As the Scottish Parliament celebrates its 25th anniversary, for those under 30, the institution has been a permanent fixture in their life. Being significantly older, it’s perhaps worth reflecting not just on Parliament but what came before it.

The Calman Commission paved the way for the new Parliament, securing cross-party consensus. Under Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour presented its proposals. I recall then Scottish LibDem Leader, Jim Wallace (future Deputy First Minister), expressing delight at seeing the proposed White Paper on Scottish devolution for the first time. The new Parliament was given a range of powers, which would be enhanced over time.

To think back to pre-devolution, Scottish issues were rarely given time for debate in Westminster. Scottish legislation was rare and even attempts to beef up the Scottish Grand Committee did little to sate demands for the nation to have its own parliament.

Has the Parliament’s powers to legislate been put to good use? It has certainly provided Scotland with scope to set its own agenda. In some ways, straying into controversial areas is a good thing, testing narratives and traditions. However, it has often been divisive.

With 200 bills under its belt, the Scottish Parliament has a track record of legislating for Scotland. There’s been no shortage of controversial legislation introduced at the Parliament, from the recent Gender rRcognition Bill, which sparked protests outside Parliament, to the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act.

Some of the powers of the Parliament and Government have been under-used. Committee-initiated bills, for example, are relatively rare. Examples include the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, Children’s Commissioner for Scotland Act 2003, and Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Act 2010. The tax-raising powers of the Parliament, so controversial ahead of the devolution referendum, have been unused until recent budgets.

What about Parliament as a place for debate? It certainly has engaged in a range of topics, though healthcare dominates much of the airtime, while the economy gets scant attention overall. Rarely does parliamentary debate result in strong public interest. One of the other areas of parliamentary power that seems to be falling into less use are public petitions. Originally, these were a relatively strong method to bring critical public issues to the attention of decision-makers. Now, it feels like Parliament pays lip-service to concerns.

Finally, how has the Parliament performed in keeping the Scottish Government in check? Parliament was never meant to be dominated by a single party, so the fact that SNP has been able to dominate over the committees and have an inbuilt majority for much of its time in power has been poor for scrutiny and holding the government to account. Scotland’s unicameral parliament fails to hold the Scottish Government fully to account and often committee inquiries feel little more than an opportunity for MSPs to posture.

As we pass the 25-year landmark, few would question the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament and its merits. Yet, the Parliament has failed to live up to full expectations. It needs to reconnect with the citizens it serves and use its powers to the full. Here’s to the next 25 years.

Ross Laird is director of Grayling

Agenda is a column for outside contributors. Contact: agenda@theherald.co.uk