Why Reform UK should NOT abolish the Scottish Parliament

The first is a typical straw man argument of dismissing Reform as being a wasted vote because it is alleged it is, at heart, against Holyrood as an institution, suggesting a dishonest interest in the coming elections only as a means to maintain political momentum on the UK stage by defeating the Labour and Conservative parties.

It’s rather like saying Reform is only interested in local government because trouncing the “Uni-parties” at English council elections like it did in May provided good headlines and causes mayhem among the losers. The evidence of solid work being put in to raise council services suggests otherwise.

READ MORE: Kemi Badenoch issues blunt message to Scottish Tory defectors, as Nigel Farage Reform threat looms

The second criticism is from those opposed to Holyrood who allege Reform is not radical enough because it does not advocate Holyrood’s abolition. This rather misses the point that Holyrood is failing because of what it does not do (run services well) rather than what it does do (focuses on independence).

It does not take a great deal of digging to find that both criticisms are wide off the mark for the simple reason they fail to understand why Reform is rising in the polls and performing well in by-elections when they arise.

Reform has emerged and grown because a large number of voters are utterly disenchanted with the performance of the politicians from the old mainstream parties.

READ MORE: Nigel Farage can make life difficult for John Swinney and SNP

Regular Conservative voters are disgusted with their former party of choice being in government for 14 years but, contrary to repeated promises, presiding over a huge increase in taxes, failing to reduce immigration (legal or illegal), making it harder for young people to get on the property ladder and introducing many laws that have resulted in the spread of woke social nostrums about gender politics, hate crimes, policing and the dispensing of justice.

Similar disenchantment is shared by Labour voters, especially low earners who see their aspirations closed off, while privileged, protected groups are better rewarded and given advantages at their expense.

In Scotland, there is also evidence of nationalist supporters turning away from the SNP, believing its leadership to have become detached from the necessary delivery of good public services so Scots feel left behind in the provision of education, healthcare, transport housing and policing.

While Reform UK is working away quietly to update and relaunch its policy platform for next year’s election it has managed to capture the mood of many voters because it identifies many of the problems – whether they emanate from Westminster or Holyrood.

After having Conservative governments that raised taxes and welcomed some five million immigrants over 14 years, and then a Labour government that in its first year broke promise after promise – removing the winter heating allowance for many pensioners and causing unemployment to rise – is it any wonder there is a feeling that Reform should be given a chance?

Going back to that straw man, if a political party is to right wrongs and bring about change it has to get into office and pull the levers of power. You can’t change the direction of travel if you don’t climb into the signal box and switch the points.

Sure, thanks to bitter experience over the last few decades, Reform’s supporters are naturally sceptical of politicians and their motives – and inevitably distrust the institutions they infest. That they see Reform as political pest controllers does not mean they want to smash the windows or trash the home they have to live in.

They see the need to be in any and every parliament so they may change the priorities, set a different agenda and make Holyrood relevant to the needs of the Scottish people.

The challenge includes reversing the tragedy of Scottish education – where you do not need to have read a novel (never mind a Scottish novel from Walter Scott, through to Irvine Welsh and JK Rowling) to obtain an English higher.

One can make a reasonable argument based on falling standards in aspects of healthcare, education, transport, housing and policing – or in economic performance, the additional bureaucratic costs or poor productivity, as delivered by Holyrood – that devolution has failed. Be it in absolute or comparative terms against other areas of the UK, the case has credence.

One can conclude from that position that it would be better to return to some sort of status quo ante as existed before 1999. But for me – an opponent of devolution at the time – that approach would be as misguided as seeing independence as the solution to Scotland’s ills.

After 26 years of constitutional politics – the first eight of which devolutionists tried to prove they could do things better (and in most respects failed) and a further 18 years being dominated by the nationalists’ neglect of the day job as the driving focus was given to wrenching us out of the UK – the last thing Reform should want to contemplate is creating a new constitutional war that abandons public services to the winds.

Reform’s leadership is not going to be baited into ignoring Holyrood as a meaningless sideshow, nor will it fall for the provocation of being purist and seeking to bring the temple down.

Instead it has recognised it needs to metaphorically chase out the money changers, returning the parliament to providing an executive government tasked with delivering public services and administering laws enjoying public consent.

Scotland needs an end to constitutional politics. Swapping the Holy Grail of independence for the abolition of Holyrood will only harm Scotland more – not least because it will leave the nationalists in power to neglect services for another five years.

Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org