Scotland gains tangible and significant benefits from being a part of the UK. Public spending routinely exceeds the UK average by a substantial margin per person, funding hospitals, schools, transport, and community projects. This is not a one-way subsidy but a reflection of collective budgeting: pooling resources so that every region can maintain vital services, even when economic conditions vary locally.

However, Reform UK seeks to upend this arrangement. Their proposals aim to overhaul or scrap the mechanism that determines Scotland’s funding share, reducing support and fostering division between nations. These ideas go beyond routine policy debates; they strike at the collaborative spirit underpinning the Union.

When figures like Nigel Farage suggest cutting Scotland’s powers or scaling back its funding as a means of “reform,” they misunderstand how unity endures. Threatening to withdraw authority or tighten the purse strings does not fortify bonds; it hands the SNP fresh arguments about grievances and unfair treatment. Casting Scotland as a drain, rather than a partner.

In contrast, we maintain that Scotland’s strengths are best exercised within a robust UK framework. We endorse devolution, not as a stepping-stone to separation but as a mechanism for responsive local governance. While it is true that the current Scottish Parliament has sometimes been used more for constitutional rhetoric than for service delivery, the remedy is to improve its performance, not dismantle it. Our focus should be on enhancing accountability and ensuring that decisions genuinely benefit communities.

Properly deployed, devolved powers allow us to tackle Scotland-specific issues while still drawing on the scale and stability of the wider Union. At its best, the United Kingdom thrives on shared responsibility, collective investment, and democratic collaboration. Every nation brings something to the table and reaps the rewards of its participation. We are committed to upholding a balanced partnership.

Noise from Reform UK may grab headlines, but it does not reflect the convictions of most Unionists, who understand that building up our shared framework is preferable to hollowing it out.

Beyond funding formulas and constitutional debates, the Union offers practical advantages that resonate with daily life. Defence cooperation, for instance, ensures that citizens across the UK benefit from shared security arrangements rather than each nation bearing full responsibility alone. Collaborative responses to emergencies, whether public health challenges or natural disasters, depend on coordinated planning and resource pooling. In research and innovation, UK-wide grants often support work in Scottish universities and institutions, linking them to wider networks that boost scientific advances and economic growth. These examples remind us that interdependence is the foundation of resilience.

Economic interdependence extends to trade and markets. Scottish businesses selling into the broader UK market benefit from unified regulations and standards that reduce friction. Equally, projects such as cross-border transport links, energy interconnectors, and regional development schemes gain from oversight and investment at the UK level. While local authorities and the Scottish Government must drive delivery on the ground, the Union provides a scale and expertise that can be difficult to replicate in isolation. Highlighting these connections can help people see beyond abstract arguments to the concrete ways in which cooperation enhances prosperity.

Simultaneously, our commitment to devolution demands that decision-making remains close to those it affects. Local accountability encourages innovation: councils and agencies can pilot new approaches tailored to community needs, and successful models can be shared across the UK. We should champion mechanisms that strengthen the scrutiny of public spending in Scotland, ensuring that every pound is spent efficiently. When the Scottish Parliament demonstrates effective governance, it reinforces the case for retaining and improving devolution, rather than undermining it.

We should provide personal anecdotes which highlight communities that are benefiting from UK-wide initiatives: rural areas being supported by national infrastructure schemes, and research teams receiving funding via UK grants. Such narratives ground the argument in lived experience, showing voters how the Union translates into real improvements in their lives.

It is also important to honestly address concerns. Where systems fall short, we must acknowledge the challenges and propose solutions rather than default to blame.

Why Scotland in the United Kingdom still matters

Ultimately, preserving Scotland’s place in the Union is not an act of nostalgia but a forward-looking choice. This reflects the belief that our nation flourishes best when connected to its neighbours through shared institutions and mutual obligations. This does not preclude change; indeed, it demands the continual improvement of how we govern and fund public services.

In the run up to the next Scottish election our arguments must be rooted in original, concrete propositions: clear plans for enhancing devolution’s effectiveness, proposals for transparent funding reviews with phased implementation, and stories that illustrate the everyday advantages of cooperation.

By framing the case around practical outcomes rather than slogans, we can present a persuasive vision: a Scotland that makes the most of devolved powers and a United Kingdom that stands together to deliver security, prosperity, and opportunity for everyone.

Some are justified. People who pay into the tax system expect results. Governments are custodians of our country and are rightly scrutinised for decisions they make and are responsible for their actions.

Housing has always been a fragile sector that has teetered on the edge of an emergency. For as long as I can remember, demand has always outstripped supply. Some blame the Conservatives for the Right to Buy scheme introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s government back in the 1980s.

In my view, this is a lazy, ideological argument for the lack of social housing supply we experience today. In fact, had not been for the bold, unapologetic intention for council tenants of local authorities to own their home, my parents would not have been afforded the opportunity to re-enter the housing ladder.

The uncomfortable truth for many Labour dominated councils in Scotland during the Nineties is that the money generated from these purchases was never reinvested into building more social housing to replenish their depleted stock. Councils no longer prioritise house building, mainly as they are busy grappling with the challenges of keeping basic public services operational.

Right to Buy in Scotland was abolished in 2016 and with it, the rights of working-class people to own their own home.

The housing crisis extends beyond social housing. Successive left-wing governments in Holyrood have launched full-frontal attacks on the private rented sector, stifling investment, and forcing landlords out of the housing market.

The Housing Bill, currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament, is a prime example of this. The SNP, with a little help from their Green counterparts, embarked on a mission to introduce permanent rent controls, with no evidence of success to back up their intentions.

For a short period during the pandemic, rent controls were introduced to prevent rents rising too high, too quickly. However, this had the opposite effect.

Between September 2022 and March 2024, private rental prices increased by 16.5%. Scotland became an outlier, with rental prices outstripping that of any UK nation or region, including London. In a single year, 21,000 flats and houses disappeared from Scotland’s private rental sector.

But that’s not all. The economic damage of rent controls led to £3.2 billion in lost investment, harming growth and spooking the housing market.

At a time when people are desperate for homes, government should be encouraging growth, not taking a sledgehammer to the bricks and mortar holding the sector together. Should rent controls be introduced, I anticipate more landlords will have no choice but to lock their doors and ask tenants for their keys back.

Solving the housing emergency is complex. The simple answer is to build more homes.

Another possible solution is to bring back Right to Buy.

My argument is that today’s youth are known as ‘generation rent’. They are likely to stay within the rental market as the likelihood of them climbing the housing market is far beyond their financial reach.

Whether that be mortgage rates or being priced out of homeownership, there is no real incentive for young people to own a home.

Creating fluidity in the housing market by making it easier for people to own their home will alleviate the pressures on waiting lists and naturally reduce rents in the private rental sector.

If Right to Buy were ever reintroduced in Scotland, lessons must be learned. Councils would need to take ownership of replenishing council stock, reinvesting money accumulated from the sale of council properties, to then reinvested in social housing. Not only would this assist the Scottish Government’s affordable homes target of 110,000 by 2032, but there will also be a significant economic benefit.

There is also a strong case to be made for providing councils with more capital to buy back ex-council stock, should homes appear on the market. One of the biggest problems in more affluent local authority areas is that councils cannot afford to buy back ex-council stock. Offering Right to Buy as a solution may well be a start in fixing social housing waiting lists. 

The act of declaring a housing emergency won’t do anything to rebuild the housing sector. What we need are bold ambitions to tackle the emergency in Scotland head on.

Perhaps it’s time to re-look at what previous governments achieved and learn from their success.