Should the Scottish Parliament be given full parliamentary privilege to protect MSPs from legal action?

Given the chance to extend Westminster-style parliamentary privilege to Holyrood, the chamber held back, No prevailing by twelve points in a vote shadowed throughout by the Salmond inquiry that prompted the question. The result reads less as a verdict on devolution than as a statement of wariness about shielding MSPs from the ordinary consequences of what they say.

The generational split is the story: the youngest voters backed the change comfortably, while the over-65s dug in against it by roughly three to one. That gap suggests a divide less about constitutional symmetry with Westminster than about faith in the institution being protected — younger voters more willing to trust MSPs with the latitude to speak freely, older ones more inclined to see immunity as a shield for evasion rather than candour.

The argument sits squarely in the aftermath of the Salmond affair, where accusations of Scottish Government interference and constrained parliamentary scrutiny still colour how voters view Holyrood's institutional maturity. Extending privilege was framed by supporters as simple parity with Westminster; sceptics heard in it an echo of a devolved settlement still finding its footing, and worried what protection might enable rather than what it might permit.

The floor's top Yes case put it plainly: MSPs, "as in Westminster," should be able to "raise questions even if this might embarress and open up area which need more scrutiny." The most-respected No voice cut the other way, asking whether it was really a lack of privilege that silenced Holyrood or "partisan advice from their equivalent of the Attorney General," and whether new immunity would make MSPs braver or simply "consolidate the SNP code of omerta even further."

A chamber unconvinced that more legal cover would loosen tongues rather than loyalties.