Why we must see urgent reform of Scotland's 'part-time, ill-informed' parliament

A Tory MSP named Graham Simpson has had his ten minutes of fame by defecting to Reform UK. Small political earthquake; not many interested. Mr Simpson will now return to well-earned obscurity.

The bigger question is how he came to be there in the first place and the answer lies in the absurd “list” system by which almost half our MSPs are returned to Holyrood without anyone voting for them; only for a list on which their names appear.

After a dismal electoral record in Lanarkshire, Mr Simpson hit gold when he was placed second on the Tories’ Central Scotland regional list in 2017, a matter in which the wider electorate had no say whatsoever. In this, he was no different from other “list” MSPs.

The D’Hondt system, as it is grandly known, disowns the historic democratic principle that voters are selecting a candidate, rather than a party. It also creates two classes of MSP – those directly elected by constituents and others who are there as beneficiaries of party patronage.

I have past form on this matter having, at the time of D’Hondt’s adoption, described “list” MSPs as “a waste of space”. This referred to the principle rather than individuals and there have, of course, been some very good “list” MSPs just as there has been no shortage of space-wasting constituency ones.

However, it is the principle that is wrong and Mr Simpson’s bid for glory illustrates why. If, as is quite possible, we have a finely balanced Parliament next May, the calculations of a few individuals whom nobody has ever voted for could determine the balance of power, for reasons entirely of self-interest.

There is a straightforward solution which retains the principle of proportional representation. Curiously, it is one Holyrood itself adopted when legislating for local government reform in 2006 when it established a voting system based on multi-member wards. If it is good enough for councils, why not for Holyrood?

I have no idea what the impact would be on distribution of seats but again, that is not the point. It’s about democracy. Once elected, all MSPs would be equal, with actual constituents as opposed to the fiction of claiming everyone in vast regions as their electoral flocks.

The multi-member system works well in Ireland and has led to far greater diversity in the Dail than at Holyrood. Independents of various hues stand a real chance in multi-member seats but almost none through the “list” system. The late Margo Macdonald was the only independent ever elected to Holyrood as a regional MSP –and that is a very high bar to set.

On the other hand, the “list” is a mechanism for party hierarchies to get rid of MSPs who have proved too competent or interesting for their own good. Under Alex Salmond, the SNP disposed of Andrew Wilson, who made the cardinal error of speaking truth about Scotland’s economic realities. The Greens ousted the valuable but non-conforming Andy Wightman by pushing him down the Lothian list and gave us, ye gods, Lorna Slater instead. Voters had no say in any of this. We’ve been told this week by the Scottish Fiscal Commission that, after years of incompetence and fiscal incontinence, whoever wins next May will face a £5 billion black hole. It will not be credible to make grand spending commitments. To offer improvement in how Holyrood delivers, it will be necessary to find other ways of committing to the need for change.

I would certainly start with a line-by-line Comprehensive Spending Review. But why not also promise a new deal on how Holyrood itself operates? It’s 25 years since it was set up and, regardless of one’s views on the constitution, nobody can count it a success in terms of legislation it has produced, far less the quality of debate. In these respects, it has been a dud.

The electoral system could be part of that review. So too could the procedures at Holyrood which consistently see the really big issues which affect Scotland’s future going virtually undebated in a part-time, ill-informed Parliament.

To take one urgent example, when has the chaotic evolution of energy policy been the subject of a full-scale debate which would give expression to huge questions and concerns about how events are proceeding and demand to know whether there is any coherent strategy to join them up?

On subjects like health and education, all that Scotland ever sees of Holyrood are the formulaic exchanges at First Minister’s Questions which have never been known to shed more light than heat. As a fulcrum for national debate, the Scottish Parliament barely exists and without reform of how it operates, there is no prospect of improvement. Quite the opposite.

This is not an “anti-devolution” position, though scepticism has been more than justified. Many who were most enthusiastic about Holyrood’s establishment are now among those who feel most badly let down by what it has delivered, both in terms of its impacts on Scottish society and the manner in which it conducts itself. In its early days, there were some individuals with expertise in their fields who thought they could make a greater difference through politics than as individual practitioners. Who, in the light of the evidence before them, would now form that judgment?

The right to make a five minute speech in a brief debate padded out by party servants who know nothing of the subject is not an attractive or respectful option. If Holyrood is ever to be the centre of excellence once dreamt of, rather than an intellectual desert with very few oases, there must be reforms in how it works and is elected.