Devolution - Is it Working?

I think the answer, like that of most essay answers is that it's been a success but only to a certain extent.

To deal with the parliament building first, i'll admit it's a disaster from start to finish but a poorly managed building project is not just a scottish phenomenon. If anything, it was one of the worst estimates in history. Originally estimated to be around £50 million, it did come in at a staggering £432 million and counting. But you also have to remember that the millenium dome was estimated at £399 million and came out at £789 million and the new wembley was originally expected to be around £757 million and is now at around £832 million. So I think we can safely say that it's a feature of many british projects to run over budget. On that point, I really do fear for the London Olympics!

In political terms, devolution has been a step in the right direction. I'm not really a supporter of shortbread nationalist politics as I think that has scotland retained it's identity throughout the union and will continue to do so. It's often conviently forgotton just how much Scotland gained from being a core component of the british empire.

Regardless of the nationalist issues, political and fiscal independence at local level is a framework that can only benefit Scotland and it's people. Particularly when it comes to scottish social issues, Holyrood is in a much better position to make more informed decisions than westminster.

When assessing the success of scottish parliament it's also important to seperate the institution from the administration of parliament. The institution has got some solid foundations in terms of structure, the design of parliamentary procedures that provide a greater say for civic interests and those of businesses. The powers of the 17 committees of parliament have also made the process more transparent to the general public. With a system of proportional representation and a comparitively high number of female members (37%), Holyrood is arguably more representative of the people than it's westminster equivalent.

In terms of administration there have been some problems in terms of political consensus within a coalition govenment and of course the resignation of Henry McLeish. Despite the problems experienced during the debate on tuition fees, the parliament has since repealed the section 28 equivalent in Scotland and reformed long-term care for the elderly. So in terms of social policy, the parliament has made a significant difference to the scottish people.

It's fair to say that it's not been without it's problems but I think that devolution has been a success and regardless of whether Scotland ever achieved independence, I think that this was the best path to take. The country is in a good economic state and despite some evident social problems I think we're starting to get there. However, one of the things that Scotland does lack (and the UK for that matter at the moment) is a strong leader with a clear path that's in the best interests of the country. I fear that regardless of how good the mechanisms of parliament are, without this it won't be as successful as we hope it is.