HOLYROOD — First Minister John Swinney is facing a crucial test as he prepares to set out the Scottish Government’s plans for the year ahead: can he build enough support at Holyrood to get them through?
His Programme for Government comes at a time when the SNP lacks a majority in the Scottish Parliament and is expected to need help from opposition parties to push through major reforms. The stakes are high, with the article describing this as the SNP’s toughest year in office outside the pandemic because “massive savings are required”.
Reform plans need cross-party support
Normally, the Scottish Greens would be the first place the government might look for backing, but the article says they have not shown much enthusiasm for Swinney’s reforms and are concerned about centralisation. Scottish Labour is described as a more natural ally on health reform, since both Labour and the SNP want to reduce the number of health boards to no more than three and cut the number of public bodies.
But there is a political obstacle. The article says Scottish Labour and the SNP “hate each other more than Pat Butcher and Peggy Mitchell”, making consensus difficult even where policy overlaps.
That leaves Swinney needing to persuade parties that have spent years attacking his government to work with him on a major reshaping of public services. The article argues that this will take “every ounce of Mr Swinney’s skill”.
Why the government wants change
The planned reforms centre on the NHS and wider public-sector structures. The government says the changes would improve services, but the article warns the process could create confusion and gridlock. Cutting the number of health boards from 14 and reorganising other public bodies would be “long, slow and painful”.
The article also points to problems already affecting Scotland’s health system. Waiting lists are rising again after efforts to bring them down since the pandemic, outpatient waits are increasing, and waiting lists of over 52 weeks are stagnating. Health inequalities remain a persistent issue, while social care is described as not working, with no clear plan to fix it.
Supporters of reform argue that fewer health boards could save money by reducing duplicated functions such as finance and HR, freeing up cash for frontline services. The article also says larger health boards could help reduce postcode lotteries in care and make specialist treatment easier to access for patients in smaller communities.
There may also be benefits for clinical trials and health research if researchers have fewer boards to deal with. But smaller and rural communities are likely to worry that decisions about their needs will be taken further away, and that savings could be prioritised over community-focused care.
Political risks for all sides
For opposition parties, especially Labour, there will be pressure not to hand the SNP an easy route through. The article says it may be tempting for them to distance themselves from the reforms to avoid being associated with failure if things go wrong.
Still, the piece argues that this is exactly the kind of situation where cross-party working is needed. It says the old hope that Holyrood would create more consensual politics may seem quaint now, but collective action could be the only way to make the changes work.
The article’s central warning is that if parliament does not work together constructively, the reforms could become “just a cover for cuts and a miserable hotch-potch of competing aims”. In the end, it says, “Opposition parties have the power to make the SNP’s life fairly hellish; we have to trust they won’t take it.”
Read the original source