With a significant number of MSPs set to leave Holyrood at the next election, some departures will be marked with genuine respect. Others will prompt a quieter, but unmistakable, sense of relief.
Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf fall firmly into the latter category.
Ms Sturgeon leaves behind a political legacy defined as much by division as by delivery. Over time, disagreement was increasingly framed as obstruction, and dissent, even from within her own ranks, was marginalised. The result was a narrowing of debate at precisely the point when Scotland required openness, challenge, and course correction.
Alongside this, the gap between promise and performance became steadily more apparent. Education, once described as her "defining mission", has slipped against international benchmarks. The NHS remains under sustained pressure, with waiting times and workforce challenges that cannot simply be attributed to circumstance. Across government, confident announcements were too rarely matched by tangible improvement.
Humza Yousaf did little to break from this approach. If anything, his tenure reinforced its limitations. There was no clear sense of reset or renewed direction, only a continuation of familiar themes without meaningful progress. Where leadership required clarity and grip, it too often appeared hesitant and reactive. He was plainly out of his depth from the start, as he often was in his other Cabinet roles.
There is, understandably, a reluctance in Scottish public life to judge departing figures too harshly. But that instinct risks obscuring a fundamental point: political skill is not the same as effective governance. Communication, however polished, cannot substitute for delivery.
Given this record, an obvious question arises about what comes next. When stripped of office and the machinery of political communication, what remains that would recommend itself beyond politics? In most settings, leadership is judged by outcomes, accountability, and measurable improvement. On that basis, it is reasonable to question how readily such experience translates.
As these figures leave office, a simple test applies: what is materially better as a result of their time in power? For many across Scotland, the answer is unclear. Their departure should not be viewed with nostalgia, but as an opportunity for renewal after a prolonged period of underperformance. For many, it will be met not with regret, but with relief. They will not be missed and the next First Minister must strike a new path that actually delivers on the needs and priorities of the Scottish people.
James Roxburgh, Glasgow.
Read more letters
- Reform UK will inject realism into Scottish politics
- Energy security must be on a war footing in the UK
- Why do so many fall for the SNP's Brigadoon delusions?
In what way is indy a solution?
David Hay (Letters, March 23) says he can always tell an election is looming because of an increase in “patronising and presumptuous letters” from the usual correspondents. I think he means the unionists and not the separatists.
OK, let’s get serious then David, and let us know how an independent Scotland can gain international banking support, credit ratings and a new currency. Let us know how we will cope with our transferred share of UK debt. Let us know how we’re going to improve our NHS, education, housing, transport, energy and our rapidly dilapidating infrastructure.
Let us know how on earth independence is a solution to 20 years of truly disgraceful, wasteful and gross incompetence from successive SNP governments who have failed on a massive scale to improve any of these issues. Just imagine the waste if they had an open chequebook.
Please explain how an independent Scotland will manage to raise more revenue to improve the country than it currently earns via our share of the UK Treasury income.
I say all this as a proud Scot who will never accept that I can’t be Scottish and British.
John Gilligan, Ayr.
Let's aim for consensus
The letters from Peter A Russell and Stan Grodynski (March 20) in response to that of Jill Stephenson (Letters, March 18) sum up the never-ending, going-nowhere debate about independence. We have heard all the arguments, insults and accusations interminably and the conclusion I have reached is that this sterile exchange of views is largely a waste of time. The writers have strong opinions, no doubt justifiably held, and as they will never convince each other, they often attempt to belittle their opponents instead.
An example is Mr Russell's G K Chesterton quote about atheism: “When people cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, but in anything”. As an agnostic who was brought up by parents who had strong religious convictions, I could be justified in taking personal offence at his implication. But I know his intention is simply to undermine his opponent's point of view. And as someone else may have said, when you resort to insults, you have already lost the argument.
Irrespective of his views on independence, I support Mr Grodynski's appeal that we debate matters with civility and understanding, with the aim of reaching consensus. If we could all do so, we would greatly improve the political discourse and the decisions that affect all our lives.
David Bruce, Troon.
A better question?
Alan Carmichael (Letters, March 23) asks if your unionist contributors are incapable of informing us how, since 2014, we are "Better Together".
Since none of the big questions thrown up by the White Paper at the time have ever been answered, for example currency, trade, immigration, health provision, and very importantly, defence, perhaps he could inform us how we would be "Better Apart"?
Gregor McKenzie, East Kilbride.
Can Scotland afford Reform?
Can Scotland’s democracy afford Reform UK? I have grave concerns after the launch of the party's Scottish manifesto. Reform wants to reduce the size of our Holyrood Parliament with a review of devolved powers (in other words a power grab) and reduce the number of local authorities in Scotland, effectively abolishing local democracy. Added to this Reform UK is planning tax cuts for the rich and abolishing Scotland’s progressive taxation system, a system where higher earners are asked to pay a little more and those on low incomes are excluded from taxation.
Can Scotland, and the world for that matter, afford Reform UK’s plans to scrap net zero, effectively binning all the Scottish Government’s targets?
I also have grave concerns for our NHS. Should Reform UK get their hands on it, I am sure "free at the point of need" could become a thing of the past. And what about all the hard-working migrants in the NHS and in social care, are they safe under Reform?
Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.
Break free of London parties
Andy Maciver ("Ruth Davidson is right – are you listening, Kemi Badenoch?", The Herald, March 20) gives an interesting comparison of how the traditional Progressive Conservatives of Canada "were put out of business by an insurgent alternative called Reform" – and how that particular Reform party morphed into the "Canadian Alliance" as it went on to unite the right at the expense of traditional parties.
He points out that the way Westminster is headed, we might well see Westminster parties sleepwalking into enabling Nigel Farage to become Prime Minister – with Kemi Badenoch as his deputy in a new, joint relationship.
Where does that leave voters in Scotland who want progressive government, and who don't want to be ruled by a divisive far-right "England Alliance" in Westminster with Reform as top dog?
If we want to see more progressive political parties speaking for Scotland, in Holyrood or in Westminster, the balls-and-chains of the London parties will have to be broken.
Ian Waugh, Dumfries.
Greens are failing the test
The Greens moot an awful lot of strange policies without considering the outcomes. Gender reform was a Green inspiration and we all know just how much disruption such a policy has created. Now they are back again to "tempt" future voters ("Greens want to ban exams and homework", The Herald, March 23). The Greens do like their bans, but is this really "progressive" politics or just another silly scheme? Exams and homework have been the foundation not only of gaining knowledge but of training youngsters for important tasks ahead in adult life. It appears the Greens want to keep everyone, including themselves, from growing up. This is not progressive, it is regressive.
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
Share