Devolution in Scotland

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate on the 25th anniversary of devolution.

My constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is home to many of Scotland’s jewels. It is a privilege to represent Edinburgh castle, Holyrood palace and the Edinburgh festivals and fringe, although I think the performers are safe given some of the jokes we have heard from Opposition Members. However, the most important building in my seat—indeed, in the whole of Scotland—is at the foot of the Royal Mile. Not only is it architecturally a huge addition to Edinburgh’s scenery, but it is where the Scottish political heart beats. Calling the Scottish Parliament the centre of Scottish political life may sound like a bland truism, but it is not. It is a huge achievement, and not to think so would be to underestimate the achievement of devolution. Before 1999, critics of devolution said that it would amount to an overgrown town council, cause a brain drain, or be of interest only to the political class, not ordinary Scots.

I am of the devolution generation: for as long as I can remember, devolution has simply existed. That devolution generation is now reluctantly facing middle age, but for us it has become a fact of life that the Scottish Parliament is the primary Parliament in which decisions that affect our lives are taken. The community groups and local businesses that I speak to orient themselves towards Holyrood. When they say “the Parliament,” they mean that place, not this one. That is testament to the Scottish Parliament’s success in establishing itself as the fulcrum of Scottish political life.

However, we should consider a counterfactual. Imagine if devolution had been thwarted. Our health service, education and justice systems and housing policy would all receive only scraps of parliamentary time, with little scrutiny and even less reform. That would be a democratic affront even now, when the Government have 37 Scottish MPs, but it would have been an outrage over the 14 years under the last Conservative Administration, with little Scottish representation. The Scottish Parliament has its flaws, but it has undeniably remedied that democratic deficit, and in so doing, has removed one of the greatest threats to constitutional stability in Scotland.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for organising this debate—he is as much an institution as the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) speaks about the Scottish Parliament being the heartbeat of Scottish politics. Is it not time, in the next 25 years, to devolve power from Edinburgh to regions like mine and the highlands, to super-charge the Highlands and Islands Enterprise into a highland development agency, cutting out—shut your ears—those dynamos of economic activity, Inverness and the Moray firth, and to focus devolved power on transport, housing, depopulation and economic and cultural growth in rural areas of Scotland? Powers have been pulled back from them into a centralised Edinburgh.

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The concentration of power in the Scottish Parliament does not work for cities, rural areas, the central belt or the highlands and islands, because it treats Scotland as one monolithic whole and does not address the differences in its communities.

That brings me to my next point. Although devolution has been successful in establishing the Scottish Parliament, we have to be honest about where it has fallen short. Many hon. Members have laid out a litany of failures: poorer health outcomes, falling schools standards that were once the envy of Europe, a housing emergency and stubbornly high poverty, and the drugs crisis, which shames us all. We once led the world in setting climate targets, but we now lead the world in ditching them. We must understand why that happened.

If we think of devolution only as the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, we get it wrong. In 1999, another institution was created—the Scottish Government, then the Scottish Executive.

[Dr Arthur]

I envy the jewels in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Scottish Government—and the Greens, who were complicit—really got climate targets wrong. The targets were set in law and endorsed via an election, but they dumped them overnight. Is that not one of the most shameful things to have happened in Holyrood?

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend gets exactly to the nub of the issue. We have seen good debate, gestures and discussion in Scotland, but we have not seen the concomitant focus on policy, delivery and outcomes. The Scottish Parliament has been a success; the Scottish Government have not. It is important to draw that distinction.

A highly centralised structure has concentrated decision-making in St Andrew’s House, to the detriment of local communities. As we have heard, councils have had their funding and influence hollowed out. There has been a proliferation of quangos and agencies; there are now more quangos in Scotland than there are Members of the Scottish Parliament. That breeds a clientelism and elitism that shut ordinary people out of decision-making processes.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member is making a very strong and powerful point. Does he agree that, as a result of those quangos and the things he is describing, we have actually seen a loss of power to the Scottish Parliament, where MSPs are not getting the opportunity to put things forward? Often, that is because the Scottish Government are bringing forward framework Bills that do not have proper policy decisions, which is why the implementation of so many pieces of legislation ultimately fails.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I think the hon. Lady may be psychic, because she makes exactly the point I am about to make. I could not agree with her more. What this breeds is a culture of gesture and tokenism. That means we side-step tough choices in Scotland. We duck the trade-offs that are required to implement policy change. We now have roundtables and co-production as substitutes for reform, and consultations and strategies as substitutes for action.

I would take that argument one step further. When Labour came to power in 1999, it set about tackling Scotland’s pressing problems, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), referred to: free bus passes; banning smoking in public places; repealing section 28, for which I will personally be forever grateful; and pursuing radical homelessness and housing reforms. But fundamentally, that policy agenda had been developed in the 1990s and the Government set about implementing it when they got in.

When the SNP took office in 2007 with its fundamental policy goal of independence, all policy development was shaped around that objective. I have to say that the fact that independence has not been realised has become the alibi for every policy failure on its watch. What that means is that the Scottish Parliament never became the policy development hub in Scottish political life. It was denuded of its ability to form ideas and for those to be turned into action, and to do the full spectrum of policy development in Scotland, such as identifying social problems, working through how reforms would work, weighing up the trade-offs, brokering the consent among the people and then turning those ideas into tangible reality in people’s lives.

I am a devolutionist not just because I believe in Scottish representation, but because I believe in the power of the state to change Scottish lives. The Scottish Parliament gave us the locus to debate that, but the Scottish Government have failed to give us the mechanism to operationalise and turn it into reality. It is my assertion that the Scottish Parliament now stands, along with Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Good Friday agreement, as a firmament of the British constitutional set-up. Donald Dewar said it should be not just an end, but a means to a greater end. We have the means now, but it is lamentable that we have not used them to achieve those ends.

The last 18 years have been heavy on argument, short on policy delivery. A different direction is needed to fulfil the promise of devolution, which is the devolved Government using the power of the state not to further their own ambitions, but to materially improve the lives of Scotland’s people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I imagine the people of Wales choose to vote in the same ways as the Scottish people do for the Scots. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) put it very well: simply picking a different nation in the UK to tackle our policy issues is getting exhausting, especially on the nationalist Benches.

Not all but part of the problem with the failure to close the attainment gap, as many Members have mentioned, and a broader loss of trust in our politics, were due to disproportionate budget cuts that have landed at the door of local authorities. Having been a councillor for two and a half years, I know that they are at the coalface delivering the services in which our constituents have most acutely seen the evidence of decline. Even though council tax had been frozen for 11 out of the last 17 years of budget settlements, I was completely surprised at the stunt at the 2023 SNP conference which left councils with both arms tied behind their backs. The challenges we see in social care and infrastructure are tied in with local authorities. This is where politics is most tangibly felt by our constituents and it is currently failing them. Even with a £5.2 billion increase secured by us on these Benches for Scotland, Falkirk Council was allocated only an additional £5 million in revenue funding this year from the Scottish Government. Where has the rest of the money gone, John?

Colleges in Scotland, as again my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth touched upon, are at crisis point. With years of systematic underfunding from the Scottish Government seeing a 20% real-terms cut in funding over the past five years, many colleges have now shrunk their staff numbers and offered fewer courses for working-class students at a time when the skills they provide are at their most valuable. Forth Valley college has been put in the position of being an essential provider of training and skills, while Grangemouth undergoes an industrial crisis and requires major investment for transition. It is a hugely valuable local provider of jobs, opportunities and training, yet it is now consulting on the closure of its Alloa campus. Things are going in the wrong direction. Scotland’s civic infrastructure should have been enhanced and resilient and protected by devolution, but in too many places it has not been protected.

On the situation at Alexander Dennis, when it announced its consultation on 400 jobs and closing its only site in Scotland, there was, to their credit, engagement eventually from the Scottish Government, but that was 10 months after the company initially suggested it was going to depart Scotland if something was not done about the scandalous ScotZEB 2 scheme— Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—sending less than 20% of orders to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. However, there have been improvements in how we in this place, under this Labour Government, work with the Administration in Edinburgh. As the Deputy First Minister accurately pointed out recently, the swift engagement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his time as Scottish Secretary was invaluable in ensuring that the conversation progressed quickly.

The truth is that when that sort of crisis arrives in one of our industrial assets—something we should all intrinsically value: a bus manufacturer that has existed long before the inception of the Scottish Parliament and long before any of us were around—action should have been taken much earlier, at strategic level, designing procurement through the powers the Scottish Parliament have to retain a pipeline of orders funded by taxpayer money for buses built in Scotland, not built in China.

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend is eloquently setting out a whole host of policy challenges that we face in Scotland, whether they are in industrial strategy, opportunities for the young or the provision of further education. Does he agree that when the Government of Scotland say that the answer to every single one of those challenges is independence, that shuts down any thinking on what we actually need to do to tackle the challenges and denudes Scotland of the ability to think through how we deal with the real issues that we face in our communities?

[Euan Stainbank]

I agree. It also undermines the message in section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 that there shall be a Scottish Parliament with the powers to fix policy challenges. It is the reason we are proud devolutionists in this place: we want a Scottish Parliament that can address the issues under its competency. I agree that that reaction does shut down debate; it shuts down the idea that there is something better that we can achieve in all of our constituents’ interests.

As I said on Alexander Dennis, we should never have been in a position where a company warned about the loss of a critical and necessary industry in Scotland, especially as we seek to achieve our net zero goals, and it took over a year for decisive action to be taken to prevent it, albeit I welcome that. A devolved Government with a serious interest in standing up for Scotland beyond its being a slogan would not and should not have let it get to that point. Across this place, in the Scottish Government and in our councils that have been hard-pressed for far too many years under a Government who I hope get replaced next year, we must do better. Scotland demands better and Falkirk demands better.

Scotland: Transport Links

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate on an issue that goes to the heart of the economic and environmental goals of the Government.

I represent Edinburgh city centre and have Waverley station at the heart of my constituency, so I will focus on the railway links between Edinburgh and the rest of the UK, because Waverley is our gateway to the rest of the UK. Are hon. Members aware that Waverley is the only railway station in the world named after a novel? I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will find that very metropolitan, but we like it.

Edinburgh is the economic powerhouse of Scotland and I would argue that it is central to our economic development. We have world-class universities, globally significant biotech and informatics, the energy transition on our doorstep, a legal and financial sector, and of course the cultural sector—all brilliant and economically critical, but none incubated in Edinburgh alone; all dependent on our transport and infrastructure links with the rest of Scotland and the rest of the UK, especially London.

We do all those things through Waverley. It has 21 million entries and exits a year, and there are 60 trains a day to London. We receive 1.9 million overnight visits to Edinburgh from outside Scotland. Yes, that includes tourism, but—critically—it also includes business visits. The transport infrastructure is critical to our city’s labour market.

I will give two more data points. Since the pandemic, for the first time, more journeys between Edinburgh and London were made by rail than by anything else—57% of the total. Similarly, the percentage of people working from home has increased from 12% before the pandemic to 30% now.

May I ask whether the House is familiar with the concept of WILLIEs? That is not unparliamentary language, but a new acronym in Edinburgh for “Work in London, live in Edinburgh”. We are seeing that with new capacities to work from home, with new rail travel, and it is of benefit to both cities. It contributes to economic dynamism; for couples with two professional careers, it allows both to thrive; it gives employers access to a bigger labour market and it relies on effective national infrastructure. I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of that change.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the development of the new Lumo service. Lumo has expanded capacity as an open access operator, accessing tracks through the regulator. However, I note that the Transport Secretary is reviewing the role of the regulator in managing open access. Will the Minister commit to the Scotland Office’s liaising with the Department for Transport to ensure that we take account of the developments on the London-Edinburgh line?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, and I welcome you to your place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), my predecessor as Scotland Office Minister, on securing the debate.

I begin where the hon. Gentleman began, and commend him for his tireless commitment to his constituents, including his work on the Borderlands inclusive growth deal. I am sure he will have been pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed at the Budget that funding will be provided to continue all city and growth deals in Scotland, including the Borderlands inclusive growth deal. We have also approved the final two growth deals, including one that has expanded to ensure that all 12 areas of Scotland can benefit. Indeed, I am delighted to say that it is because of the decisions this Government have taken that we have been able to confirm our commitment to invest nearly £1.4 billion in important local projects across Scotland over the next 10 years. That is positive news for all Borderlands partners and for the wide range of projects in the growth deal, including £65 million for initiatives in Scotland.

None the less, I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious about another matter. Despite these ambitious commitments, I am cognisant of the uncertainty that remains around the future of the Borders railway feasibility study. We have been clear about the challenging financial circumstances we have inherited and the need to plan differently for infrastructure. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) may be tired of hearing this, that is the unfortunate reality that we have to continue to address by taking difficult decisions to fix the foundations of our economy. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are continuing to consider the proposals developed as part of the deal and hope to be able to communicate their decision on the UK Government’s commitment to the project shortly.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and other Members asked about the dualling of the A1, and I was asked to explain the Government’s decision. The answer behind that decision is very simple: the previous UK Administration made an unfunded and unaffordable commitment to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, if we cannot afford it, we cannot do it. The decision is simple: it is because of the unfunded nature of the commitment.

My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) have all made eloquent advocacy on behalf of rail passengers who are subject to poor rail performance. I want to reassure them that the Department for Transport will continue to hold all operators to account for their performance through a range of measures, including key performance indicators. The Government simply will not tolerate poor performance and will continue to hold operators to account, regardless of ownership.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked whether I will champion Scotland’s air passengers, and I will do so. The Scotland Office stands ready to advance the interests of all Scotland’s communities.

[Chris Murray]

I absolutely recognise the importance of air travel to more rural parts of the country, but it is a fact that a journey between Edinburgh and London by electric train, such as those operated by Lumo, produces 95% less carbon emissions than the equivalent flight. Other countries take decisions to disincentivise domestic air travel where rail routes are available. Does the Minister recognise the imperative of the climate emergency, which we must bring to bear when we are talking about whether the Government should incentivise rail travel over flights?

[Kirsty McNeill]

Very much so, and the integrated transport strategy, which I will come to shortly, is indeed designed to ensure that we are delivering growth, delivering on our climate ambitions and delivering for communities facing a cost of living emergency.

The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) took the inexplicable decision to put himself up as the spokesperson for the Scottish Government on transport. His account of the ferries amounted to, “Yes, it would have been better, were it not a complete shambles”—I am sure we can all agree on that. Indeed, it would have been, but the facts are these: the Ferguson ferry saga has continued, with repeated delays to the Glen Sannox and warnings that the Glen Rosa may not be delivered now until late 2025. Let us never tire of saying that the total cost of the two ferries is expected to be nearly £400 million. They will be delivered seven years late and at four times the original budget. Of course, that is not the only place where the SNP is failing so badly. Under the SNP’s Government, Scotland’s bus network has been dismantled route by route, day by day. Fares have risen, passenger numbers have plummeted and the number of bus routes went down by 44% between 2006-07 and 2023-24—a loss of nearly 1,400 routes for our communities.

We should be clear that wider questions of transport are devolved, and responsibility for transport matters sits largely with that Scottish Government. Despite the Scottish Government’s failures, the UK Government are committed to resetting our relationship with them when we are able to do so, to deliver for the people of Scotland. We have already made significant progress to that end, and in that context I recognise the role Transport Scotland plays in keeping Scotland connected with the rest of the United Kingdom. As an Executive agency of the Scottish Government, the UK Government naturally recognise its independence, but we none the less stand ready to support its delivery for the people of Scotland, where appropriate. The UK Government respect the devolution settlement and are firmly committed to working with the Scottish Government to deliver shared transport priorities and ensure that the economic benefits of improved connectivity are shared across the UK.

The UK Government are also committed to our growth mission to improve the prosperity of the country and the living standards of working people. That is why the Chancellor has pledged to drive sustainable economic growth, and a strong transport network serving communities across the UK will be key to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It was brilliant to welcome the Prime Minister to my constituency for the first meeting of the Council of Nations and Regions. Following that meeting, are the Government committed to ending the decade and a half of austerity imposed on my constituents by the Conservative and SNP Governments?

[Ian Murray]

I was delighted to attend the Council of Nations and Regions, held in a Labour constituency in Edinburgh. I can assure my hon. Friend that our manifesto said “no return to austerity”, and that is what we are determined to deliver.