of the Scottish National Party is meeting in Perth this weekend. Are members enthused and enthralled? Other than conference, it is the party’s policy-making body, its discursive forum. Enthused? In order to heighten its appeal, this weekend’s event is being billed as a Campaign Council with an eye to the forthcoming UK General Election. Enthralled?