None of the foregoing means that I approve of what the devolved legislature actually does. There's almost nothing that's its done that meets my approval.
One thing that the Scottish parliament should have done is to have rejected the Holyrood building that was imposed on us by the Westminster government. We could have saved millions by using the existing Royal High School site where everyone in Scotland had expected the parliament to be located.
There are other ways to save money as has been noted by Michael Forsyth:
Speaking last month in the House of Lords, Lord Forsyth stated: "As the Scottish Parliament sits only one and a half days a week on average, why cannot we get rid of all 129 [MSPs] altogether? "Why cannot we have Scottish MPs sitting in the Scottish Parliament on Mondays and Tuesdays? They could discuss English business at Westminster. On Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, they could come down and we could discuss UK business."That's a very good idea and would end the nonsense of Scottish MPs legislating on English domestic affairs.
What I don't understand is this:
THE Scottish Tories suffered an embarrassing setback yesterday in their efforts to portray themselves as supporters of devolution when it emerged that one of the party’s most senior figures, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, had publicly called for the abolition of all MSPs.Lord Forsyth's scheme is perfectly compatible with devolution so why should it "embarrass" the Tories?
A Labour minister says:
"We know the Tories are committed to savage cuts in Scotland but axing the Scottish Parliament is a cut too far."But Forsyth isn't calling for the Scottish parliament to be "axed". He is pointing out the embarrassing truth that one lot of politicians is sufficient to carry out the duties of both MPs and MSPs. Ms Curran seems to think that the Edinburgh parliament is an end in itself whose purpose is to provide employment for her cronies. Not so. I say that we should adopt the Forsyth plan immediately.