AND so game on for May 2026 and the next Scottish Parliament election. That’s barely a year and nine months away – a whisker in election campaign terms.
If Labour’s lead remains more or less steady – a biggish if – then we are likely to see the SNP lose control of Holyrood unless the leadership can pull some tartan rabbits out of its bunnet. And soonish.
Otherwise, the Unionists will be back in control. Meaning all the proposed electoral routes to independence will be well and truly parked for the duration.
READ MORE: John Swinney to set out new funding for 'landmark' carbon capture project
This prospect looks startlingly reminiscent of the political situation back in 2003 at the time of the second Holyrood election, leading to the so-called Rainbow Parliament.
Labour won the constituency vote with 34.6%, similar to the 35.3% they polled in Scotland on July 4. Labour did less well in the regional lists in 2003, clocking 29.3% as people split their votes.
As a result, Labour won 46 constituency seats and a paltry four on the regional list. Which suggests that in 2026, a strong Labour showing will pile up constituency seats – though not enough for a majority – giving the SNP and others the lion’s share of the regional list places.
The big difference between 2003 and now is the vote shares of the Tories and Lib Dems. The Conservatives polled 16.6% in the constituencies and much the same on the lists, giving them a healthy 18 seats. This month, the Scottish Tories slumped to 12.7%. That’s unlikely to change substantially, especially if the party remains riven by factional warfare.
However, the Reform Party gained 7% (with paper candidates). Which suggests that in 2026, under PR, the combined right-wing vote will be up on 2003. There’s also a sporting chance that current Labour voters disenchanted with Keir Starmer’s government will defect to Reform. On this form, 2026 could yield a bloc of 20 or so right wingers.
But there is some light in this darkness. My bet is that the Reform UK contingent will be full of nutters. They may allow in a minority, Unionist Labour government but first minister Sarwar would find it difficult to negotiate a budget deal with the Faragists. The next Holyrood Parliament could well be deeply unstable.
Could the LibDems or Greens come to Labour’s rescue? Potentially. In 2003, the LibDems – with 17 MSPs compared to four today – formed a coalition with Labour. However, the LibDem vote at the General Election was only 9.7% compared to a 15.4% in the 2003 constituency section.
The gap could be filled by the Greens. They polled a miserly 3.8% on July 4 but normally do well in the regional lists when folk split their vote. Back in 2003, when they were still focused on environmental issues under Robin Harper, the Scottish Greens won seven seats, equal to what they have today.
My gut feeling is that the LibDems can’t recover their 2003 electoral prominence while the erratic, opportunist Greens would find Sarwar a tough partner to deal with than a sympathetic Nicola Sturgeon.
READ MORE: Clive Lewis on a future UK republic and the right of Scots to choose independence
Regardless, it does not look probable that the LibDems or Greens will be in any position to help Labour secure an overall majority. So expect a parliament where majorities are cobbled together on a day-to-day basis, with lots of backroom wheeling and dealing.
Where does all this leave the SNP? Back in 2003, the SNP won 23.8% of the constituency vote and 20.9% of the list vote. They got most of their seats on the list – 18 versus nine in in the constituencies.
This pattern is certain to reappear in 2026, as Labour capture current SNP constituency seats. Which means the jockeying for top positions on the SNP regional lists for 2026 will be intense. This opens the prospect of the party being turned inward over the next 22 months.
Former Westminster MPs seeking a comeback will be vying with current constituency MSPs for top places on the regional lists. The resulting contests could be bloody and divisive It will also be important for the SNP to call for supporters to vote for the party both at a constituency level and on the list. But in 2003, voters for the first time realised that they could use the second (list) vote differently from their first (constituency) choice, thus imposing their wishes on the party machines.
As a result, the 2003 Holyrood contest also saw the election of six Scottish Socialist Party MSPs plus a member of the Senior Citizens Party, while the redoubtable and much-missed Margo MacDonald was elected as an independent nationalist.
Remarkably, voters also returned two independents by first-past-the post. They were the dissident former Labour MP Dennis Canavan and Dr Jean Turner, campaigning to save Stobhill Hospital from closure.
This Rainbow Parliament was perhaps the most interesting – certainly the most democratic and least alienating as far as the voting public was concerned – that we have seen under devolution. It vindicated the original idea of the list system, which was designed to allow minority and expert opinion to be directly represented at Holyrood.
The leaven of minority parties, political mavericks and knowledgeable campaigners enriched Holyrood. Compare to Margo, Tommy Sheridan, Rosie Kane or Dennis Canavan the current, rather faceless coterie of MSPs (of all parties) who inhabit the Scottish Parliament.
It is arguable that the electorate was so enlivened by its success in imposing its will on the party machines in 2003 that it led to the freakish result at the next Holyrood contest in 2007. This produced an outright majority SNP government.
READ MORE: How can the Scottish Government win back trust? Experts have their say
The big Unionist parties deliberately contrived a voting system for the Scottish Parliament that is supposed to block the nationalists gaining a majority of seats. Yet the voters willed that in 2007.
Here is perhaps the silver lining to the 2026 Holyrood election. It is just possible that the electorate – scunnered by years of SNP and Labour mismanagement – will no longer be taken for granted. That voters might again discover they have two votes and can use them to “spread bet”. That they can weight their votes in a manner that once again allows on to the Holyrood benches the mavericks, the strategic thinkers, the fierce independents, the passionate and the risk-takers.
In particular, a parliament where the different voices within the nationalist community – Alba as well as the SNP, and independents from the movement – get a chance to debate and cooperate. A parliament genuinely of and for the people, not a cipher of the big Unionist parties in London.
How to achieve this? The 2003 results show it is possible for committed individuals to get elected to Holyrood with around 1.5 % of the vote. Get 10% on the list across Scotland and you have a significant representation for new ideas, new blood, and a thriving democracy.
Our political fate – as always – is in in our own hands.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel