Month: September 2026

Categories
Blog

Questions of women’s representation: How diverse are our MSPs?

By Lynn Bennie

This blog is based on an article first published in the Scottish Election Analysis Report.

All six political parties now represented in the Scottish Parliament are led or co-led by men (a Green co-leader being a woman). The lack of gender balance was starkly displayed in the televised leaders’ debates during the Holyrood election campaign. The first of these was the BBC’s Debate Night on 12th April. Seven men on stage including the moderator created powerful symbolic images of patriarchy amongst a political class which has little in common with the electorate. Compare this to ten years ago when four of the five main parties in Scotland had women leaders.

The question explored here is whether Scotland’s parliamentarians – the 129 MSPs – are becoming more (or less) diverse, and the consequences for representation. Academic research connects descriptive representation (whether the characteristics of representatives reflect society) to substantive representation (representatives acting in the interests of societal groups). It assumes that the quality of representation is enriched when elected members can relate to those they represent (and vice versa), while recognising intersectionality of power structures and inequalities. Representation is indirect, not based on delegation, but good representation involves the presence of different voices. There is a link between who decides and what is decided.

The run-up to the election suggested opportunity for change, with a record number of 42 MSPs standing down. However, a disproportionate number were women (57%). Research by Engender suggested that many women experience the Scottish Parliament as gendered and discriminatory, with hostility and abuse (especially on social media) a common occurrence. This did not bode well. We also know that parties’ candidate selection procedures are critical in determining diversity outcomes, and the SNP as the largest party did not use strong gender equality mechanisms for this election. Women made up 36% of all candidates, compared with 38% for the Welsh Senedd. Half of Green and Labour candidates were women, but other parties fell short of gender parity, including the SNP (on 45%). One in four Reform UK candidates were women.

The class of 2026 is made up of 64 new MSPs, an unprecedented number of fresh recruits.  Some are not, in fact, new to politics. They include two current MPs and former MPs and MEPs. Many have been local government councillors. Reform’s MSPs are least likely to have political experience, and candidates attempted to make a virtue of this during the campaign.

Across the new Parliament, 56 MSPs (43.4%) are women (including one trans woman) and there is one non-binary MSP, meaning that 44.2% of all MSPs are not men. There is a slight decline in women’s representation, as a record 58 women made up 45% of MSPs in 2021. This is viewed by campaigners as a worrying halt in progress, explained by ineffective party selection procedures and an increasingly hostile politics which makes standing for election less attractive to women. There are notable differences between parties: the Conservatives have two women MSPs (17%) and the Liberal Democrats three (30%). The proportion of women MSPs in Labour and Reform is identical (7/17=41%), and the SNP is approaching gender equality (27/58=47%). It is the Greens, though, who display a large degree of diversity. Their 15 MSPs include 10 women (67%), one non-binary person, and four men. The Greens include a woman (Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill) who is a full-time wheelchair user (the second in the parliament’s history), a trans woman (Iris Duane) and the non-binary Q Manivannan. The latter two represent the parliament’s first two openly trans MSPs, on this measure making the legislature more diverse.

In 2021, the first women of colour were elected and six MSPs were classified as minority ethnic. Two of the six did not stand again, and three lost their seats. New MSPs from minority ethnic backgrounds include Duane, Manivannan, and Simita Kumar of the SNP (previously the first minority ethnic party group leader on Edinburgh Council). The proportion of minority ethnic MSPs is very similar to 2021. Compared with the Scottish population, minority ethnic groups are underrepresented. The new MSPs are younger than their predecessors, as would be expected, but in other ways they are typical politicians, skewed towards being university-educated, professional and middle class. Many MSPs speak openly of a range of conditions and disabilities, but according to the Census a quarter of Scots describe themselves as disabled, meaning that disability is also likely to be under-represented.

There is a familiarity to this profile, with relatively little evidence of change. Barriers to participation in politics are pervasive and difficult to surmount for less-privileged groups. The Scottish Parliament is not immune to these forces. A key question for political parties and the parliament is whether this matters for representation. Academic research suggests that it does, emphasising the need to integrate the perspectives and experiences of women and minority groups. Women, for example, prioritise issues differently, achieve policy change, such as progressive domestic violence legislation, and influence parliamentary practices. There can be little doubt that who represents matters, and that patterns of representation shape public policy.

About the author

Bennie is a Reader in Politics in the School of Social Science at the University of Aberdeen. Her research and teaching interests span the areas of elections and political parties, political participation and climate politics.

 

 

Categories
Blog

Over the rainbow? What next for Scotland’s new “Rainbow Parliament”?

By Christopher Carman

This blog is based on an article first published in the Scottish Election Analysis Report.

The Scottish Parliament election on 7 May produced a remarkable result. The SNP returned as the largest party with 58 seats, but well short of a majority, while Labour and Reform UK tied as joint second on 17 each. The Greens took 15, the Conservatives 12, and the Liberal Democrats 10 (Figure 1) — so six parties, all with ten or more members. Remarkably, 64 of the 129 MSPs are entirely new, and many have little experience of elected office. The pro-independence side holds a slim 73-seat majority, but no government can be formed and almost no business completed without cross-party negotiation.

 

Figure 1. Scottish Parliament: seats won, 7 May 2026. Source: BBC News and SPICe.

“Politics”, Gerry Stoker observed in Why Politics Matters “is about reaching a compromise and finding ways for those who disagree to rub along with one another.” While not identical to the 2003 rainbow parliament, the label nonetheless captures the spirit of Session 7 and the new Parliament. Power is dispersed; a tied-second party is unique in Holyrood’s history; and 64 newcomers must learn to rub along with peers and political opponents alike. Whether the new Parliament “works” — whether it can deliver legislation and credible scrutiny — depends on whether MSPs, the rules they sit under, and the public they answer to can lean into compromise.

The most direct survey measure of the Scottish public’s appetite for cross-party working is the dedicated compromise item in the Scottish Election Study’s SCOOP 10, which asked whether “the politicians at Holyrood who share your beliefs” should compromise with the other side or stand firm on principle. The headline finding is striking: 30.6% of respondents said they did not know. Among those who took a view (N=871), 54% supported compromise and 46% stood firm — a soft, narrow compromising plurality, not a consensus (Figure 2). However, that aggregate hides a sharp partisan cleavage. Net support for compromise runs from +55 percentage points among Liberal Democrat identifiers and +12 pp among Greens to −13 pp among Conservatives and −19 pp among Reform identifiers. SNP identifiers, the largest party group, split almost evenly (+5 pp), as do Labour identifiers (+1 pp). MSPs face genuine cross-pressure: a manifesto mandate to deliver, and a partisan electorate that will pressure them case by case and along party lines.

Figure 2. Public support for political compromise at Holyrood, by party identification. Source: SCOOP 10 (Feb 2025), weighted, N=1,200; non-DK N=871. Net = % support compromise minus % stand firm.

A Parliament built around new Members

With six parties of ten-plus MSPs and a tied-second, several conventions that worked when there was a clear pecking order need re-engineering before the chamber meets. Holyrood’s rules do not formally recognise an “Official Opposition”; the term is conventional, attaching to the largest non-government party. With Labour and Reform tied, even that convention dissolves. Standing Orders Chapter 13 entitles the leader of any party with five or more MSPs to be called at First Minister’s Questions, and convention has the largest opposition leader called first with multiple substantive exchanges. The Welsh Senedd offers a model: the Llywydd used a weekly rotation between tied leaders to lead the First Minister Questions slot.

The same logic radiates out from FMQs. The Bureau (Chapter 5) consists of the Presiding Officer plus a business manager from each party with five or more seats: all six parties qualify. Its proportional allocations of opposition business days, committee membership and the new elected-convener regime must split symmetrically between Labour and Reform. The four elected places on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB), and the more mundane but politically charged question of office allocation in Members’ Block and seating in the chamber, require the same negotiated balance.

The harder task is human. With 64 new Members — Holyrood’s largest intake — the Parliament is absorbing many Members who have never held elected office and who fundamentally disagree with peers across the aisle. Allan Campbell, Head of Operations, set out the Parliament’s innovative  2026 Election Programme at a Stevenson Trust lecture in March: it includes a set of information sessions, induction events and a buddy programme. Pre-election work included SPCB guidance to sitting Members and structured political engagement to secure cross-party buy-in. From 11 May – less than a week after the election – registration activities for new Members began (Figure 3). Crucially, cross-party relationship-building is woven through evening receptions and the Members’ Fair on 12 May — all to develop social capital and facilitate Stoker’s “rubbing along”.

Figure 3. Registration and orientation week, 8–14 May 2026. Source: A. Campbell, Stevenson Trust lecture, 24 March 2026.

Rubbing along requires both a public willing to live with compromise and an institution capable of producing it. Both conditions are partial in 2026. The public are softly, conditionally pro-compromise, with sharp partisan exceptions. The standing orders must be stretched to handle a tied-second party and six party business managers; and committee allocations, opposition days and the SPCB must all be split fairly. Above all, 64 new MSPs must learn the chamber and learn each other — including those they were elected to oppose. If those three pieces — public tolerance, procedural fairness, and informal relationship-building — fall into place, this could be a Parliament that compromises productively to deliver policy and scrutiny. If those fail, it risks reproducing the fractiousness reported in the closing months of the last parliament — and a “Rainbow Parliament” that doesn’t quite work.

About the author

Carman is the Stevenson Professor of Citizenship at the University of Glasgow. He has been one of the lead researchers on the Scottish Election Study since 2011 and has written several books and articles on Scottish voting, public opinion and elections. His most recent research examines preferences for compromise in politics.

 

 

Categories
Blog

A new First Minister’s Questions procedure in the Scottish Parliament: How will it work?

By Ruxandra Serban

Following the May 2026 Scottish Parliament election, the new Presiding Officer, Kenneth Gibson, announced a set of changes to First Minister’s Questions (FMQs). The changes to the Standing Orders were adopted on 26 May 2026 and implemented at the start of June. According to Gibson, the changes are meant to provide the Scottish Parliament with the means to carry out stronger scrutiny of government, and a greater role for backbench MSPs. Looking at international experience shows that the reforms have the potential to change how FMQs works, but although some of the changes are very innovative, others might not lead to the desired effect. The creation of a separate backbench session is a significant institutional innovation, but removing advance notice of questions may do less than proposers hope to make exchanges less scripted.

How did the previous First Minister’s Questions procedure work?

Under the previous system, which had been in place since 1999 with some recent changes related to timing and duration, First Minister’s Questions was a single weekly session, held every Thursday from noon, lasting up to 45 minutes. MSPs submitted questions in advance, and the Presiding Officer selected those that would be asked in the session, based on suitability, topicality, and maintaining a balance between political parties. The selected questions were published in the Business Bulletin ahead of each FMQs. By convention, the session began with questions from the leader of the largest opposition party, followed by leaders of other opposition parties. After the party leaders’ questions, other MSPs could also be called by the Presiding Officer to ask questions.

What are the changes? How do they compare to how other parliaments question the head of government?

The first important change is that FMQs has moved from one to two sessions a week, with different groups of MSPs questioning the First Minister in each: a 30-minute session on Tuesdays for backbenchers, and 30 minutes on Thursday for party leaders. A separate session for backbenchers is unique internationally in terms of how parliaments organise the questioning of heads of government. Research on how parliaments question prime ministers shows that plenary questioning procedures that include only a specific group of parliamentarians are very rare. These procedures are usually open to all parliamentarians, with an established running order in which leaders get to ask questions first, and backbenchers subsequently. An exception is the Irish Dáil, which has a separate procedure (Leaders’ Questions) for party leaders to ask questions to the head of government. But a separate session for backbenchers to question the head of government is not a model that has been tried in other parliaments. It has the potential to make questioning more open: the first session of Backbench FMQs took place on 2 June 2026, and included 18 questions from backbench MSPs. Questioning procedures are often criticised for being too focused on leaders and offering too little time for the issues that backbench parliamentarians want to discuss. Extending time for backbenchers is therefore a common reform initiative, for example in proposals to reform Question Period in Canada, and in Speaker John Bercow’s promise to call more backbenchers at Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK. Allowing backbenchers their own FMQs slot could create a session more focused on policy and local issues, and less on scoring political points. But this depends on how coordinated questions will be. In some legislatures, parties tightly coordinate members’ questions; in others, individual parliamentarians have greater autonomy. The key issue is whether backbench MSPs will have more freedom to ask the questions they want to ask, or if the session will be used as a way for each party to pursue their agreed questioning lines.

The Presiding Officer has also announced changes in how parties will be called to ask questions in what is now a more fragmented parliament following the May 2026 election. The main opposition party asking the first three questions at FMQs will alternate every week between Labour and Reform UK Scotland, which now have 17 seats each. This is a significant change, given in the past there was always one larger party acting as the main opposition. The Greens (15 seats) will also get three questions, and the Conservatives (12 seats) and Liberal Democrats (10 seats) will get to ask two each. Gibson has said he may occasionally allow smaller parties to go first. Many parliaments have an established conventional sequence for how parliamentarians ask questions, usually starting with key actors, such as the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders. Question allocation is usually done based on the number of seats, and larger parties get more questions and usually ask the first questions in the session. This creates a predictable pattern of exchanges, so changing the order occasionally is an interesting procedural innovation. The first exchanges between leaders also often receive more media attention, making question order politically significant. In a parliament with no clear main opposition party, this change may lead to different exchanges at FMQs compared to the traditional sequence of the First Minister responding to the leader of the largest opposition party first.

A third major change is that questions will no longer be published ahead of the session, so the First Minister will not know the questions in advance for either of the two sessions. This has been described as a response to complaints from opposition MSPs that the First Minister was giving scripted answers. Whether the proposed change will have this effect is less clear. It is of course likely that the First Minister (currently John Swinney) will be less able to deliver prepared answers if he does not know the questions in advance. But other procedures for questioning prime ministers where questions are asked without notice, such as PMQs in the UK, Question Period in Canada, or Question Time in Australia, are frequently criticised for scripted answers. The issue is the wider political environment. The procedure through which the head of government appears in the legislature to answer questions is one of the most publicly visible parliamentary events, which political parties use to put their messages across in the media and on social media. Heads of government prepare extensively for these sessions and try to anticipate questions, and very often have prepared lines to take. They may seek to deliver these lines regardless of the question. There is also merit in knowing the topics in advance, as prime ministers can deliver more precise answers, as evidence from the Dáil sessions with the Irish prime minister shows. The Presiding Officer has acknowledged that if MSPs let him know the questions in advance privately, that will lead to ‘a selection of more impactful questions’. It remains therefore to be seen whether this development will lead to more spontaneous exchanges, even though comparative evidence suggests it may not. This is more likely in the backbench session compared to the party leaders’ session, but again depends on how much control parties exercise over the questions.

The proposed reforms are significant and include some institutional innovations. They also come following changes to the balance between parties in the Scottish Parliament, so they have the potential to change how First Minister’s Questions operates. Whether they strengthen scrutiny will depend on how parties, backbench MSPs, and the First Minister adapt to the new procedure in practice.

About the author

Serban is a Lecturer in Politics and Qualitative Research Methods in the School of Social Sciences at Birkbeck College, University of London. Before joining Birkbeck in January 2026, she held positions at UCL and LSE. Her research focuses on parliaments, particularly the procedures through which parliamentarians can hold governments to account.