Informed, moving and intelligent: How Assisted Dying Bill brought out the best in Scotland's MSPs
Three MSPs from three different parties show how politics should be done
Walking around the labyrinthine Scottish Parliament last week and watching events in the debates, it was easy to see why the public are disaffected with politics. There were demands for sackings, howls of insults flung across the Holyrood chamber, and bad tempers on all sides about pretty much everything.
Ahead of devolution’s most unpredictable election ever, there is anxiety in the air. Everyone’s worried: the SNP about clinging to power, Labour and the pressure of an overdue victory, while the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats fret about dismal polling translating into a lack of hard votes.
One usually upbeat MSP approached me to say he couldn’t wait to get out – the toxic atmosphere of the place had just got too much. There was nothing in the way of consensus on even the most inoffensive of matters, he lamented, and every topic was riven by truculence.
Putting differences aside
And yet, in one unremarkable pocket of the parliament last Wednesday, something was unfolding to counter all that. Three MSPs from different parties, of different generations, and from completely different backgrounds gathered to issue a joint statement.
They were united by their opposition to proposed legislation for assisted dying in Scotland, and put their myriad differences aside to explain their stance to the assembled media. As they took their seats in the building’s unspectacular Committee Room 3, one of the Scottish lobby’s more grizzled hacks hummed with approval.
He liked that the media were gathered, ready to hear non-political and informed interventions in a sober environment, with an opportunity to probe and discuss these matters in detail afterwards.
First up was Michael Marra, Labour’s affable Dundonian, who explained how he had begun the assisted dying debate undecided but, having scrutinised the evidence, was now sure he would vote against the Bill when it comes to parliament in the new year.
He was followed by Edward Mountain, a Scottish Conservative MSP for the Highlands and Islands, a distinguished gentleman of the old school. He spoke of his own journey with illness; he was diagnosed with bowel cancer in 2021 and “for two weeks thought I was going to die”.
Fortunately his surgery and treatment were successful, and he noted he was lucky to have family and close friends around to support him through the darkest points. His fears on the legislation centre around coercion and poor palliative care – what if people who were terminally ill and weren’t supported by a strong support network felt they had no option but to sign up to end their life early?
Political argy-bargy
Then it was the main draw. Kate Forbes, the deputy First Minister (though speaking in a personal capacity), said the assurances sought in the early stages of debate simply had not been delivered. She also drew on the personal experience of a disabled relative.
Now, that particular trio are more than happy to indulge in a bit of political argy-bargy when required. But what was striking about this event was not a single one made a single political point.
Their interventions were informed, moving and intelligent. And in their turn, the attending print and broadcast journalists responded by asking careful and considered questions. There was no scaremongering or digging for exaggerated headlines.
Nor, though, was it fluffy or vacuous, as proved by the widespread media coverage of the event in the hours that followed. The event delivered hard news in a serious way.
And to be fair, when asked for a response to all this, the Bill’s architect and most prominent assisted dying campaigner – the Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur – was equally civil. If the public had witnessed these proceedings in the flesh, they would have been heartened by what they saw.
Restoring Holyrood’s reputation
Such a heartening is much needed. Scotland, like the rest of the UK, is dogged by disaffection. It’s been well-documented that Reform – despite their own shoddy agenda and race-baiting policy platform – are the beneficiaries of this.
Holyrood needs to examine how to recover its own reputation after almost 20 years of bitter division. The independence debate has undoubtedly been the chief cause of grievance. But bad-tempered debates on gender, culture and climate change haven’t helped either.
In the early days of the Scottish Parliament, with its deliberately designed semi-circle to avoid confrontational exchanges, people would lament how it lacked the drama and intensity of Westminster.
No one seems to say that now, and the Presiding Officer regularly intervenes on otherwise well-mannered men and women, reminding them not to lose the run of themselves.
Return of polite politics?
If quality debates, good legislation and good policies are what we want, the events of Wednesday’s assisted dying interlude show the way forward. It’s a shame two of the three MSPs from that event will step away from politics in May, while the third – as a relative new-comer – is known to be frustrated at how things do, or rather don’t, work.
There will always be room for bunfights. And of course, holding those in power to account unavoidably involves some robust and accusatory language. But a record number of MSPs are leaving at the next opportunity, and many have blamed the toxic atmosphere.
It’s easy for people to thumb their nose at the idea of consensual and polite politics. They argue it doesn’t work, it’s not realistic, and doesn’t achieve sound democratic outcomes.
Scotland has tried the alternative for some years now, and nothing works as well as it should as a consequence. Ordinary people are thoroughly turned off. Last week showed change is possible.
But with all parties about to enter campaign mode for the 2026 election, don’t hold your breath for an improvement any time soon.
Adam Morris is a former head of media for the Scottish Conservatives and provided media support to the three MSPs for the event
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.