The latest poll from Ipsos shows why it’s time to ditch the Additional Member System used to elect MSPs.
The company’s latest survey grabbed the headlines for placing Reform second, behind the SNP, on the constituency vote. Neither Nigel Farage’s rising party, nor UKIP before it, have even won seats at Holyrood so this result would be a seismic shift in political behaviour.
However, beneath the headlines of Reform’s surge, the polling numbers alongside seat projections tell a different story. One of a creaking electoral system past its best.
The poll puts the SNP on 35% and 28% for constituency and list vote shares respectively. According to projections by Ballot Box Scotland, that is estimated to give the party 60 seats. That’s almost 47% of seats available.
The difference is staggering. Under AMS where seats are meant to match list vote share, BBS projects that the party would likely win around 40 seats. That’s still above the 28% of seats they would be entitled to under a fully proportional system (usual caveats about different voting systems impacting voting intention).
The biggest difference here is with the SNP. The party has lost significant support since 2021 but benefits from a fragmented unionist vote, with four parties competing for anti-independence voters – namely the Lib Dems, Labour, Conservatives and Reform.
BBS projects Scottish Labour would win 19 seats if Scotland voted like this. That’s 4 fewer than if a more proportional AMS was used (23).
Reform lose out the most, projected to win 6 short of the 23 they would win in a “better AMS”.
The Greens are projected to win 17 seats (AMS ideal: 21), the Conservatives 11 (AMS ideal: 14) and the Lib Dems 5 (compared to 8 under AMS ideal).
This result would mark a major shift in Scottish party politics, and a major decline in support for the Westminster duopoly. But that change risks not being fully shown in terms of seats.
Next year marks 27 years of devolution and the sixth Scottish election. Wales has reviewed and changed its fairly disproportional voting system for something somewhat better. Scotland’s sixth parliament should legislate to do the same.
The risk of 2021 was Alex Salmond’s Alba gaming the system to win a disproportionate independence supermajority. As we know, that outcome never emerged. This time, the threat of a seriously disproportionate election result comes from something much more likely. If the results in May look something like this, let’s hope they’re a wake-up call to our new legislators.
The Scottish Conservatives are using the Alternative Vote to elect their new leader, following the departure of Douglas Ross from the top job. The Alternative Vote is a preferential system for single-seat positions, allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference to ensure the winner receives a broad base of support.
There’s no denying this system is fairer and more representative than First Past the Post. Indeed with at least six candidates standing to replace Douglas Ross, under FPTP the winner could in theory have been elected with less than 17% of the total vote. However, AV negates this possibility.
The Scottish Conservatives ultimately recognise the absurdity of FPTP hence their use of AV to elect their leaders. Furthermore, the party benefits significantly from the broadly proportional Additional Member System used to elect MSPs. If the Scottish Parliament used, First Past the, the SNP would likely have completely dominated at the 2021 election.
Yet the Conservatives continue to back First Past the Post for Westminster elections. If preferential voting is good enough for internal elections, it begs the question why not support the Single Transferable Vote for Westminster votes?
Of course, the way we elect representatives isn’t going to take centre stage in this election. But it’s worth flagging the mismatch between Conservative support for First Past the Post at Westminster with their rejection of it to elect their own leaders.
Conservatives should consider that when ranking candidates one to six in the coming weeks rather than marking an “x” in the box.
When Humza Yousaf was elected as SNP leader by party members then first minister by MSPs early last year, the prospect of another change in first minister before the next election was seen as only a fringe possibility. Not anymore. The first minister’s unilateral decision to tear up the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens could very well lead to his political downfall.
The Greens are furious. Alba are opportunistic. The SNP are divided.
Instead of adding more speculation to the state of play above, I want to address the mechanics of Holyrood’s democracy and how we can improve the status quo.
A change in government leader during a parliamentary term isn’t uncommon. And in theory it shouldn’t significantly alter the trajectory of a government if parties base their government policy on their most recent manifesto. But as much as we may want to keep the personality out of politics, the real world renders this impossible. We do not have a presidential system but voters do often cast their ballots with party leaders in mind, especially in the age of televised debates, the 24-hour news cycle and social media. Furthermore, when the leader of a government is replaced, in practice this can lead to significant policy changes, deviating from manifesto promises, without any citizen input. The most extreme example of this in modern times is the rise and fall of disgraced former Prime Minister Liz Truss. The Truss government set out to chart a very different course to the one her party was elected to deliver.
We live in a representative democracy where citizens elect a legislature which determines the government. Thankfully, MSPs do elect the first minister in parliament, unlike the chaotic conventions at Westminster. But when government leaders change, and crucially change policy direction from that set during the post-election government formation period (without any direct citizen input) we have to consider how accountable to voters this really is.
A province across the Atlantic offers a democratic mechanism that could be replicated at Holyrood, and indeed Westminster. The Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a landmass larger than the UK but a population smaller than Glasgow’s. Its House of Assembly has 40 members usually elected once every four years. However, when a premier is replaced between elections, an election is automatically triggered to take place within a year of the change. This happened most recently in 2021 after Liberal Andrew Fury took over from outgoing premier Dwight Ball.
Now there are drawbacks to this solution. Voter apathy resulting from multiple elections in a short space of time would be a possibility, not to mention costs of mandated additional elections. But a safeguard such as this would ensure that a change in government leadership has some input from the voters.
Of course, a third first minister in one parliamentary term has happened before. The death of Donald Dewar then the downfall of Henry MacLeish led to Jack McConnell becoming Scotland’s third first minister only a couple of years into devolution. The solution being proposed arguably would have added a layer of unnecessary chaos to the situation but it may have been less necessary back then. The Scottish Parliament had limited powers in those days and was still in its experimental phase. But now things are different. Devolution is a necessary part of our democracy, one to be protected and improved when necessary. Not to mention, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government both have real teeth and should be held accountable by voters when there are major leadership changes.
And while we’re on the subject of accountability, Holyrood’s five-year terms are too long. Scotland switched away from four-year terms to avoid clashes with Westminster votes under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. With the act now repealed, Holyrood should follow Wales and return to four-year terms.
The events taking place this week may very well lead to an extraordinary general election later this year. That would be an extraordinary development but if we do end up with our third first minister in just over a year then an election would give much needed input from citizens.
What happens in Newfoundland and Labrador would need tweaking for a Scottish context. It’s not perfect and I’m not wholly committed to it as a solution, but it recognises the need to strike a balance between accountability and stability. With Holyrood currently tilted away from stability, an election trigger in the event of a changed first minister might just be a long-term solution.
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.
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.
Next year marks 25 years of devolution following the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. After some bumps along the way, the Scottish Parliament is undeniably a success story. However, while its use of a broadly proportional voting system makes it more representative than the parliament in Westminster (what with FPTP in the Commons and the continued existence of the House of Lords), the Scottish Parliament needs reform. Put simply, Holyrood needs an upgrade.
Upgrade Holyrood champions better democracy in Scotland. With next year marking a quarter of a century of devolution, it will be the perfect time to reflect, assess and improve upon the democratic mechanisms of the Scottish Parliament.
First things first, Scotland’s voting system sounds great at first glance but there is significant room for improvement. The Additional Member System (AMS) ensures broad proportionality but only goes so far as having a mechanism for regional proportionality. What’s more it fails to address overhangs, retains single-member districts and leaves open the possibility for parties to “game the system” as seen with Alba’s failed attempt to win a “supermajority” for independence at the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. Furthermore, voters still have limited powers over individual candidates.
The system is significantly more proportional than First Past the Post but alternatives do exist – and those alternatives must be examined and adopted. There are three likely routes that the Scottish Parliament could take on this issue: AMS with modifications, Open List PR or the Single Transferable Vote.
Tinkering around the edges by adopting a German style mixed-member voting system to address overhangs and ensure national party proportionality would be a minor improvement but it would cause some headaches of it’s own – Germany’s Bundestag is growing with each election. The Scottish public are likely to be approving of significantly more politicians. What’s more such a system would retain single-member constituencies.
Open List PR with levelling seats – as in Denmark, Sweden or Iceland – this would improve proportionality, give voters power over individual candidates and crucially end single-member districts. This would be one option for the Scottish Parliament that’s worth considering. If we were to go down this route then we would to ensure that any lists are regional, open for voters to enhance their power and have levelling seats to ensure both regional and national proportional representation.
The final alternative is often seen as the gold-standard voting system (if implemented properly) – the Single Transferable Vote. Already used to elect councillors in Scotland, STV would provide proportionality (depending on district sizes), give voters an enormous amount of power at elections and provide voters with multi-party representation. What’s more, the system is backed by the SNP, Lib Dems, as well as some Labour and Conservative MSPs. The Scottish Greens recently supported it before backing Open List PR.
The Scottish Parliament must therefore examine its voting system in any 25-year review of devolution.
But it’s not just the electoral system where the Scottish Parliament needs improvements.
Holyrood needs to end dual mandates – primarily for joint MSP-MPs and MSP-Lords but also place restrictions on MSP-councillors. Dual mandates are unfair on voters who deserve fully-committed representatives. On top of that, there also needs to be a restriction on second jobs for MSPs, again for similar reasons.
We also need a return to four-year parliamentary terms. It’s right that election terms are fixed – as they give a level playing field to all parties and candidates – but five-year terms are too long and are only something the Scottish Parliament slipped into during the last decade as a result of Westminster’s very brief adoption of fixed five-year terms.
What’s more, the Scottish Parliament also needs a recall rule. Holyrood is ahead of Westminster on many fronts but the lack of ability for constituents to recall MSPs is a major flaw. In practice this will be difficult to achieve due to the mixed-member system and by-election blueprint for recalls at Westminster but any review of the functioning of the Scottish Parliament should include a reform of this nature.
2024 will be a milestone year for Scotland – 25 years of devolution have undoubtedly changed the Scottish political landscape forever.
Devolution works and what’s more it works well. This should be celebrated. But with that success comes room for improvement. There will be time to take stock next year and assess a way to move forward on these reforms – hopefully with cross-party support. It’s time to upgrade Holyrood.
Following the Queen’s passing and the King’s ascension, discussions about the future of the monarchy are taking place across the Commonwealth realms.
There are currently 15 countries where King Charles III has become head of state by virtue of his birth. It’s almost certain several of these countries will become republics in the coming years and decades. The question is when. Australia’s relatively new government has a Minister for the Republic (although any moves away from the monarchy are unlikely to take place in this current parliament) while polling in Jamaica suggests strong support for a republic.
In the UK, the Queen was undeniably a popular figure. What remains to be seen is how much support for the monarchy in the UK is dependent on support for the Queen as an individual and her role as figurehead, rather than the institution of the Crown itself. That will become apparent in the coming years.
Polling can give an indication of the level of support for the monarchy and a possible republic.
The most recent major poll on the issue, by think-tank British Future, suggests that 58% of Brits think the UK should keep the monarchy for the foreseeable future. In contrast, 25% of those polled said they think the UK should become a republic after the Queen’s passing. Note that the poll was conducted in May 2022, four month’s before the monarch’s passing.
A further 6% said neither while 11% said they don’t know.
As for Scotland, support for a republic is stronger than across the UK overall. Less than half of Scots polled (just 45%) said they support the monarch remaining head of state. While over a third (36% support) favour becoming a republic after the Queen’s passing.
Scottish support for the monarchy is significantly weaker than across the rest of the country.
The UK is unlikely to abolish the monarchy any time soon, but there is no place for an hereditary head of state in the 21st century. The Queen was undeniably a giant and a well-respected figure on the world-stage. And while the UK becoming a republic isn’t the most important democratic upgrade we need, we should certainly strive for it.
The 1990s were a time of radical political change both here in Scotland and on the other side of the world in New Zealand.
In 1996, New Zealand held its first election using a form of Proportional Representation, after two referenda and decades of campaigning. And three years later Scotland did the same with the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood.
Both countries use a distinct form of PR – also used in the likes of Wales, Germany and Lesotho – that combines single-seat constituencies with compensatory party list members. Both systems lead to broadly proportional outcomes but how do they compare?
Overview
Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected in one of two ways. 73 are elected via single-seat constituencies and a further 56 are elected via eight regions.
The New Zealand Parliament is generally made up of 120 Members with 72 elected in single-seat constituencies (65 in general electorates and seven Māori ones) and the 48 others elected nation-wide.
In both Scotland and New Zealand, voters get two ballots and list seats are distributed by taking into account the number of constituencies won by each party to deliver overall broadly proportional results. Scotland’s set-up is referred to as the Additional Member System while New Zealand’s is Mixed-Member Proportional.
Both systems were designed to achieve overall proportional results and both have been largely successful in this aim. Compared to elections to the UK’s House of Commons, where the Conservatives won a massive majority of seats on just 43% of the vote and previous First Past the Post elections in New Zealand (when in 1993 the National Party won a majority on 35% of the vote), Scottish Parliament elections and modern New Zealand elections result in parliaments where seats roughly match votes.
The latest Scottish election, while slightly less representative than the one held in 2016, is still a fairly good example of the broadly proportional nature of AMS (despite Alba’s plan to unfairly exploit the system). In 2021, the SNP won 63 of 129 seats (48%) on 40.3% of the party vote. The Scottish Conservatives won 31 seats (24%) on 23.5% the party vote ahead of Scottish Labour on 22 seats (17.1%) and 17.9% of the vote. The Greens also won 8 seats (6.2%) on 8.1% and the Scottish Lib Dems secured 4 seats (3.1%) on 5.1% of the party vote. At Holyrood, seats broadly match votes although the SNP are clearly overrepresented to a notable degree, but the flaws of the system are discussed below.
New Zealand’s elections tell a similar story. Take the latest vote for example. Held in October 2020, Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party managed to win a majority of seats (65 out of 121) but crucially that was won on a majority of the vote (50.01%). The opposition National Party secured 33 seats (27.27%) on 25.6% of the vote while the Alliance Party won 10 seats (8.3%) on 7.6% of the vote and the Greens also secured 10 seats on 7.8% of the vote. In New Zealand, there is a strong link between seats and votes.
"Tonight New Zealand has shown the Labour Party its greatest support in at least 50 years.
"For that, I only have two simple words: Thank you."
Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has arrived at the party HQ at Auckland's Town Hall. pic.twitter.com/ynzMg5XXBX
Both the Scottish and New Zealand parliaments have almost the same ratio of constituency members to list members. In Mixed-Member Proportional systems, the larger the proportion of list members the more proportional the system is overall.
Contrast the broadly proportional Scottish and New Zealand systems together with the system used in Wales. The Welsh system is near identical to Scotland’s except there are only 60 members with 40 being constituency MSs and 20 being list MSs, resulting in a ratio of 2:1. This means that Welsh elections are only somewhat proportional. At the 2021 Welsh election, the Labour Party won 30 seats on just 36.2% of the vote, due to their dominance of constituency seats.
The key difference between the Scottish and New Zealand electoral systems is the nature of the party list element. New Zealand’s list MPs are elected nationwide, meaning that parties only have one list each for the entire country and the distribution of list MPs is determined by list votes overall while taking into account the number of constituencies won by each party across the entire country.
Meanwhile, Scotland is split into eight electoral regions. List MSPs are allocated via the total number of list votes in a region while accounting for only the number of seats won by each party in that particular region. The main consequence of this is that there is no mechanism to make sure Scottish results are nationally proportional, just regionally proportional.
Unlike in New Zealand, Scotland’s parliament does not have an electoral threshold
Electoral thresholds are common in countries with Proportional Representation. This means that to win seats in a legislature a party only qualifies if they win a certain percentage of the vote.
The Scottish Parliament has no threshold to enter parliament but in practice, as only eight list MSPs are elected per region, there is effectively a moderate threshold that changes at each election depending on how votes are cast. This is different in each region.
New Zealand takes a different approach by applying a 5% threshold for its parliament. In 2020, this meant the New Zealand First Party failed to win any seats as they only won 4.6% of the vote. The exception to this rule is if a party wins a constituency, in which case they are entitled to win list seats.
Overhangs
The term overhang refers to when a party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to under a purely proportional system based on the party list vote alone. This happens in the Scottish Parliament on occasion but there is no mechanism to address it. In contrast, when a New Zealand party wins more constituency seats than it is entitled to (based on its list vote share) then the party keeps its extra seat and the parliament’s size is increased to accommodate this. The current size of the New Zealand parliament is 121.
If Holyrood had a similar mechanism in place, both the 2011-2016 and 2016-2021 Scottish Parliament’s would have had 130 MSPs to account for overhangs. According to Ballot Box Scotland, the current Parliament would have 133 seats.
And finally, going all the way back to the original 1999 election, that also had a net overhang of 7 seats but with a much less scattered spread, Labour winning all the excess, versus 5 fewer for the SNP and 2 for the Conservatives. pic.twitter.com/bAP6sVmhW7
— Ballot Box Scotland (@BallotBoxScot) May 3, 2020
One final difference between the two systems is New Zealand’s Māori constituencies (known as electorates). In addition to the country’s 65 general electorates that cover the entire country, as well as the list seats, there are a further seven Māori electorates which have traditionally been held by representatives of Māori. This was started as a temporary measure but has since become a permanent feature of New Zealand politics, enabling Māori representatives (from any party) guaranteed seats in parliament.
Time for electoral reform in New Zealand and Scotland?
Both systems have provided broadly proportional results in their respective parliaments but there is room for reform.
Mixed-Member Proportional systems have the advantage of proportionality but do have a number of significant flaws. Chiefly, the lack of guaranteed proportionality (especially due to the two vote nature of MMP and the ratio of electorates to list seats, as well as, at least in Scotland the lack of a mechanism to ensure national proportionality), the lack of voter choice and the risk of manipulation.
There is also the issue of safe seats which remain due to the First Past the Post element of AMS/MMP.
A sticking plaster approach to address these problems would be to open up the list element, meaning that voters could rank candidates within their preferred power, a move that would further empower voters at the ballot box. This happens in Bavaria but risks complicating things with the introduction of a third completely different ballot. This could be combined with the addition of levelling seats to ensure nationality proportionality by making seats match list votes although this could lead to massive parliaments like in Germany where the number of seats won is approaching 1,000.
Rather than opting for tinkering that could cause its own problems, Scotland and New Zealand could adopt more representative voting systems. One tried and tested alternative would be the Single Transferable Vote, which has been used for Scottish local elections since 2007. This could improve proportionality and empower voters. Another alternative would be an Open List PR system with levelling seats to ensure overall proportionality.
Appetite for electoral system change is currently limited, certainly in Scotland, but after 23 years of devolution and an election where one party led by a former First Minister tried to exploit the flaws of AMS in such an overt way, conversations about Scottish electoral reform should start now.
Central Scotland MSP Graham Simpson has lodged his proposal for a Removal from Office and Recall Bill (19 January 2022). This potential Act of Parliament is a direct response to the ministerial resignation of then Finance Secretary Derek Mackay in February 2020, as a result of him messaging a teenage boy, and his subsequent disappearance from parliament while claiming a full salary as an MSP.
If passed in the Scottish Parliament, the Bill will make MSPs more accountable to the electorate by setting out new terms to remove MSPs from office where appropriate. The bill has three main functions:
To remove absent MSPs from office
To lower the jail time threshold for removal from office
To establish a system of recall for MSPs
Here are five reasons why all five of Scotland’s political parties should come together and pass the Bill.
1. Democratic duty of participation
Legislators have a duty to act on behalf of their constituents and attend parliament. Turning up at parliament is the bare minimum that should be required of MSPs. Under the status-quo, MSPs can remain in post even if they don’t show up for work (while claiming a salary!). This is simply unacceptable.
The Removal from Office and Recall Bill will mean automatic expulsion from parliament if an MSP fails to show up for six months. Importantly, the Bill will have a provision so that MSPs on maternity leave or those affected by ill-health are exempt from this reform.
This automatic expulsion will address the problem of non-attendance and is the right step forward for Scottish democracy. It is also worth noting that such a provision has existed in government as a result of Section 35 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. To put that in context, the Scottish Parliament is almost half a century behind Scottish councils. It must catch up.
Holyrood must learn from the rules of local government and support Graham Simpson’s bill.
Elected officials should act and behave in a way that is expected of them. Standards in public life are extremely important – as have been shown by events of the last few months in Westminster. It is therefore vital that anyone jailed while serving as an MSP should not be in their position.
The current rules ban MSPs from their job if they go to jail for more than a year. This means that representatives jailed for a year or less can remain in post, a loophole that is simply unacceptable. This could have happened in 2013 had Bill Walker MSP not resigned from parliament. Graham Simpson MSP highlights this in his proposal, saying:
Bill Walker, the former MSP for Dunfermline, was convicted of 23 charges of assault and one of breach of the peace in August 2013, yet was sentenced to just a year in prison. If he had not resigned then the Parliament would have had no power available to it to remove him and, consequently, the people of Dunfermline would have been represented for a year by an MSP in jail.
Graham Simpson MSP (19 January 2022)
Thankfully, the Removal from Office and Recall Bill will ratify this problem by containing a provision to expel MSPs from parliament of they go to jail for one year or less.
In addition to the moral argument that MSPs have a duty to attend parliament, participate in debates and vote, there is also the issue of money. Absent MSPs mean wasted taxpayer money.
When Derek Mackay stopped turning up to parliament between February 2020 and May 2021, he cost the taxpayers a heft sum for doing very little – if anything – at all.
The Removal from Office and Recall Bill will ensure that MSPs absent for six months or more (without a valid reason) are booted out of Holyrood. The main argument for this is to ensure that constituents are fairly represented in parliament but their is also a strong case to ensure taxpayer money is not wasted, adding weight the need for change.
The Removal from Office and Recall Bill crucially adds a mechanism allowing constituents to recall their MSPs. This is vital to improve accountability so that the public have a say on members that bring the parliament into disrepute.
Of course, this needs to be done carefully to ensure the mechanism doesn’t become a political tool. Appropriate checks and balances can be put in place, taking a steer from the process set-up at Westminster in 2015. The UK’s Recall of MPs Act 2015 sets out the following three conditions for a recall petition:
A custodial prison sentence (including a suspended sentence)
Suspension from the House of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, following a report by the Committee on Standards
A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims
Furthermore such a system should also account for both types of MSPs elected (constituency and regional). The exact way to do this is hard to say as highlighted in the Bill’s proposals.
5. Positive experiences from Westminster and around the world
Lastly, the proposed measures in the Removal from Office and Recall Bill have been tried and tested elsewhere, showing that they are workable. Upgrade Holyrood advocates for democratic best practice and learning from how other democracies conduct themselves. The functions proposed in the bill have a history of working elsewhere.
The House of Commons has had a recall rule since 2015 and to date has been used on three occasions. Crucially, it has not been used as a political tool and the mechanism is largely viewed as a success. While there are still questions to be answered about how this would practically work for regional members, it is right that the balanced approach of the recall process at Westminster should be the starting point for reform of the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament Information Centre has outlined other models from elsewhere where recall rules have been successful.
Next steps for the bill – contribute to the consultation and write to your MSP
The Bill has a long way to becoming law as it needs the support of MSPs from different parties to overcome the first hurdle to be introduced to the chamber. One action to help move this forward is to ask your MSPs to back the motion. You can find out who your MSPs are here.
Another way to help out is by contributing to the open consultation, which will close on 13 April 2022. Make your case for the Removal from Office and Recall Bill here.
You can read more about the consultation and the Bill here.
Where do Scotland’s political parties stand on the bill?
The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Liberal Democrats both supported recall proposals in their 2021 manifestos, the former’s leading to Graham Simpson’s bill.
Scottish Labour did not include a similar proposal but have since come around to supporting the bill, as reported by Holyrood Magazine. Scotland’s two governing parties, the SNP and Scottish Greens, have yet to voice their support.
These days, Scottish politics is viewed as extremely polarised but surely this is one issue where Holyrood’s five parties can come together. Even if there are disagreements on some of the detail, surely there is enough common ground on the principles to introduce and pass the bill.
upgradeholyrood.com 
