What makes a good Holyrood 2026 manifesto?

A good manifesto, in general terms, must surely blend a positive vision for the country with a credible and coherent policy programme which addresses voters’ key concerns and priorities. Both sides of the ledger – the vision and the programme – should be weighty. The manifesto’s vision needs bold ideas to attract voters and rally the troops of doorknockers and leafleteers. Policy commitments – and the definition of the problems they are intended to address – should be specific and precise. A policy programme that is not adequate to realise the vision is a disservice to the electorate.  

But all elections are different. What specifically will make for a good manifesto for Holyrood 2026? Here we suggest five key tests:

1. The fiscal challenge – does the manifesto explain how the fiscal situation became so precarious and what the party intends to do about it?
2. Public service reform – does the manifesto rely on public service reform to fill the fiscal gap? If so, does it set out a coherent and credible programme?
3. Growth – is the manifesto realistic about what can be achieved through devolved powers over the course of a single parliamentary session?  
4. Climate – does the manifesto recognise Scotland’s duties in the fight against climate change and the scale of the remaining challenges? If so, is the manifesto clear on costs and who should bear them?
5. Child poverty – does the manifesto present evidence that the policies proposed will actually realise its vision for child poverty?

1. The fiscal challenge  

As we say in our latest report, the fiscal challenge described in the Scottish government’s Medium Term Financial Strategy is real, significant and immediate. The gap between spending commitments and financial resources is forecast to reach £4.7bn by 2029/30. Manifestos should reflect this reality in concrete, not abstract terms. Manifestos that include significant spending commitments – explicit and implicit – without any reference to how they will be funded are, quite simply, insulting the electorate.  

Similarly, manifestos that commit to spending without setting out the context, are missing the mark. Spending on the NHS is a case in point – complaints that we spend more on the NHS but waiting lists are still high too often miss the fundamental issue: that an ageing society means that our collective health needs are greater than they were in the past.  

Despite what we often hear (see below), there are only two basic ways in which the next government could choose to tackle the fiscal gap: spending cuts and tax increases. A credible programme might focus on one or both.  

Whilst it is too much to expect detailed spending programmes (wouldn’t that be nice?), manifestos should acknowledge the scale of the challenge and, at least in broad terms, set out an approach to maintaining fiscal balance over the next parliament. A more mature approach to long-term tax strategy would be very welcome.

2. Public Service Reform

If pre-campaign debates are anything to go by, we can expect manifestos to include some – ahem – bold claims about the potential for significant savings to be generated through public service reform (PSR) measures. Politicians know that spending cuts and tax rises are unpopular.  PSR provides a relatively attractive, pain-free approach to fill the fiscal gap. Who could be against a more efficient public sector?

It isn’t necessary, so the thinking goes, to restrict real terms growth in the budget or ask citizens to contribute more through the tax system. Rather, all that is required is to abolish quangos, sack some civil servants or wring substantial – if almost always unspecified – efficiencies out of the system.

This may be superficially attractive. It’s also fundamentally unserious.

If parties are genuinely committed to treating voters with the respect they deserve, then manifesto proposals for PSR must be detailed and precise. Any manifestos stating – or implying – that reform will fix the fiscal gap have to clarify the precise mechanisms by which this will be achieved.  

For instance, if significant savings are assumed to flow from the abolition or consolidation of quangos, manifestos should answer the following questions:  precisely which quangos will be abolished or consolidated? What will happen to the functions these quangos currently perform? By precisely how much will spending be reduced?  

Any manifesto assuming significant savings through non-specific commitments to make the public sector more efficient should be treated with the derision they deserve.

3. Growth

Of course, the other route to fiscal balance that doesn’t necessarily require tax increases or spending cuts, is economic growth. And Scottish politicians often sound optimistic about their ability to shift the dial on growth over the course of the next parliament.  

Several devolved responsibilities can exert significant influence on the rate of GDP growth in Scotland over the longer-term: economic development; education and skills; planning; transport; housing and tax.  

However, the ability of the Scottish government to materially affect the rate of growth over the next five years is limited. Governments generally affect short-run growth through macroeconomic – fiscal and monetary – policy. Fiscal policy is largely reserved, and monetary policy wholly so. In an open economy like Scotland, geopolitics and global trends will always have a huge impact on the rate of growth and, to put it mildly, these trends are currently less than conducive to more rapid growth.

Any manifesto implying that relatively small-scale supply-side measures within devolved competencies will have a rapid and tangible effect on the rate of growth should be treated with extreme scepticism. This is especially true of tax cuts.  

It would be helpful if manifestos could, as a minimum, sketch out the main components of their economic strategies that we will assume replace the currently unloved National Strategy for Economic Transformation. Manifestos should have the eye on the longer-term: how might Scotland’s specialisms and capabilities be wielded to meet the great demographic, environmental and technological transitions of the 21st century?  

4. Climate

Not so long ago, there was a consensus in the Scottish parliament that climate change was a real and present threat to societal wellbeing, that stretching targets for emissions reduction was necessary and desirable and that meeting these targets should be a primary focus of the government. It was understood that, even with a small percentage of global emissions, Scotland should aim to be a global leader, committing to the emissions reductions we want to see in other societies.  

More recently the consensus has been fraying, and it appears the next Scottish parliament may contain a significant number of MSPs who do not believe climate change is an imminent threat, or at least not one that the Scottish government should concern itself with.  

This is deeply disappointing. Any manifesto that seeks to engage with the challenges facing Scotland and the issues its citizens regard as important must offer a credible approach to emissions reduction.  

But perhaps more worryingly, the replacement of an annual carbon target with carbon budgets – which cover five year periods so leave a long gap before we’ll know if emissions are on track or not – risks climate diminishing in salience, even among those politicians who recognise the need to cut our emissions.

Parties need to recognise that the “climate backlash” is more a media confection than reality. But a credible manifesto needs to do more than issue warm words on emissions reductions. The Climate Change Committee highlights several areas where policy is underdeveloped including heat in buildings, industry and agriculture. These are thorny issues, but parties that fail to grapple with the scale of these challenges are letting the defining issue of our generation slip from their agenda.

5. Child poverty

The current statutory targets to reduce child poverty were agreed by all the main parties currently in the parliament and ‘eradicating’ child poverty is the number one objective of the current first minister.

However, our analysis – confirmed by others – shows that the targets are highly unlikely to be met.  

There is a good understanding of what works in reducing child poverty. As we wrote recently in the Daily Record, “…to reduce child poverty, society needs to redistribute resources to those who need them most…There is no viable path to reducing poverty that doesn’t mean higher transfers such as the Scottish Child Payment that make a real difference to people’s lives.”  

Any manifesto claiming to prioritise child poverty should set out credible commitments in this respect with at least a rough estimate of anticipated impact. Vague statements about broad areas of policy such as fair work won’t suffice.  

Conclusion

Of course, a good manifesto isn’t necessarily synonymous with an effective manifesto. We only need to look back as far as the EU referendum for a particularly egregious example of a blatantly dishonest prospectus winning the day.  

Let’s hope for better this time.  

Manifestos promising greater efforts to reduce poverty, meet the climate challenge and invest in public services must level with those who will cast their votes on 7 May. If we want a Scotland with excellent public services, rapidly falling prevalence of child poverty and an economy fit to meet the environmental, demographic and technological challenges of the 21st century, then we will all have to contribute to paying for it.  

Difficult decisions and trade-offs have been avoided for too long. These will have to be addressed in the next parliament. Manifestos should prepare the electorate for what is to come over the next five years.