The Scottish election question no party is answering: how do we build peace at home?
- Frazer Macdonald Hay
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
This is the first article of mine published by The Times, and I’m reposting it here in full. It argues that Scotland’s biggest peace-related risks are not military, but social and political, and that as elections approach, the absence of any serious discussion about peacebuilding at home should concern us all. Peace, as John Buchan reminded us, is the absence of fear. By that standard, it deserves to be treated as national infrastructure, not an afterthought.......
John Buchan defined peace as “that state in which fear of any kind is unknown.” It is a demanding definition, and one that exposes an uncomfortable reality. Peace is not simply the absence of war, nor something guaranteed by geography or institutions. It is a condition that depends on trust, stability and confidence in the future. By that measure, Scotland has reasons to be concerned.
The country faces no immediate military threat, but it is increasingly shaped by the same forces unsettling democracies elsewhere: political polarisation, eroding trust in public institutions, the rapid spread of misinformation, and growing anxiety about economic and social security. These pressures shape everyday life, how safe people feel, how they engage with politics, and how resilient communities are when tested.
Against this backdrop, the Scottish elections in May matter more than usual. Yet much of the debate risks circling familiar ground: constitutional positioning, spending commitments and identity politics. What remains largely absent is a serious discussion about peace, not as a slogan, but as a responsibility of government.
Scotland has strategies for economic growth, climate transition and international engagement. What it lacks is a coherent approach to peacebuilding at home. Instead, peace-related responsibilities are dispersed across justice, social policy, policing, housing and education, often treated as secondary concerns rather than as part of a shared national objective. The result is a reactive approach, focused on managing symptoms rather than strengthening foundations.
Peace does not begin in foreign policy briefings. It begins closer to home: in reducing violence in households, strengthening community cohesion, maintaining confidence in democratic institutions, and ensuring disagreement does not curdle into fear or hostility. When these foundations weaken, societies become easier to divide and harder to govern.
The absence of a clear peace framework also leaves Scotland poorly equipped to deal with emerging risks. Digital misinformation, online radicalisation, foreign interference and the disruptive effects of artificial intelligence all challenge social stability in ways traditional policy silos struggle to address. These are not niche concerns. They sit at the intersection of security, democracy and public trust.
This election, therefore, offers a necessary moment of scrutiny. Voters should ask every party seeking power the same questions: how will you reduce fear rather than amplify it? How will you rebuild trust in public institutions? How will you strengthen social cohesion in an era of permanent campaigning and digital outrage? And where, exactly, does peace feature in your programme for government?
Peace is not weakness, nor is it passive. It is a form of national infrastructure, as essential as economic stability or public safety. As party leaders set out their visions, they should be expected to explain not only how they will govern in times of conflict, but how they will prevent fear from becoming the organising principle of political life. Any party that cannot answer that question is not fully prepared for the responsibilities of government.
