Marie’s Column | The Scotsman | Thursday 3rd September 2026
Dr Marie Macklin explains why she’s started to wonder whether we should rip up the current Scottish Parliament and start again
As a business leader, I’m often asked my views on what lessons might best be applied from the private to the public sector. Should taxpayer-funded services be more consumer orientated; do they offer best value for money; how might they be run differently if they had to report to shareholders?
There is no point in ripping up the status quo and replacing it with systems which repeat the same mistakes, which lead to waste and which ultimately do nothing to improve the lives of the public they are supposed to serve.
A starting point should be a candid assessment of the amount of inefficiency currently in the system.
Audit Scotland, the nation’s public spending watchdog, has published a string of reports detailing the extent to which taxpayers’ money continues to be misspent. In the health service, it was found that despite record levels of spending and staffing, the NHS in Scotland is simply not financially sustainable in the long run.
Meanwhile, our university and college sector is in dire straits, with threats of mass redundancies and deep uncertainty over the long-term vitality of some of our most important learning institutions, despite the huge sums of public money spent in the sphere.
At the same time, government investment in key initiatives to kick-start economic growth and renewal have come unstuck – whether in the shape of individual projects such as the nationalised Ferguson’s shipyard, or as we have seen most recently in the deficit run up by the Scottish National Investment Bank.
So, what can be done to turn things around? Scotland’s public realm is bloated, and reform has been put off for far too long, but it has taken the looming threat of a multi-billion pound black hole in Scotland’s public finances to force the hand of government.
There is inevitably resistance to changes which could mean job losses, and trade unions have already signalled their strong opposition, as might be expected.
What would be more concerning would be for the issue to become subject to the polarised nature of Holyrood politics. The opposition parties know, every bit as much as the government, just how essential reform is. That being so, they should not indulge in opposition for opposition’s sake.
The unions have also suggested that the quality of public services is bound to suffer as a result of the reform agenda. They are right to raise the issue but are, I believe, mistaken in their conclusions.
There is no automatic reason why the level of service provision must drop – or to suppose that technological advances are incapable of helping ensure that services are not only maintained but enhanced.
Healthcare is perhaps the most obvious area in which all of this applies. The capacity for new technology to help revolutionise patient care, including more treatment at home instead of in hospital settings, is clear. That can mean savings over the longer term, without compromising on the quality of care.
But clearly, some difficult choices need to be faced. The government is set to cut the number of regional health boards from 14 down to two, but it should also ask whether we really need 32 local authorities, all with their own top tier of management and significant duplication of resources.
But Holyrood’s inability to get to grips with key spending issues begs the question of whether, with its current powers, the parliament is fit for purpose. Or is it time, to borrow from a classic Scottish hit of the 1980s, to Rip it Up and start again?
That means Holyrood’s own costs should not be beyond scrutiny. Given the parliament building itself ended up costing £414 million, up from an initial estimate of £10 to £40 million, the books have not balanced since the start. The parliament’s annual budget for the current financial year is £167 million. Is that money well spent or is there scope for trimming it? And the answer from MSPs of all parties can’t just be “Because we’re worth it”.
More fundamentally, should Holyrood’s committees have more clout and ability to scrutinise spending? And should the parliament have the financial powers required to address the economic problems facing the country?
Meanwhile, should civil service jobs be spread more evenly around the country, bringing money and renewal to dilapidated town centres, rather than allowing Edinburgh to suck people and wealth towards it?
These are all questions that should be considered as part of the reform process.
Saying this out loud may not be popular, but it is necessary. I will be expanding on some of these themes in a keynote speech at an Edinburgh conference in the coming weeks, looking at the public service reform agenda, and what it means for the country in the coming years.
However – and this might be unexpected, coming from a businessperson – I believe that the learning experience cuts both ways. That is to say, there are lessons the private sector can and should take on board from the public realm, just as much as the other way round.
Many of our public servants do outstanding work, much of it unrecognised and unheralded, and without which our society would not only be poorer, but the very fabric that binds it together would begin to fray. What the public sector needs is a willingness to adapt and – above all – good leadership.
There is huge talent, innovation and passion across Scotland’s public and private sectors. With the right approach, and an openness to learn from each other, they can both drive the change needed to make our public services and our economy fit for the challenges of the mid-21st century and beyond.
View article on The Scotsman.