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

UPDATE: There are now 35 MSPs stepping down in 2026 following the announcement by Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes.

The late June 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 2026, 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.

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.

By-elections for defecting MSPs: does Wales offer a solution?

By Richard Wood

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.

Welcome @AshReganALBA 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👏#TeamIndependence | #ALBA23 pic.twitter.com/cQesws2kKr
— ALBA Party (@AlbaParty) October 28, 2023

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).

One of the measures likely to be adopted by the Welsh Senedd, according to the BBC, is a possible answer. Cardiff is introducing a ban on MSs defecting from one party to another. However, they will be allowed to leave and sit as independents.

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.

IMAGE SOURCE: Scottish Government (2021) (CC 2.0 generic license)

New Zealand’s elections review shows need for reform at Holyrood

By Richard Wood

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.

SEE MORE: New Zealand and Scotland: similar but imperfect voting systems

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.

SEE MORE: 12 reasons why the UK needs Proportional Representation now

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.

SEE MORE: 7 reforms to improve the Scottish Parliament

Image source: Pixabay

The Scottish Parliament should introduce a recall system for MSPs

When it comes to democratic processes, there’s a lot that Westminster can learn from Holyrood but there’s one really obvious improvement Holyrood can make by learning from Westminster.

Despite being stuck in the past, with its unrepresentative voting system, the undemocratic House of Lords and much more, the introduction of a recall process at Westminster was a welcome innovation that has made British democracy more accountable.

Westminster’s recall system was introduced in 2015 by the coalition government. The Recall of MPs Act (2015) provides three circumstances where a recall petition can come into force. If any MP recieves a custodial prison sentence, is suspended from the House or is convicted for providing false or misleading expenses claims, then a recall petition is triggered.

If this happens to an MP, their constituents will be able to sign a petition and if 10% of constituents sign in the set time period, then a by-election will be triggered.

There is no similar provision for MSPs in Scotland despite calls for a recall mechanism during the last parliament.

Only two parties called for the introduction of a recall process during the last election – the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Here’s what they said:

Scottish Liberal Democrats – “Continue to call for the introduction of a recall system for elected
representatives.”

Scottish Conservatives – “At Westminster, there are clear rules around recall, allowing a by-election to take place in certain circumstances, but no such rules exist for MSPs. We will introduce Mackay’s Law, allowing the
public to recall MSPs who have broken the law, grossly undermined trust or cailed to contribute to Parliament for more than six months. This will mean that Scotland will never again face the scandal of a disgraced former minister remaining an MSP, earning over £100,000 and failing to represent his constituents.”

That there have been six years since the introduction of the recall process at Westminster gives an opportunity to learn from the legislation in London – as well as from elsewhere.

The House of Commons system ensures that constituents can’t just recall politicans for any reason. There are clearly defined routes to recall – sensibly setting boundaries although there is room for expansion – that can be adapted for the Scottish Parliament.

The case for a recall system is as simple as it is obvious. MSPs who bring the Scottish Parliament into disrepute have no place in the chamber. The exact reasons that would lead to a recall petition (and potential by- election) would need defined but those outlined for MPs at Westminster, as well as the detailed reasons offered in the Scottish Conservative manifesto clearly highlight the need for a such a system. The fact that MSPs can break the law or not turn up to work and keep their job is a democratic outrage. The Scottish Parliament needs to learn from Westminster and adopt a recall process.

Scottish democracy needs an upgrade and the introduction of a recall system would help do just that.

However, there is one practical stumbling block to the introduction of a recall rule. It is worth considering the two different types of MSP at Holyrood (although Upgrade Holyrood supports switching from AMS to a more representative electoral system). Recall would ultimately lead to a by-election for any MSP elected in a single seat constituency, however, the route to recall would be more complex for a regional MSP.

There are some solutions but the answer is far from obvious:

A region-wide by-election (a fascinating prospect but one that throws up questions about the very nature of the Holyrood voting system).

A decision taken by the party that the MSP belongs to over whether to remove the MSP and let the next candidate in the list taking up the post (however, this would give a significant amount of power to parties and take away the electorate’s option to have their say).

A parliamentary vote of confidence. If the MSP loses then they would be expelled from parliament. The next candidate on that party’s list would then take their seat. This might be the most sensible option but there would need to be significant checks to ensure that it wouldn’t be abused.

The correct answer to this is unclear (and there would be similar questions if Scotland adopts the Single Transferable Vote of an Open List PR system with levelling seats), however, introducing a recall mechanism would ultimately improve Scottish democracy.

It’s time to introduce a recall rule. Let’s learn from Westminster and adopt a recall system to improve Scottish democracy.

How proportional was the 2021 Scottish Parliament election?

The final Scottish Parliament results came in on Saturday night after a roller-coaster two-day count (please let’s never have that again!). The Scottish Parliament was created with a broadly proportional voting system to ensure that seats match votes but how proportional was the election?

The Additional Member System (AMS) ensures that the link between seats and votes is far more representative than Westminster’s First Past the Post (FPTP).

A good voting system should have a strong link between votes and seats. That a party can win a majority on 43% of the vote (2019) – let alone 35% of the vote (2005) – is a clear sign that First Past the Post fails to facilitate proper representative democracy. There are a number of ways to measure how representative an electoral system is but the most widely-known method is the Gallagher Index. There is no need to go in the maths behind it here but a low Gallagher Index score shows good proportionality while a higher one indicates bad proportionality.

The Gallagher Index scores for the previous Scottish elections, according to Electoral Reform Society calculations, are shown below.

1999: 8.5, 2003: 8.2, 2007: 9.1, 2011: 8.6, 2016: 6.2

On their own the Gallagher index scores do not how much but compared to UK election scores we can see that the Scottish Parliament is far fairer than First Past the Post used at Westminster. Take the 2015 election for example, which had the Conservatives win a majority on 37% of the vote and UKIP winning 13% of the vote but only one seat. The Gallagher score on that occasion was 15, with all other elections since 1974 having Gallagher indices with double digits.

The 2016 election was therefore the most proportional since the advent of devolution in 1999 but what about the most recent 2021 election? Upgrade Holyrood’s own 2021 Gallagher index calculations gets a figure of 7.8, making the 2021 election the second most proportional election since 1999. (Update: Ballot Box Scotland has a figure of 7.3 so I will need to revisit my calculations but either way we’re in the same rough area).

Here's what the new political map of Scotland looks like following #SP21 #BBS21

SNP ~ 64 Seats (+1), split 62 Constituencies, 2 List
Conservative ~ 31 (nc), split 5C, 26L
Labour ~ 22 (-2), split 2C, 20L
Green ~ 8 (+2), all 8L
Lib Dem ~ 4 (-1), all 4C pic.twitter.com/I0cEozr655
— Ballot Box Scotland (@BallotBoxScot) May 8, 2021

This can be seen from the performances of each party: SNP (regional vote share 40.3%, seat share 49.6%), Scottish Conservatives (23.5%, 24%), Scottish Labour (18%, 17.1%), Scottish Greens (8.1%, 6.2%) and the Scottish Lib Dems (5.1%, 3.1%). Overall, this is broadly proportional although the SNP outperform due to their constituency dominance.

The final results from the Scottish Parliament election.

The SNP has won with 64 seats.#BBCElections #SP21

All the latest reaction ➡️ https://t.co/eWgDWTRuAV pic.twitter.com/NpEoVbdZTw
— BBC Scotland News (@BBCScotlandNews) May 8, 2021

As mentioned, the Additional Member System, despite being far more representative in terms of proportionality than First Past the Post, has its flaws. Alba’s plan to game the system, by explicitly calling on voters to vote SNP in constituencies and Alba on the list, shows one clear fault: the risk of so-called satellite parties standing in the regions with an explicit intention of artificially exaggerating the support of one party. Had a supermajority materialised, the Gallagher index would likely have rivalled UK election scores. The same goes with All for Unity which had a similar strategy for unionist voters.

The system may not have been successfully gamed by Alba on this occasion but the party has certainly exposed a key flaw of the system, highlighting the need for reform.

This is compounded by the fact that AMS is far from perfect in other aspects. The ratio of constituency to regional seats creates a constituency bias – a party could win a majority on constituency seats alone on less than half the vote (the SNP were three away from doing so in 2021). The version of AMS in Wales is even worse in this respect with 40 constituency seats and 20 regional ones. Mark Drakeford’s Welsh Labour won 30 seats but on less than 40% of the vote.

Furthermore, there is no direct mechanism to ensure national proportionality. Measures to ensure regional proportionality accumulate to deliver broadly nationally proportional results, however, they stop short of explicitly doing so.

In addition to that, another problem of AMS is the continued existence of FPTP seats which encourages tactical voting. Tactical voting will always happen in any system to some degree, but as many people as possible should be able to vote for their first choice, not their least favourite option.

Lastly, voters have limited choice over candidates within different parties – the list component of AMS ensures better overall representation but the fact that it is closed means that voters get what parties present. There are other flaws too which can be read about here.

It cannot be said enough that AMS is an improvement on FPTP. The UK needs proroportional representation. AMS results are broadly proportional and constituents are represented by a diverse range of parties but that doesn’t mean there are not better alternatives.

A sticking plaster approach to improving on AMS would be to retain the current system and add levelling seats like in Germany to ensure that seats overall match the regional vote. This would improve proportionality but voters are unlikely to support more politicians. An open-list element could be added to the regional list which would ensure voter choice like on Bavaria. In theory this would be an excellent improvement but adding a potential third ballot risks complicating things.

A better alternative would be the Single Transferable Vote, which would involve multi-member constituencies where voters rank candidates by order of preference. STV would deliver proportional outcomes while give voters a significant amount of power over candidates and parties. It is currently supported by the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens, as well as leading reform groups such as the Electoral Reform Society.

There is also the less talked about system of open-list PR with levelling seats, which is used in the likes of Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, and is advocated by Ballot Box Scotland (who has been an invaluable resource during the 2021 election it must be said!). Under such a system there would be multi-member systems where voters choose one party but get to vote for candidates within that party. Once seats are distributed there would then be a mechanism to allocate additional seats to ensure proportional outcomes overall.

Overall, the 2021 Scottish election delivered a broadly proportional outcome, which should be commended. the fact that Westminster still uses First Past the Post is a travesty, putting us at odds with most democracies. That said we should learn still from the flaws exposed from the likes of Alba and All for Unity and reform Scotland’s voting system for the better.