The appointment of David Cameron to UK foreign secretary via appointment to the House of Lords raises an interesting question about the relationship between the executive and the legislature. Primarily at Westminster but also at Holyrood.
The big issue in Westminster is the absurdity of the (by convention) only route for people to become ministers who aren’t MPs is through being appointed to the House of Lords. For life. There’s then the issue that these ministers can’t appear before MPs to be held to account. The situation is frankly absurd and in need of reform. Rishi Sunak’s appointment puts a spotlight on this bizarre route to government. If we are to allow people who aren’t legislators to join the executive – and there’s a strong case to allow that to be the case in line with plenty of other democrscies around the world – then we need to fix this bizarre Westminster process.
So, what’s the situation in Scotland? Currently, only MSPs can become cabinet secretaries in the Scottish Government. It’s right that most ministers come from the elected Scottish Parliament but with just 129 MSPs, there is a good case for enabling cabinet secretaries to be appointed from outside the legislature. Such a rule would strengthen the diversity of talent within the Scottish Government. But any rule should have democratic accountability.
Crucially, if we are to go down this road then MSPs appointed to cabinet should be approved by the Scottish Parliament. This would be a similar nominations and vote process to that of the Cabinet of the United States and other democracies, ensuring that such cabinet secretaries are accountable to parliament.
Furthermore, that accountability should be strengthened by enabling such cabinet secretaries to make statements and answer questions in parliament. MSPs should be able to directly question any and all cabinet secretaries, including those chosen from outside parliament.
There could even be a limit on the number of people non-MSP cabinet secretaries appointed to ensure that the majority of cabinet members come from the legislature, if that’s a concern.
This is hardly the most pressing reform that could improve Scottish democracy – Holyrood needs better Proportional Representation, fixed four-year terms and restrictions on second jobs and dual mandates – but reform in this area is worth considering in light of former Prime Minister David Cameron’s appointment to the role of UK Foreign Secretary.
A system of Proportional Representation (PR) is one that ensures that how people vote at the ballot box is reflected in parliament. Unlike Westminster elections, in which the unrepresentative First Past the Post is used system to elect MPs (PR), the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Irish Assembly all use a form of PR to elect their legislators.
However, just because a legislature uses a PR system, doesn’t mean that results are purely proportional. The extent of proportionality depends on the type of system used and various parameters such as district magnitude and the ratio of list seats to single-member electorates if applicable. When it comes to PR elections within the UK, proportionality is a question of extent for these reasons.
Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament uses the Additional Member System (AMS) to elect MSPs. Voters get two votes: one for their local constituency representative (using a First Past the Post voting system) and one for the regional list. Constituency votes are counted and seats allocated first. Party votes in each region are then added together to allocate regional MSPs. Crucially, regional MSPs are allocated by taking into account the number of MSPs won by each party in the constituencies to ensure broadly proportional results overall.
So, how proportional are Scottish Parliament elections?
One of the best ways to answer this question is to look at the Gallagher Index for Scottish Parliament elections. Simply put, a Gallagher Index for any election is a measure of proportionality that can be used to compare elections across time and between countries. The lower the score for an election, the more proportional it is.
For context, the Gallagher Index for the 2019 UK General Election was 11.8. Canada also uses First Past the Post and had a score of 13.39 in 2019. These are fairly disproportional results.
In contrast, the Scottish Parliament’s scores are on average considerably lower – meaning more proportional as we would expect with its Additional Member System. On average, Scottish Parliament elections have a Gallagher Index of 7. The vote in 2016 was 5.60 and 2021 was 7.03.
Overall, Scottish Parliament elections are pretty proportional but the extend of proportionality is limited by the ratio of constituency to list seats and overhangs. While Holyrood is more representative than Westminster, after almost 25 years of devolution, the Scottish Parliament needs reform.
The Welsh Parliament also uses the Additional Member System to elect its representatives, however, it’s proportionality is even more limited than Holyrood’s. This is mainly due to the fact that the ratio of constituency to list seats is skewed in favour of the former, with just 20 list seats to 40 list seats. Compare that to the 73 list seats and 56 constituency seats in the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, Welsh electoral regions each only have four representatives compared to the seven in each Scottish region. With fewer MSs per region, the effective threshold for a party getting representatives is significantly higher than in Scotland.
When it comes to the Gallagher Index, since the institution’s creation in 1999, the six elections have had an average score of 10.57. The most recent Welsh election had a score of 9.36. In that election, Labour won more than half of the single-member constituencies but the additional element of proportionality ensure a more proportional result. However, if you dig a little deeper you will see that votes don’t match seats too well – Labour won 29 of the 60 seats available on just 31.5% of the regional vote.
Overall, Welsh elections are more representative than those for Westminster but not as representative as those for Holyrood.
Unlike the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd, Northern Irish elections use the Single Transferable Vote to elect MLAs.
Under STV, the province is divided into multi-member constituencies (with five-members each). Voters rank candidates in order of preference resulting in proportional outcomes overall. Since 1998, there have been seven Northern Ireland Assembly elections with an average Gallagher Index of 4.33. However, the most recent election had a score of 7.80, a high in the modern era under STV.
Overall, Northern Irish elections are very proportional, and as they use STV they don’t have the problems associated with the Additional Member System.
Edinburgh Eastern MSP Ash Regan defected from the SNP to Alex Salmond’s Alba party on Saturday 24 October 2023. This immediately prompted an age-old question, one that was also asked following the surprise defection of Lisa Cameron MP to the Conservatives earlier in the month. How do we solve a problem like defecting parliamentarians?
An obvious solution is a by-election – one that’s often called for by the party that an MSP or MP has left. How dare these representatives defect from the party banner that they were elected under? – so the argument goes. That’s one answer but it quite quickly conflicts with reality: an MSP wanting to leave their party but keep their position as an elected politician (which let’s be honest they’d be unlikely to want to give up) results in them being trapped in a party machine they oppose, creating an inherent conflict of interest. Maybe our politicians should have stronger principles in general and under such a system do the right thing and resign, but realpolitik suggests that’s not the case. What’s more, politicians are human – like voters they are allowed to change their minds.
The immediate triggering of a by-election is one possible answer for constituency MSPs (and MPs) but what about list MSPs? By-elections are impossible in this case, so the answer is they would just have to resign and let the next person on the list move up. Again we hit the same problem of political ambition and MSPs. Of course, Holyrood’s voting system needs replaced but until then this problem remains.
So what’s the answer? It’s not perfect, but Wales offers a solution.
The compromise position is a mechanism that allows MSPs to show dissatisfaction with their party but doesn’t insult the voters that elected them (to an extend at least).
Had these rules been in place in the Scottish Parliament, Ash Regan would have been allowed to leave the SNP but she would have to sit as an independent not an Alba MSP. Of course, there’d be nothing stopping her declaring allegiance to Alba and attending their conference committed to championing their values in parliament. But it might be the best solution to a perennial problem.
While there’s no right answer that squares every circle, this solution strikes a fair balance between party and individual interests and would maintain some credibility with voters. The Scottish Parliament is overdue reform. When reform happens, this should be considered.
The Canadian province of Manitoba is going to the polls October in what is set to be the third First Past the Post failure in Canada this year, following elections in Prince Edward Island and Alberta.
Manitoba, along with the rest of Canada’s provinces and territories, uses the First Past the Post voting system to elect its legislator. The system is also used to elect MPs to the Canadian parliament. Why is this important to know? First Past the Post ultimately skews the link between seats and votes, resulting in unrepresentative legislatures.
What happened in the last Manitoban election?
The previous Manitoban election took place in 2019 – the Progressive Conservatives retained their majority of seats, which they won on less than half the vote (47%). The opposition New Democratic party made modest gains but not enough to take the top spot from the right. Meanwhile, the Liberals won 15% of the vote but only 3 out of 57 seats while the Greens secured 6.5% of the vote but no seats across the entire province.
Overall, the election was pretty unrepresentative of how Manitobans actually voted.
How representative will the election be this time? What does polling currently say?
This time, polling suggests that the NDP and Progressive Conservatives are neck and neck when it comes to votes. However, thanks to First Past the Post the way the province actually votes is unlikely to be reflected by seats won in the legislature. The NDP may pull ahead on the day but there’s no guarantee that winning the most votes will result in a party winning the most seats – a feature of First Past the Post known as wrong-winner elections.
Put simply, as with previous Manitoban elections First Past the Post will distort how people vote at the ballot box. Whatever happens, seats are unlikely to match votes.
Manitoba follows Prince Edward Island and Alberta this year
Prince Edward Island held its election on 3 April, earlier than the election scheduled for October, a gamble that paid off for the province’s premier Dennis King. King’s Progressive Conservatives ultimately gained seats, taking 55.9% of the vote and an overwhelming majority of seats (22 of 27, 81.5% of those in the chamber). The party did win an overall majority of the vote but their seat share is an excessive overrepresentation.
The only other parties elected were the Liberals and the Greens. However, while the Liberals became the second largest part (with just 3 seats to the Greens’ 2), they won fewer votes than the Greens overall. Considering that the Liberals won 17.2% of seats to the Greens 21.6%, this was hardly a fair election.
The following month Alberta went to the polls. The province has very much evolved into having a two-party system: the United Conservatives took 49 seats on 53% of the vote took 38 on 44%. Due to the dominance of two parties, this election did in fact have seat shares that roughly reflected vote shares (56% and 43% respectively), however, just because seats matched votes on this level doesn’t mean the system didn’t fail Alberta. Single-member districts are a massive flaw of First Past the Post.
In every Albertan riding (constituency), a significant minority of voters are represented by candidates they didn’t vote for. Take the riding of Calgary-Fish Creek: the United Conservative candidate won 54% of the vote, however, 44% voted New Democratic and 1.5% voted Liberal. Almost 1 in 2 voters are not represented by someone they wanted to represent them.
Under a system of PR with multi-member districts, seats will closely match votes across the legislature and most voters will be represented by at least one represented by a party they gave their support to.
Like the UK, Canada has a democratic deficit thanks to its use of First Past the Post.
It’s up to those in Canada to make the case for Proportional Representation but this latest election demonstrates the need for fair votes in all democracies such as the UK and highlights the unfairness of the distorting nature of the status-quo.
The confirmation of a by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West following a recall petition demonstrates the case for a recall mechanism for MSPs.
The by-election, which will be held some point after parliament returns from summer recess, is the first to take place in Scotland under the Recall of MPs Act (2015). The most recent Westminster by-election to take place in Scotland was in Airdrie & Shotts in May 2021 when the SNP’s Neil Gray switched from Westminster to Holyrood.
The by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West got the go ahead from constituents following over 10% of them signing a recall petition after sitting MP Margaret Ferrier was suspended from the House of Commons for 30 days.
The Recall of MPs Act (2015) empowers constituents to kick out suspsended MPs, with appropriate checks and balances to ensure it doesn’t become a political tool.
The ability to recall MPs in certain circumstances puts powers in the hands of constituents, allowing MPs to be held accountable for their actions.
The Scottish Parliament must follow Westminster’s lead and introduce a Recall of MSPs act to strengthen accountability in Scottish democracy.
The upcoming by-election looks set to be a heated contest between Labour and the SNP. A win for Labour would be hailed as a resurgent moment for the party in Scotland.
New Zealand’s Independent Electoral Review has put forward recommendations to reform the country’s electoral system, strengthening the case for a full review of the Scottish Parliament’s voting system.
Both Scotland and New Zealand use similar Mixed-Member voting systems to elect representatives. Each system has mix of parliamentarians voted in on lists and those elected in single-member constituencies. The number of single-member constituencies won by each party is taken into account when list seats are allocated to ensure broadly proportional outcomes.
The Scottish and New Zealand systems have further similarities, as well as some significant differences, which can be read about below.
The Scottish Parliament is significantly more representative than the House of Commons in Westminster, which uses FPTP. However, its voting system has some notable flaws that should be addressed.
The review of the similar system in New Zealand shows that a review could happen at Holyrood too. The non-binding New Zealand review covered various aspects of election law including a referendum on extending parliamentary terms from three to four years (something that has strong logic but has been rejected twice already), election financing rules and lowering the voting age to 16 (which is the case in Scotland).
On the voting system specifically, they came up with the following recommendations:
R6. Lowering the party vote threshold for list seat eligibility from five per cent of the nationwide party vote to 3.5 per cent.
R7. Abolishing the one-electorate seat threshold, provided the party vote threshold is lowered.
R8. Removing the existing provision for extra seats to compensate for overhang seats, with fewer list seats allocated instead, if the one- electorate seat threshold is abolished, as recommended.
R9. Fixing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats at 60:40, requiring parliament to be an uneven number, and allowing the size of parliament to grow in line with the population.
Independent Electoral Review (2023)
The outcome of the review addresses some key issues but some of its thinking has flaws. For instance, increasing the number of constituency seats so there are more of them than list seats will weaken proportionality.
Nonetheless, it shows that a review is possible in Scotland. After almost 25 years of devolution, it’s time for an upgrade. Any review of Scotland’s voting system should consider the following aspects:
The Electoral system.
Parliamentary term lengths.
Dual mandates.
Second jobs.
Recall options.
Ballot access.
More MSPs
On the electoral system, any reform should look at the flaws of the Additional Member System used to elect MSPs.
AMS is only partially proportional. A majority of seats are elected via FPTP and the proportional list seats are allocated on a regional basis leading to only regional proportionality and a risk of overhangs with no mechanism to correct them. Furthermore, the FPTP constituencies as an integral (and majority) part of AMS result in safe seats, retain a major drawback of FPTP.
There’s also the two-vote problem – having two types of votes can lead to divergence between constituency and list votes cast, messing with the ended outcome of proportionality. As part of that, the system can be gamed: although unsuccessful, in 2021 Alba tried to game the list vote to create a supermajority for independence, going against the spirit of a system designed to represent as many views as possible – as accurately as possible. This is compounded by the fact that there are two types of MSP, constituency and list, which while in theory have the same roles in practice can be rather different.
Of course, One solution would be to make modifications to AMS to address these concerns, similar to the level of reforms being proposed in New Zealand, however, bolder reforms should also be considered. The Scottish Parliament needs a system like the Single Transferable Vote to empower voters, deliver better proportionality and end the two vote/MSP problem.
The full New Zealand Independent Electoral Review can be read here.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been nothing short of disruptive, fascinating, and, at times, downright bonkers. The content generated by AI models like Chat GPT has shown both terrifyingly accurate results and ludicrously inaccurate or even fake outputs. Instances of GPT writing essays and conjuring realistic-sounding sources highlight the AI’s remarkable abilities, as well as its inherent flaws.
We find ourselves at the forefront of the AI revolution, still in its nascent stage. The technology will undoubtedly continue to evolve, and how we harness its potential will significantly shape our world.
Taking this into consideration, I decided to have some fun and pose a question to Chat GPT: “Write an article outlining the flaws of the Additional Member System used to elect MSPs in the Scottish Parliament and make the case for using the Single Transferable Vote.”
The output was lacking in examples from elections so I asked Chat GPT to adapt its content: “In this essay, add real life examples from Scottish Parliament elections.”
Here’s what the AI produced, followed by an analysis of the output.
Title: The Case for Single Transferable Vote: Addressing the Flaws of the Additional Member System in Scottish Parliament Elections
Introduction: The Additional Member System (AMS) has been the electoral system used to elect Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) since its establishment in 1999. While AMS has some positive attributes, it also suffers from significant flaws that hinder the democratic process and representation. In this article, we will outline the shortcomings of AMS and advocate for the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system as a superior alternative for Scottish Parliament elections.
Chat GPT
So far so good. It’s not beautiful writing but it reads like an essay or article and doesn’t have any factual inaccuracies so far.
One of the key flaws of the AMS is its tendency to yield disproportionate representation. For example, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, despite securing 4.7% of the regional vote, the Scottish Greens won only six out of the 129 seats. This overrepresentation of larger parties can marginalize smaller parties and distort the true will of the electorate.
Solution: STV provides a more proportional representation by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. In the 2019 Scottish local elections, STV enabled the Scottish Greens to secure 12.5% of the first-preference votes, translating into a fairer distribution of seats.
Chat GPT
This is where it gets a bit hazy. The statement that AMS tends to “yield disproportionate representation” is an interesting one. Chat GPT doesn’t get into the nuances of AMS resulting is fairly proportionate elections, at least compared to First Past the Post. At the same time it doesn’t go into the reasons behind AMS only having limited proportionality: overhang seats, regional not national lists and the ratio of FPTP seats to regional seats.
The next point makes no sense at all. Chat GPT is wrong to say the Scottish Green secured 4.7% of the regional vote. In fact, they won 6.6%. Furthermore, the assertion that this doesn’t tally up with the six of 129 seats they won is absurd. 6 out of 129 seats is in fact 4.7%, the previous wrong figure mentioned. The next sentence is even more baffling: the Scottish Greens are not one of the large parties although Chat GPT’s assertion that over parties can be overrepresented by AMS is a fair one, for example the SNP.
The solution to this “problem” is accurately identified by Chat GPT, however, the example is completely wrong. There were no local elections in 2019. There were EU elections in 2019 where the Scottish Greens won 8.2% and no seats.
Flaw #2: Limited Voter Choice
The AMS restricts voters to two separate ballots, limiting their ability to express preferences across both ballots. This constraint deprives voters of the opportunity to support specific candidates irrespective of party affiliations. Furthermore, it can disenfranchise voters when their preferred candidate is not standing in their constituency.
Solution: STV eliminates the need for separate ballots and allows voters to rank candidates from all parties in order of preference. This flexibility empowers voters to support individual candidates, promoting a more diverse representation that reflects their true preferences. In the 2017 Scottish local elections, STV provided voters with a wider array of choices and enabled them to elect representatives who closely aligned with their views.
Chat GPT
Here, the problem with AMS when it comes to limited voter choice is correctly identified and reasonably well argued. Similarly, the solution offered by STV is presented well. Unlike the first flaw of AMS, the example here is accurate. There were Scottish local elections in 2017.
AMS tends to create “safe seats” where one party consistently wins, impeding competition and voter engagement. This lack of competitiveness can discourage political diversity and encourage tactical voting, where voters opt for strategic choices rather than voting based on their genuine preferences.
Solution: STV promotes greater competition by offering voters a broader choice of candidates and parties. This encourages candidates to actively engage with constituents and increases voter participation. In the 2019 European Parliament elections, STV in Scotland facilitated the election of MEPs from various parties, breaking the monopoly of safe seats.
Chat GPT
Safe seats are correctly identified by Chat GPT as a flaw of AMS, however, the details of why this is (due to the retention of FPTP seats), is omitted.
Again the solution of STV here is accurate, however, the AI fails when it comes to giving specific examples. There were EU elections in 2019 but Scotland (when the UK was part of the EU RIP) used the party list system to elect MEPs rather than STV. Perhaps Chat GPT was thinking of Northern Ireland?
Flaw #4: Lack of Direct Accountability
Under AMS, MSPs can be elected through the regional list without having a direct connection to a specific constituency. This absence of direct accountability weakens the link between elected representatives and their constituents, potentially compromising effective representation.
Solution: STV ensures that each MSP is directly elected by a specific constituency, strengthening the connection between elected representatives and the people they serve. This geographical mandate enhances accountability and fosters a closer relationship between constituents and their elected representatives. In Irish local elections, STV has successfully maintained strong links between representatives and their constituents.
Chat GPT
This is an interesting argument which is well argued. I don’t necessarily agree that regions don’t provide a direct link with constituents but I see the argument from the point of view of “constituency link” First Past the Post advocates.
Unlike other examples, the one about Irish elections using STV is accurate although further explanation is somewhat lacking.
Conclusion: While the Additional Member System has provided some level of proportionality and stability in Scottish Parliament elections, its flaws cannot be overlooked. The Single Transferable Vote system offers a more democratic and representative alternative. By addressing the issues of disproportionate representation, limited voter choice, safe seats, tactical voting, and lack of direct accountability, STV has the potential to enhance the democratic process and ensure a fairer and more representative electoral system for Scotland. As AI continues to shape our world, let us harness its potential to embrace an electoral system that truly reflects the will of the people.
Chat GPT
Okay, so the conclusion is quite a mechanical summary of each of the points made above. It could be written better but there’s nothing particularly wrong with it.
Well until that last sentence:
“As AI continues to shape our world, let us harness its potential to embrace an electoral system that truly reflects the will of the people.”
I’ve no idea where this came from. It certainly didn’t exist in the initial output before I asked for specific examples. This implies that Chat GPT sees it as an example…
Will we one day be electing artificial intelligence as MSPs? Does Chat GPT think that AI will be drafting motions, voting on bills and making governance decisions? That’s quite the thought.
(Plot twist: the start of the article was also produced by Chat GPT.)
Boundaries Scotland has published their proposed new boundaries for constituencies in the Scottish Parliament.
The boundaries were published on Wednesday 17 May 2023.
The review affects the 70 non-protected First Past the Post seats in the Scottish Parliament. Orkney, Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar are exempt from review as outlined in legislation.
There is now a one-month period of consultation where you can have your say.
The final outcome from the review will result in the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary elections being the first to be conducted under new boundaries.
Boundary changes are an inevitable consequence of any electoral system, however, the frequency of when they take place is largely determined by the voting system used. The First Past the Post element of the Scottish Parliament’s Additional Member System means that fairly regular changes are expected to account for changing and shifting populations across the country.
Of course, systems with larger, multi-member constituencies such as STV are less likely to require boundary changes due to the ability to simply add or take away representatives from existing boundaries to account for population changes.
It’s right for the boundary review to go ahead although there are certainly some oddities: the Edinburgh Forth and Linlithgow constituency arguably doesn’t have the most “natural” of boundaries. With that in mind, it is important for residents of different constituencies to have their say in the consultation which lasts until 17 June.
Of course, while the review is welcome and will improve representativeness in the current system, the case remains for a complete overhaul: replacing the Additional Member System and adopting a more representative system such as STV.
Next year marks 25 years since the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament. In that time we’ve had six first ministers, six elections and a seismic shift in voting patterns best illustrated by the once dominant Labour now in third place and a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
With a quarter of a century of devolution fast approaching, a full review of Scotland’s democratic apparatus is surely needed. Democracy is a process not an event; likewise our democratic institutions need to evolve and keep up with democratic best practice.
1. Better Proportional Representation
When it comes to the link between how people vote at the ballot box and how seats are distributed in the legislature, the Scottish Parliament is significantly fairer than the House of Commons (let alone the unelected House of Lords). The introduction of the Additional Member System (AMS) to elect MSPs from the outset, rather than the unrepresentative First Past the Post (FPTP) system, has ensured diverse representative parliaments where seats won broadly reflect votes cast.
That said, the benefits of AMS should not be overstated. The system has a number of flaws which should be addressed and remedied. Holyrood needs electoral reform as well as Westminster.
AMS is only partially proportional. A majority of seats are elected via FPTP and the proportional list seats are allocated on a regional basis leading to only regional proportionality and a risk of overhangs with no mechanism to correct them. Furthermore, the FPTP constituencies as an integral (and majority) part of AMS result in safe seats, retain a major drawback of FPTP.
There’s also the two-vote problem – having two types of votes can lead to divergence between constituency and list votes cast, messing with the ended outcome of proportionality. As part of that, the system can be gamed: although unsuccessful, in 2021 Alba tried to game the list vote to create a supermajority for independence, going against the spirit of a system designed to represent as many views as possible – as accurately as possible. This is compounded by the fact that there are two types of MSP, constituency and list, which while in theory have the same roles in practice can be rather different.
AMS is superior to FPTP but its flaws demonstrate the need to reform. The Scottish Parliament needs a system like the Single Transferable Vote to empower voters, deliver better proportionality and end the two vote/MSP problem.
Dual mandates occur when an individual holds elected office for two positions. In the Scottish context, this can be any combination of MP, MSP, Councillor or Peer. Scotland needs fair and accountable representation, through dedicated parliamentarians. We need to end dual mandates.
The main argument against dual mandates is one of two connected parts. In principle, parliamentarians are elected to serve their constituents at either Holyrood or Westminster. Each role has different responsibilities, and representatives owe it to their constituents to solely focus on representing constituents in one clear capacity. Dual mandates mean this cannot happen.
Related to that is the practical element. Being an MP or MSP is a full-time job and carrying out the duties of both roles to the same extent as a representative for one job is simply impossible. Constituents deserve better than that.
The only current MSP to hold a dual mandate is Scottish Conservative Leader Douglas Ross. That said, it’s worth flagging that while Labour MSP Katy Clark is also a member of the House of Lords she has stepped down active duty in that role while in the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, until the 2022 Scottish council elections, 18 newly elected MSPs also held dual mandates from their roles as councillors they won before the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections.
In a similar spirit to the above reform, the Scottish Parliament needs to restrict MSPs from having second jobs. The problem is a big one at Westminster, with MPs in safe seats taking advantage of that job security and focusing time and energy into other pursuits. While not as a significant issue in the Scottish Parliament, there are no restrictions on MSPs taking additional employment. Constituents deserve 100% focus on them – MSPs having second jobs just doesn’t cut it.
There is of course a debate over to what exact reach any restrictions on second jobs should have. Clearly any jobs even relating to public affairs and lobby should be to prevent any conflicting motivations. Full-time jobs should also definitely face a ban. While at the other end of the scale there’s a case to doctors and similar professionals to work limited hours in that capacity to retain licenses.
There is of course a middle ground between those two ends and while it’ll be up to policy-makers to decide where the line is drawn, anything that takes up a significant portion of an MSPs time should be banned.
The Scottish Parliament was founded with fixed-term four-year parliamentary terms as shown by the 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011 elections. Regular fixed elections ensure frequent accountability and democratic input from the voters. Westminster’s fixed-term parliament Act wasn’t perfect but it ensured a level playing field in normal times – all parties knew when the election was scheduled for. The reality was of course quite different due to Brexit and political upheaval but the principle is solid and is borne out in practice in much of the democratic world. In different times, the benefits would have been realised. The current uncertainty as to when the next Westminster election will take place is frustrating and places an obvious advantage in the hands of the incumbent prime minister.
With the principle of fixed elections established, it then follows how frequent these should be?
There is no right answer but the move to five-year Holyrood terms means just two elections a decade, less accountability and “zombie parliaments” at the end of a parliamentary term.
Two year parliaments, as seen in the USA with the House of Representatives, face the opposite problem: too much accountability leading to constant electioneering and voter fatigue. New Zealand and Australia have three year parliaments, which are popular over there but would be a radical shift in the UK and perhaps lead to the same voter fatigue seen during the Brexit crisis.
There is however, a happy middle that would ensure a fair balance between accountability and effective government. Four year terms would enable that – and it’s time for Holyrood to return to its roots.
During the last parliamentary session a disgraced former minister was able to claim his salary and expenses while not even turning up to the Scottish Parliament to represent his constituents. The minister brought the parliament into disrepute but there was no mechanism to remove him as an MSP.
Holyrood should learn from Westminster and introduce a recall rule to address this democratic deficit. A recall petition – that can lead to a by-election – is triggered if an MP receives a custodial prison sentence, is suspended from the House or is convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims. A similar mechanism should be adopted at Holyrood, ideally as part of a new, fairer voting system, and built upon to include MSPs who don’t turn up and other actions that don’t live up to what is expected of MSPs.
The Westminster system is designed for FPTP so modifications would be required for AMS at Holyrood, especially the list element or any future better alternative. That said, whatever voting system is used it’s clear that there should be a mechanism to remove lawbreaking and absent MSPs. Anything less is an insult to democratic accountability.
The idea of more politicians will be off-putting for many but a moderate increase in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be a proportionate response to the increased powers held by the chamber. Furthermore, with around a fifth of MSPs on the government payroll (as ministers and junior ministers) an increase in members will improve overall accountability and scrutiny. MSPs also often sit on multiple committees in addition to party spokesperson roles and their work as constituency MSPs, a point recently made in the Herald.
Scottish representatives need the space to become experts in different areas. Freeing up time to limit multi-tasking would result in just that, further improving scrutiny.
An increase in MSPs would also allow greater flexibility when designing a new voting system for the Scottish Parliament. Sticking to 129 would place limitations on the exact make-up of any new election system.
7. Better ballot access
Better ballot access isn’t something that Upgrade Holyrood has directly advocated before but it’s a reform that’s well worth considering as part of a wider package of upgrading Scottish democracy. To stand for election at either Holyrood or Westminster, one must pay a deposit of £500, only returnable upon winning 5% of the vote. This has become such a normalised part of our politics it blurs into the background and is regularly accepted without question.
Yet is should be questioned. Requiring a £500 deposit to stand for election places an immediate barrier on potential candidates. Of course there should be a barrier to minimise non-serious candidates to only the most persistent but the nature of the £500 is a financial barrier which has obvious consequences for accessibility and equality.
Championed by Ballot Box Scotland, one alternative would be combination of entitlements and subscriptions, which are used in other democracies. Parties and/or candidates who win seats in the most recent elections would be entitled to automatically stand again if they wish. However, new parties or independent candidates would be required to gather signatures of say 0.1% of the electorate to demonstrate a level of support. This would result in a system with no financial barriers, only the barrier of proving that a party or candidate has a small but provable level of support and reduce frivolous candidates.
BONUS – Further powers for local councils and local democracy reforms
This isn’t strictly a reform of the Scottish Parliament, but to wider Scottish democracy. Decisions should be made as close to the people as possible at the level of governance most appropriate as possible. While the Scottish Parliament has gained powers since its formation, local councils have only seen some moderate increases in powers while power in Scotland has been increasingly centralised at Holyrood. Local councils surely deserve more of a say in how local areas are run.
Another set of local elections in England has left a bad taste in the mouths of better democracy campaigners. Yet this time is slightly different. This time – instead of the same old story of unrepresentative councils across the country – we have taken a significant step backwards when it comes to local democracy.
We can debate the merits of directly elected executive mayors another time but if we are to have them – which England does – they should have broad mandates. Until the Elections Act (2022), these mayors were elected via the Supplementary Vote (SV) system.
The SV system isn’t perfect but it gave mayors broad mandates, a crucial check on directly elected executive positions. Instead of making positive reforms, the Conservatives’ regressive Elections Act scrapped this system and imposed First Past the Post on mayoralties across England.
The situation will be far worse in 2024 when metro mayors and Police and Crime Commissioner elections are scheduled. Crucially, 2024 will see the first London mayoral election held under First Past the Post.
Again, the Supplementary Vote wasn’t perfect but it allowed for successful candidates to secure their mandates with broad support. Instead of imposing First Past the Post on mayoralties, the government should have improved the system by implementing the Alternative Vote for mayoral positions. AV would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference and give directly elected executive mayors broad mandates.
Instead, this development comes on top of the usual story of unrepresentative councils thanks to First Past the Post. Right across England councils were elected with seat shares not reflective of vote shares. English local democracy should be upgrade more widely via the introducing of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) for council elections.
The Lib-Lab coalition of 2003 – 2007 did this in north of the border. Scottish local democracy’s success story since 2007 is undeniable. The country no longer has “one-party state” councils and has a vibrant multi-party democracy at the local level where how people vote at the ballot box is reflected in local councils.
Northern Irish local elections take place in two weeks time using STV. These elections will be a welcome contrast to those we saw in England at the start of the month.
A Conservative government at Westminster isn’t going to upgrade English local democracy any time soon. But the next Westminster power arrangement – possibly some combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs – should look to the Scottish and Northern Irish success stories and upgrade England’s local politics. Preferential voting for both mayors and councillors would be a major leap forward. This year’s elections once again show that change is needed.
upgradeholyrood.com 
