Reform UK’s manifesto: Malcolm Offord’s party on Scottish democracy

Malcolm Offord, leader of Reform UK in Scotland, poses for a formal portrait.

Reform UK is the first of Scotland’s six main parties to launch a manifesto ahead of the Scottish Parliament election on 7 May.

Its recently appointed leader Malcolm Offord, who defected from the Conservatives earlier this year, unveiled the document on Thursday 19 May. The party also revealed its candidates for the election.

The manifesto includes a series of pledges relating to democracy and the constitution. While there are some welcome ideas, notably a recall rule for MSPs, overall the party’s pledges are not right for improving Scottish democracy — and in some cases deeply troubling. Not to mention, there is a considerable lack of detail on numerous pledges and what they will mean in practice.

Here’s what Nigel Farage’s party wants to see on the issue of democracy in Scotland.

1. Reducing the number of MSPs

The manifesto includes a proposal to reduce the number of MSPs by linking Holyrood constituency boundaries with Westminster, which would cut the number of constituency MSPs from 73 to 57 seats. This would leave a total of 113 MSPs if list MSPs were all retained.

While this could arguably increase proportionality at Holyrood by addressing the imbalance of constituency seats to list seats, that is clearly not the purpose here.

Instead, it appears that the intent of this is to weaken Holyrood; the Scottish Parliament has gained significant powers in recent years, and if anything, it should increase its number of MSPs alongside electoral reform to improve proportionality.

2. A recall rule

The party proposes a recall rule for MSPs, something that has existed in Westminster now for over a decade under a very specific set of circumstances.

A similar process is being established in Wales.

If designed well, a recall rule is welcome. But there is no detail on how such a rule would operate in Malcolm Offord’s manifesto.

3. Cutting Quangos

The manifesto puts the party’s support behind cutting Quangos, with the intention of returning “powers to democratically elected ministers supported by the civl service”.

While there is possibly some potential for valid savings and spending money better elsewhere, the detail of what this would mean is far from clear.

4. Devolved issues focus

The party says it would focus parliamentary time on devolved rather than reserved matters. While it’s difficult to calculate the exact figures, the vast majority of time spent in the Chamber at Holyrood is certainly focused on devolved matters, and rightly so.

But there’s also a place for focusing some time on reserved issues. It would be an odd spectacle for ministers and MSPs not to address matters of UK-wide and worldwide importance on some level.

5. Committee reform

The party supports having committee Conveners elected by MSPs rather than appointed by parties and reducing committee sizes to seven.

Ensuring Conveners are elected could strengthen accountability. As for reducing committee sizes, there could be practical benefits of this, however, this would reduce diversity of parties represented on committees. Not to mention this is probably a consequence of the party’s pledge to cut MSP numbers.

6. Devolution reviews

The party also pledges to review devolved powers every ten years. This is deeply worrying and adds to concerns from Reform’s plans to cut MSP numbers.

Devolution must be protected and promoted against these threats. The Scottish Parliament has its faults, yes, but those should be fixed to strengthen its foundations rather than exploited to undermine it.

7. No to independence

Lastly, the party has reaffirmed its commitment to the union, stating firm opposition to independence.

What about the other parties?

The SNP, Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Greens and Scottish Liberal Democrats are expected to publish their respective manifestos in the coming weeks.

Upgrade Holyrood will publish similar articles in the coming weeks — outlining each party’s stance on democracy.

IMAGE: Attribution: © House of Lords / photography by Roger Harris. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.

The full manifesto is available here.

What are the Scottish Parliament’s new dual mandate rules for MSPs?

By Richard Wood

The 2026 election will be the first Scottish election with restrictions on dual mandates following new regulations after the Scottish Government consulted on the issue in early 2025. The decision followed Stephen Flynn MP’s declaration that he would retain his Westminster role if elected as an MSP in 2026.

Dual mandates have long been a small but persistent problem needing fixed – dual mandate holders cannot effectively represent their constituents due to practical time and location constraints with MSPs and MPs being full-time positions.

The developments following Flynn’s announcement were extremely welcome and spurred the government into action.

New regulations

On 2 September 2025, the Scottish Government introduced three regulations on disqualifying MPs, councillors and members of the House of Lords from the Scottish Parliament.

They were reviewed by the Scottish Parliament, led by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and approved on 30 October 2025.

The regulations took effect on 31 October 2025, but the new limits on dual mandates will only apply to MSPs from the next Scottish Parliament election on Thursday 7 May 2026.

MSP-MPs

The Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Commons) regulation bans MSPs from being MPs.

However, any MP elected to Holyrood or any MSP elected to Westminster will have a 49 day grace period to resign from one of those roles.

For example, if Stephen Flynn MP is elected as an MSP in May, he will have 49 days to step down from his MP roles.

MSP-Lords

Similarly, the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Lords) regulation disqualifies MSPs from becoming peers at the same time as disqualifying peers from becoming MSPs.

However, there is also a grace period – this time much shorter – of 14 days, during which a peer elected to Holyrood or vice versa must step down from one of their roles.

MSP-councillors

The new regulations also cover MSP-councillors, which is a slightly different kettle of fish due to councillors being part-time positions.

The Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Councillors) regulations bans MSPs councillors.

If an MSP becomes a councillor, they can stay as an MSP for 49 days. But if a councillor becomes an MSP, they can stay as an MSP either until the next council election if it’s within 372 days, or for 49 days if the election is further away.

In practice, this means that any councillors elected at the May 2026 election can retain their council role until local authority elections in May 2027.

READ MORE: Why we need to ban dual mandates

Next steps

The dual mandate bans are a welcome addition to Scotland’s democracy, ensuring that constituents can be effectively represented at multiple layers of government.

Grace periods are a sensible solution to allow for adjustments, and while the extended councillor-MSP grace period is a practical addition to limited impacts on local government, this should be monitored to see how effective it really is.

How many MSPs are retiring in 2026? Is it a record number?

By Richard Wood

UPDATE: There are now 42 MSPs stepping down as of March 2026, according to BBC analysis.

The late June 2025 announcement of Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone’s retirement from Holyrood means that 34 MSPs are stepping down from the Scottish Parliament in 2026.

This figure matches the number of retiring MSPs in 2021. That was the record-high number, meaning that any further announcements will ensure that 2026 has the highest number of retiring MSPs in Holyrood history. Considering the last retirement announcements for 2021 were in March that year, it’s almost certain that 2026 will mark a new record.

That’s perhaps not surprising, with the number of long-standing MSPs from the so-called 1999 club calling it a day, including Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochead, Rhoda Grant, Fiona Hyslop and Christine Graeme all stepping down. But it also includes newer MSPs including Humza Yousaf, Mairi Gougeon and Beatrice Wishart.

Age plays a role for some of these MSPs in both categories. As does arguably scandal, with Michael Matheson set to retire as well. Then there’s the wholly valid reason of some MSPs saying they want to spend time raising their young families, away from the demanding nature of a parliamentary role.

How many MSPs have stood down at each election?

So far, the total for 2026 is 34 MSPs (as of 3 July 2025). This matches the previous high of 34 in 2021, which included former Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson.

And back in 2016, there were 25 MSPs who stood down (23 who retired and 2 who were deselected by their parties). Among the retirees at this election were former First Minister Alex Salmond, former Scottish Conservative leader Annabelle Goldie and the Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick.

A similar number stepped down at the election before. Among the 20 who retired in 2011 were former Deputy First Minister Nichol Stephen and former Scottish Green co-convenor.

Just 13 MSPs retired in 2007 including independent MSP Dennis Canavan and former Deputy First Minister Jim Wallace.

And in 2003, there were 10 MSPs who stepped down including our shortest-serving First Minister Henry McLeish and Westminster’s 1967 Hamilton by-election winner, the SNP’s Winnie Ewing.

Each year the number has gone up.

2026 – 34*
2021 – 34
2016 – 25
2011 – 20
2007 – 13
2003 – 10
1999 – N/A

*As of July 2025.

Which MSPs are stepping down in 2026?

As of late June 2025, the following 32 MSPs are stepping down:

SNP

Annabelle Ewing, Audrey Nicoll, Bill Kidd, Christine Grahame, Elena Witham, Evelyn Tweed, Fergus Ewing, Fiona Hyslop, Gordon MacDonald, Graeme Dey, Humza Yousaf, James Dornan, Joe FitzPatrick, Mairi Gougeon, Michael Matheson, Michelle Thomson, Natalie Don-Innes, Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochead, Rona Mackay, Ruth Maguire, Shona Robinson, Willie Coffey.

Conservatives

Douglas Ross, Edward Mountain, Liz Smith, Maurice Golden, Oliver Mundell.

Labour

Alex Rowley, Richard Leonard.

Liberal Democrats

Beatrice Wishart.

Greens

Alison Johnstone.

Independents

John Mason.

What about 2031?

We’re still along way from the election after 2026. Much will depend on the make-up of the new parliament – with big questions still to be answered like how well will Reform do next year? Will there be a coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement? And if John Swinney emerges as First Minister will he step down before 2031 (when he’ll be 67)?

But with so many of the 1999 club now having left Holyrood’s benches, there’s a decent chance that 2031 will be the first election where the number of retiring MSPs is lower than the previous one.

Dual mandates ban passed unanimously in Scottish Parliament

By Richard Wood

The Scottish Parliament has today (Tuesday 17 December 2024) unanimously passed amendments to ban dual mandates, also known as double jobbing, in Scotland. The amendments were proposed by Graham Simpson MSP who has been pushing the issue for sometime.

The changes will not be immediate. But regulations are set to be introduced in 2025 followed by consultation ahead of a ban in time for the 2026 Holyrood elections.

A win for Scottish democracy campaigners

This is a major win for improving Scottish democracy and effective representation that almost happened by accident.

Dual mandates are ultimately unfair on constituents who deserve full-time dedicated representatives at Holyrood. Not part-time MSPs.

Had Stephen Flynn MP not announced his intentions to double job, we have to wonder if we’d be here?

READ MORE: Why we need to ban dual mandates

Unlock Democracy backs campaign to engage with Modernisation Committee to clean up politics

By Richard Wood

Unlock Democracy has backed my motion to engage with the Modernisation Committee on issues including second job restrictions for MPs and creating job descriptions for parliamentarians.

The Modernisation wants to hear from people about what additional ideas they have for work it could take forward, covering the strategic aims of: driving up standards; improving culture and working practices; and reforming Parliamentary procedures to make the House of Commons more effective.

Policy Motion 1: Working with the Modernisation Committee

Proposer: Richard Wood

Seconder: Rebecca Warren

The AGM notes:

The Government has revived the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. This is a cross-party committee of MPs that will consider ‘reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices’.

The Committee’s remit overlaps with aspects of Unlock Democracy’s ‘Cleaning Up Politics’ campaign, such as setting limits on MPs’ second jobs and establishing a job description for MPs. Cleaning up politics was ranked as Unlock Democracy’s second most important campaign by supporters in the 2023 Annual Survey.

Unlock Democracy has started establishing a relationship with the Committee. Director Tom Brake questioned the Committee’s chair, Lucy Powell MP, at the Labour Party Conference about the Committee’s work on MPs’ second jobs.

The Committee has agreed to circulate our paper on MPs second jobs, and has invited us to respond to their call for views from stakeholders later in the year.

The AGM welcomes that:

Unlock Democracy has identified this Committee as important for achieving many of our campaign goals

Unlock Democracy has begun building a relationship with the Committee

Unlock Democracy has compiled a list of campaign asks for the Modernisation Committee to consider

The AGM calls on Unlock Democracy:

To respond to the Committee’s consultation with stakeholders

To get in touch with MPs on the Committee with suggestions for improving the House of Commons’ procedures and standards

To involve Unlock Democracy’s members and supporters in efforts to influence the Committee

To work with other organisations in the democracy sector, where beneficial, to influence the Committee.

Talk of term limits for list MSPs is nonsense – reform Holyrood’s voting system instead

By Richard Wood

Every now and again someone suggests introducing term limits for list MSPs. The argument being that lost MSPs are supposedly not elected by voters unlike their constituency counterparts.

However, list systems are normal in the democratic world and it is valid for someone to be elected as part of a list. When someone votes on the party list, they aren’t just blindly voting for said party, they are backing a slate of candidates.

That said, while term limits aren’t the answer, AMS lists aren’t perfect.

The real problem with the list element at Holyrood is two-fold.

First of all lists are closed, meaning voters have no say over what order candidates are ranked in. Tinkering with AMS is one option to improve Holyrood by introducing an open list element as part of the voting process. This is is used in Bavaria’s similar MMP system to empower voters at the ballot box.

But that only takes you so far. The second problem is the two-tier nature of MSPs. Having constituency and list MSPs creates a two-tier system. While in theory the two types of MSPs have the same jobs, this isn’t always the case in practice. Furthermore, it ends up creating attitudes that list MSPs aren’t real MSPs.

Instead of tinkering with AMS, although opening up lists would be a welcome step, Holyrood’s electoral system needs a major overhaul.

AMS provides broadly proportional parliaments but there is significant room for improvement. Switching to the Single Transferable Vote would end the two-tired element, strengthen proportionality (if designed fairly), and empower voters to rank candidates. An open list system where parties are ranked preferentially, and voters can vote for individual candidates within parties is also an alternative.

The Scottish Parliament is now over a quarter of a century old. AMS has done well to ensure that what happens in the ballot box leads to representative outcomes but there are fairer alternatives. The next Scottish Government and Parliament should address the democratic deficits at Holyrood to upgrade Scottish democracy for the next 25 Years and beyond.

STV in local government: the latest from Wales

By Richard Wood

The previous Welsh government, an effective coalition between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and an independent, introduced legislation that gives Welsh local councils the opportunity to switch from First Past the Post to the Single Transferable Vote ahead of the 2027 elections. The deadline for councils to change to Proportional Representation is fast approaching: 15 November 2024.

The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, which enables councils to make changes, was a great step forward as it allows the opportunity for significant upgrades to Welsh local democracy. However, unlike when Scottish councils were upgraded to use STV from 2007, there is no automatic switchover in Wales. While this is an imperfect process to reform and reformers are fighting an uphill battle, there is a route to change.

Of the three councils to hold consultations for making the switch, all three consultations show majority support for reform. But what’s next? And are any of the councils actually saying goodbye to First Past the Post?

What happened in Gwynned?

Over 70% of residents who completed the consultation supported switching to the Single Transferable Vote in this Plaid Cymru majority council. A vote followed, and while a majority of councillors backed change, STV will not be adopted in Gwynned as a two-thirds majority was required.

Campaigners have done fantastic work engaging communities and growing support for STV but on this occasion the Gwynned council will not be switching to STV.

And what about Powys?

The Lib Dem-Labour-Green run council of Powys has parallels with Gwynned. Over 60% of residents said they favoured STV in the council’s consultation. This should come as no surprise due to the considerable failings of FPTP in the area. However, as in Gwynned, councillors voted to retain the status-quo. A total of 21 voted for STV while 33 backed FPTP.

Ceredigion: the last hope for STV in Wales?

In Ceredigon, 67% of respondents to the consultation backed the Single Transferable Vote. What’s clear is that when people are asked if they want a fair voting system, majorities in Wales are supportive of reform but the bar for reform) change is set very high – a two-thirds majority of councillors elected by a system that favours them.

The Electoral Reform Society reports that Ceredigion councillors will be voting on their electoral system on Thursday 14 November.

UPDATE (14 November 2024): while a majority of councillors backed the motion (18 to 17), the two-thirds majority was not met, meaning that all Welsh councils will use FPTP in 2027).

The Plaid Cymru Council has a chance of becoming the only one of 22 Welsh councils to use STV in the 2027 local elections.

Let’s hope the efforts of electoral reform campaigners in Wales pay off and Ceredigon leads the way for further change across Wales.

Political make up of Ceredigion council:

🟢 PLAID CYMRU 21

⚪ INDEPENDENTS 9

🟠 LIB DEMS 7

⚫ GWLAD 1

Total councillors: 38

Threshold required to switch to STV: 26

Nationally, both the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru support STV as a matter of policy but local factors will also play a role. If all Plaid and Lib Dem councillors back change then STV would be used for the 2027 elections in Ceredigon.

First Past the Post will let down Scotland yet again, polling suggests

By Richard Wood

How Scotland votes at the ballot box will almost certainly not be reflected in the House of Commons come 4 July thanks to Westminster’s archaic voting system. Time and time again, First Past the Post skews the link between voters and their MPs, resulting in unrepresentative parliaments where seats don’t match votes. Here’s what’s happened in past elections and what could happen this summer.

Scottish Labour is expected to do well come 4 July while the SNP are anticipated to lose seats. However, the extent of this turning of the tides will be exaggerated by First Past the Post.

Until 2015, Labour constistenly won well over half of Scottish seats on less than half the votes. Labour secured 41 of 59 seats on just 42% of the vote in 2010. In 1997 they won 56 of 72 seats on 45.6% of the vote while the Conservatives lost all their seats but still won almost one in five Scottish votes.

First Past the Post consistently amplifies the support of the largest party, giving them a disproportionately large caucus at Westminster. The same has happened with the SNP since the yellow tsunami swept away Scottish Labour in 2015. At that election, the SNP won just under half of all votes cast, giving them all but three Scottish seats. Then in 2019, the SNP won all but 11 seats on 45% of the vote. All of these are truly unrepresentative results.

While the tides are once again turning in Scottish Labour’s favour, the currents are shaped by the underlying structure, a voting system which will likely to lead to yet another extremely disproportionate election.

Although mapping voting intentions onto seat projections has significant limits under FPTP – due to the system’s inherently chaotic nature – recent projections estimate Labour could win over half of all Scottish seats on a share of the vote between 30 and 40%.

The More in Common poll published at the end of May (fieldwork 22 – 25 May), puts Labour on 35%, the SNP on 30%, the Conservatives on 17% and the Lib Dems on 10%.

Under a proportional system, seats would match votes. And while we can’t know for certain what would happen under Westminster’s current voting system, Electoral Calculus estimates this would give Labour 29 of the 57 seats available. While only 5 percentage points behind Anas Sarwar’s party, the SNP would take just 16 seats – a significant fall from 2019. The Conservatives would win seven while the Lib Dem would win five. Under FPTP, seats won’t match votes yet again.

A subsequent poll by Survation suggests a similar outcome, indicating Scottish Labour could win 29 seats on just 36% of the votes.

The Additional Member System used to elect MSPs at Holyrood is far from perfect. This site has covered it’s flaws extensively – making the case for continuous improvement of Scottish democracy. But AMS at least ensures that that MSPs are broadly representative of how people vote unlike First Past the Post which lets down Scotland and the rest of the UK again and again.

Replacing First Past the Post with a proportional system is the single most important transformation needed to improve Westminter. Proportional Representation isn’t a silver bullet but it will improve our democracy by ensuring that voters are fairly represented in parliament. Whoever wins on 4 July should keep that in mind.

Wales has just changed its voting system. Scotland must follow

By Richard Wood

The Welsh Parliament has just approved the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill which will reform the voting system used to elect MSs.

The change, which comes into force for the 2026 elections replaces the Additional Member System with a Closed List Proportional Representation system. Under the reforms, the Senedd will increase from 60 to 96 members, made up of 16 multi-member constituencies of six MSs each.

While the Senedd uses a voting system aimed to deliver proportionality, the ratio of constituency MSs to list MSs negates much of this intent. At the 2021 election, Mark Drakeford’s Welsh Labour Party secured 30 out of 60 seats on 36.2% of the list vote (39.9% for the constituency), showing the mismatch between seats and votes.

The change to a party list system aims to address some of this, however, the proposed new system has its own flaws. In particular, the closed list element limits the say voters have over individual candidates. However, the change opens up a simple route to easily switch this change to an Open List PR system or the Single Transferable Votes if the Senedd sees fit.

The change in Wales highlights the need for reform at the Scottish Parliament as well. Scotland suffers a similar problem with its own Additional Member System although not to the same extent as Wales due to the slightly better ratio between constituency and list MSPs.

This year marks 25 years of devolution. And while Scotland’s voting set-up is more representative than Westminster’s chaotic First Past the Post system, the Scottish Parliament must follow Wales and commit to electoral reform.

Should the Scottish Government be able to appoint ministers who aren’t MSPs?

Scottish Parliament (outside) with partially cloudy sky.

By Richard Wood

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.

5 reasons to ban MSP-MP dual mandates

New Zealand and Scotland – proportional but imperfect voting systems