Scottish Parliament at 25: Why Holyrood should ditch its system of proportional representation – Brian Wilson

Scotland’s current voting system creates two classes of MSPs with vastly different workloads and legitimacy

You could be forgiven for not having noticed that tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament’s first sitting. The business of installing the third First Minister in 15 months has taken precedence over this best possible cue for introspection and review, both badly needed.

A press release promised us “a year-long programme of engagement that both reflects on devolution and considers how we can shape the parliament in future”. Like much else which emerges from Holyrood, it seems to have ended with the press release.

The Lib Dem former deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, has emerged to suggest bravely that we need “significantly more MSPs”. Most Scots might compare that priority to the proverbial hole in the head and think quality rather than quantity is the problem.

Scotland's proportional representation voting system needs to change (Picture: Andy Buchanan/AFP via Getty Images)

This week, as evidence, we saw the new broom of John Swinney sweeping in three ministerial re-treads, including himself and Kate Forbes, with not a single new face. The barrel can only be scraped so often.

Even the “resignation” of Shona Robison as Depute First Minister to make way for Ms Forbes turned out not to be what it sounded like. She’s still there so, far from slimming down, there is now an additional Cabinet member. But what’s 50 grand between friends?

Get our weekly opinion newsletter for expert analysis from The Scotsman’s team of columnists

To be fair to the estimable Lord Wallace, at least he has suggested something along with an accompanying historical anecdote. Labour wanted 113 MSPs while the Lib Dems pressed for 145, so they split the difference. Does a formula cobbled together 25 years ago have to remain the same for ever?

The opportunity should have been taken for an independent root-and-branch review of devolution’s workings. I am not referring here to the political policies pursued but to the mechanics of parliament and government. If not now, when?

One priority might be to look again at the electoral system which I have always thought ridiculous because it produces two classes of MSPs with vastly different workloads and legitimacy. Proportional representation is a given but the D’Hondt system of constituency and “list” MSPs should surely be questioned in the light of experience. The Irish system, used in our own council elections, of multi-member seats means everyone elected has the same status and responsibilities.

One interesting outcome is that the Dail has 20 independent elected members. The Scottish Parliament has none and the system virtually precludes that possibility. Instead, power over the “list” is in the hands of political parties. Could Holyrood not benefit from more diversity and knowledgeable campaigners?

I have no idea how a multi-member system would work out in terms of party advantage, but that is not the point. It would simply be more democratic and might contribute much-needed dynamism to low-quality debate at Holyrood. In whose interest is it that the status quo should go unchallenged?

Why do we have five-year, fixed-term Parliaments? Extending from four to five was a temporary measure a decade ago which now seems to have become entrenched. Five years is too long to wait for potential change and Holyrood, like most democracies, should ditch fixed-term parliaments.

These are just a couple of fundamentals where a lazy assumption the status quo must prevail needs to be challenged. There are plenty more. Holyrood committees, which were supposed to be the backbone of the system, meet three days a week for a couple of hours when the parliament is sitting. Does that really suffice as scrutiny?

Speeches in the chamber are generally limited to five minutes. Why? Try explaining a complex miscarriage of justice or untangling flawed legislation in five minutes. Should the priority of getting home for tea at 5.30 have precedence over the duty of any parliament to allow meaningful debate, without a speaking clock saying “your time’s up”?

There is plenty to review also on how devolution has worked in relation to other levels of government. It has been an even less noticed anniversary that 50 years ago this week, massive changes in Scottish local government took effect and new regional and islands authorities met for the first time – the product of an independent review under Lord Wheatley. That revolution in local government produced powerful, well-funded councils capable of making real differences for their communities and, crucially, of standing up to central government when required to do so.

The comparison with today’s shrivelled version of Scottish local government, starved of funds and deprived of powers, should remind us that devolution has not only ended at Edinburgh but has been a massively centralising force within Scotland. Part of Labour’s offer over the next couple of years – yes, we do have to wait that long – must be to reverse that process.

After 25 years, every assumption about devolution should be up for review. If I may revert to Lord Wallace, he recalled that a policy difference which nearly prevented formation of the first Labour-Lib Dem coalition was about university tuition fees.

The Lib Dems secured a commitment to abolish fees. Now Jim recognises that this “ultimately, has disadvantaged the very people the policy was designed to help… we’re finding that those from even modest backgrounds can’t access education. It’s happening because they haven’t kept up the funding and universities can earn more from enrolling foreign students.”

Whether on how government works or policy arguments of the late 1990s, a lot has changed during the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament. The current set-up, polarised around a constitutional stand-off and diverted into endless distractions while basic inequalities within our society persist, scarcely reflects the dreams of the founding mothers and fathers.

The 25th anniversary offered a chance for Holyrood to see itself as others see it. It will say a lot about our political leadership if that opportunity simply drifts past.