Scotland devolution at 25: Pyper argues the system failed and calls for a radical rethink

The 25th anniversary of Scotland’s devolved government passed with little consensus on its record, as Robert Pyper, emeritus professor of government and public policy, argues. He contends that the project has failed to live up to proponents’ promises and that the political class has shown little appetite for an alternative model. The anniversary, he says, was a lost opportunity to objectively assess devolution’s performance across policy outputs, institutions and operating culture.

Supporters often highlight a string of policies associated with devolution—free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, free university tuition, bans on smoking in public places, the baby box, minimum unit pricing for alcohol, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Pyper notes that some of these measures could have been introduced without creating a devolved sub-state, while others have produced mixed or unintended consequences. He also points to a tax regime that has grown more complex and detached from the rest of the UK, yielding a high overall tax burden with unclear benefits for public services, economic competitiveness, or talent retention.

Across health, education, economic development and transport, Pyper argues that Scotland’s performance has lagged when judged against objective criteria. Hospital waiting lists, rising morbidities, widening attainment gaps, and repeated delays to upgrades of strategic road networks illustrate what he calls a catalogue of policy failures. He also highlights the island ferry network as a case study of how critical transport links can become a drag on local economies and public finances.

The critique extends to the devolved legislature itself. Pyper notes that the electoral design—intended to prevent domination by a single party—has coincided with a long run of one-party governance, with the prospect of more to come. He describes Holyrood’s outputs as erratic and its accountability as compromised, citing a perceived decline in the quality of committee work, debates and chairmanship, and an executive-dominated culture. Ministerial turnover has risen since 1999: 21 ministers in the early years to 29 by 2024, a level reduced by four under John Swinney later that year, to 25. He argues that the higher number has not translated into better governance; ministers and political staff are increasingly seen as campaigners rather than stewards of public policy, and the system has faced multiple ministerial misconduct episodes, including past and serving first ministers.

The civil service’s trajectory mirrors these concerns. From about 14,000 in 1999, the civil service has grown to more than 27,000 by 2025, yet Pyper says quality, leadership, impartiality and accountability have declined. He accuses senior officials of enabling ultra vires actions and of becoming co-opted by insider networks and lobby groups, a dynamic he ties to controversy over changes in the law on gender identity, which he describes as pushed by a set of influential activist organisations and supported by ministers. The public service, he argues, has moved away from its traditional role of providing a robust challenge to ministerial initiatives.

Local government, too, has suffered under a centralised system in which local powers are tightly constrained and funding remains precarious. The third sector, once touted as a counterweight to government power, has grown increasingly dependent on Scottish Government funding, blurring lines between governance and client-relationships. Pyper contends that governance disparities across appointment rules, board sizes, remuneration, transparency and accountability have not been tackled, eroding the ideal of a vibrant civil society that could provide genuine checks and balances.

Against this backdrop, Pyper calls for a serious, evidence-based reassessment of the devolution package as a whole. He proposes considering alternative models, including a fundamental decentralisation of powers away from a centralized Scottish Government and parliament toward a reformed system of stronger local and regional governance. He argues such a shift could bring power closer to the people, reduce costs and improve policy making and service delivery—though he acknowledges that implementing it would be difficult and would require political courage.

Despite the critique, Pyper notes that there is scant appetite among Scotland’s political and cultural establishment for undertaking such a comprehensive evaluation. He argues that entrenched interests in the status quo would resist any move to rethink the underlying constitutional settlement, even as evidence mounts of devolution’s shortcomings across governance and public service delivery. The piece closes with a call for serious debate about the future structure of Scotland’s governance, rather than incremental tinkering with isolated elements of a failing system.

Robert Pyper is Emeritus Professor of Government and Public Policy at the University of the West of Scotland.