YOU could be forgiven for forgetting that most of us voted for a Scottish Parliament because we wanted to see distinctive policies defined in Scotland and not in Westminster. The current political debate about the Scottish Parliament is a pale reflection of the issues which dominated the 1997 election campaign.

Over the past few months it is clear that health, education, and the constitutional question are the battlegrounds politicians have chosen for the Scottish Parliament election. So far, almost all the skirmishes between the parties have been about school class sizes, hospital waiting lists, and referendums on the constitution. Only land reform stands out as a distinctive Scottish issue.

The Scottish Parliament deserves something better than the rhetoric of Westminster politics. Perhaps the Scottish parties, all used to fighting UK elections, have found it difficult to adjust to a new environment. The Scottish parties seem, so far, to have failed to respond to the distinctive social priorities of Scottish voters.

And Scottish voters do have a stronger sense of social responsibility than elsewhere in the UK. For two decades Scots increasingly voted for the left-of-centre parties because they perceived the Tories as uncaring. While other issues, like sleaze and incompetence, may have pushed voters over the edge at the last election, it was the perception that the Tories had no social conscience that caused the political damage to them year in, year out in Scotland.

For years Scots have been telling politicians that we have different concerns and different priorities from the rest of the UK. One of those messages has been that Scots care more about what happens to poor people. Perhaps politicians, obsessed with delivering messages, are not so clever when it comes to receiving them.

Yes, health and education will remain important issues for Scots when they go to the ballot box next year. But voters will want to hear about health and education policies which tackle the distinctive problems of poorer households, and not just the arid political rhetoric of waiting lists and class sizes.

Take health, for example. We have the best health service in Europe, and probably in the world, yet we have the worst record in Europe. It is clear something is deeply wrong about how health policy works. We are very good at treating people after they become ill. We are less good at helping people stay healthy and free of illness.

One of the main reasons for this

is that Scotland's poorest people live in the worst housing conditions in Northern Europe and have the worst health record.

In Scotland respiratory illnesses, like asthma and bronchitis, are the single most frequent diagnosis made by GPs in their surgeries. People with asthma are two to three times more likely to live in homes which are affected by dampness and mould growth. Improving the damp, cold homes of poorer households cuts the incidence of asthma by four-fifths. This not only leads to significant improvements in people's lives but children from those families have fewer absences from school and healthy adults are more likely to be able to find and keep jobs.

We need to get away from the deeply misplaced obsession with pouring more and more resources into reducing waiting lists and waiting times. Cutting waiting lists is not what matters most to improving the health of poorer people. Improving their life circumstances - housing and jobs, for example - is much more important in helping people lead healthy lives.

It is right that improving health should be a major priority for the Scottish Parliament. But the Parliament needs to find better ways to improve people's health, particularly in poorer households. Tackling Scotland's legacy of damp, cold homes would not just drastically cut respiratory illness, but it would lead to fewer deaths during the winter from cold. Scotland also has the worst record on winter deaths in Northern Europe. This is one way the political agenda has to reflect distinctive Scottish problems and define new policies to fix them.

Poor people live in poor housing. They have much lower levels of educational achievement, fewer work opportunities, and much poorer health as a result. The voters know this and want something done about it. Scotland's politicians are lagging behind.

Scots have a much stronger sense of community responsibility. They are not comfortable living in a society which tolerates such extremes of poverty. This was the message Scots delivered in election after election for 18 years. It was why they voted to have more control over their own affairs.

At some point the political debate in Scotland has to leave the priorities and policies of Westminster behind and come up with an agenda which is about Scotland. Policies which tackle poverty and poor housing will be a major part of the distinctive agenda which will decide where Scots will put their votes. Are the politicians getting the message?

n Michael Thain is policy officer with Shelter Scotland. He will be speaking this Sunday at the New Scotland Conference in Glasgow, organised by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy and sponsored by The Herald. For details of timings and tickets for the whole weekend of discussion and debate, phone the Tron Theatre's box office on 0141 552 4267.