Democracy in Scotland and the UK

Possible alternatives for the governance of Scotland

• Read through Mr Campbell's course PowerPoint presentation for this heading.

What are the different views on the best way to govern Scotland?

There are three views on the best way to govern Scotland: Devolution, federalism, and independence. Devolution is the current arrangement, and has been since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999.

Devolution was a key plank of New Labour's 1997 UK general election manifesto. New Labour won the 1997 UK election in a landslide, including winning 56 seats in Scotland, out 74. Following through on their election pledge, the New Labour UK government held a referendum on 11th September 1997. That vote asked people whether they agreed there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether it should have tax-varying powers. People voted Yes to both questions and what followed was the Scotland Bill – later to become the Scotland Act, once Royal Assent was given.

The 1998 Scotland Act created the Scottish Parliament and set out the rules for how the Parliament would work – including elections of MSPs as well as powers. Under the Act, some powers were ‘devolved’, meaning given to the Scottish Parliament while others kept ‘reserved’ to London, meaning the UK Parliament kept control over those areas. Some devolved powers include: health and social work, education and training, local government and housing, justice and policing, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the environment, tourism, sport and heritage, and economic development and internal transport. One of the arguments in favour of devolution is that these devolved areas provide for Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.

Supporters of devolution believe it has allowed for Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, rather than UK parliamentarians offering solutions from London. For instance, since the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Holyrood has passed laws to abolish tuition fees (2001), ban smoking in public places (2006), legalise same sex marriage (2014), abolish the right to buy council homes (2014), force school buses to have seatbelts (2017), ensure that 50% of people on public bodies’ boards are women (2018), and increase the age of criminal responsibility to 12 (2019).

Another argument in favour of devolution is that devolution is also flexible and can be adapted as needs be, helping the relevant government (be it Scottish or UK) make the right decision(s), at the right time. For instance, the Scotland Act 2012 was the first legislation to add more powers to the Scottish Parliament. This Act handed down measures such as the drink drive limit, which the Scottish Parliament lowered to 22 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of breath. Then, the Scotland Act 2016 devolved some aspects of social security, income tax and abortion law. The Scottish Government has used this to alter tax bands and establish new Social Security benefits.

However, some people argue that devolution is a process, not an event. These people often believe that the "ultimate goal" of devolution should be Scotland separating from the UK to become its own independent country. For instance, according to the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament is responsible for around 40% of Scotland’s taxes, and around 60% of Scottish public spending. As a consequence, supporters of independence believe a separate Scotland, controlling all of Scotland’s tax and spending, could make better decisions - these people often view devolution as a process towards separation from the UK, and often argue that devolution still constrains the influence of Scotland within the UK. For example, in September 2024, First Minister John Swinney said that independence could be the "solution to the day-to-day challenges faced by Scotland."

Federalism would be considered by some proponents to be devolution max, or 'devo max', in effect giving Scotland as much control over public policy as possible within the UK. While there is no clear and single proposal for federalism, the key plank of federalism is decentralisation. With a federal UK, the different countries of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), or even regions of these countries, could control significant aspects of public policy, leaving a London based national government to effectively govern over 'bigger' issues, such as national defence. While it would be novel to the UK, federalism is not uncommon around the world.

For instance, the tenth amendment to the US Constitution states that every power not granted to the federal government under the constitution is delegated to state governments. Germany has a similar arrangement, with its lander governments effectively allowing different regions of Germany to control most of the public agenda day-to-day. This control over much of day-to-day policy is often termed 'home rule', because many of the decisions affecting people are taken by people much closer to home.

When it comes to federalism within the UK, and more specifically for Scotland, supporters often cite public opinion as a reason why federalism could, and should, be delivered. Opinion polling has previously shown clear majorities of Scottish voters back further federalism. However, opponents of federalism point to other polling, such as specifically on federalism, which shows limited support. Those against federalism also argue that it could be a stepping stone towards the destruction of the UK, and that the current arrangement of devolution offers Scotland the "best of both worlds", with control over devolved areas within the economic and political security of the UK.

Independence would see Scotland politically separate from the United Kingdom. As opposed the current arrangement of devolution, independence would see a Scottish Government control all aspects of public policy, rather than just devolved areas, as it is at present, where the UK Government has control over reserved matters, and can even over-rule Scottish Government decisions in certain areas of policy. The political divisions between the Scottish and UK governments is one reason some people argue for Scotland to be independent. 

Some campaigners point to the election of Conservative governments at the UK level as a reason for independence. For instance, the SNP once tweeted about Liz Truss that, "Scotland hasn't voted Tory since 1955, and Liz Truss is the ninth Tory Prime Minister without a mandate in Scotland." They who support this argument contend that an independent Scotland, separate from the UK, would always get the governments the people of Scotland elect, and therefore decisions would reflect the wishes of the people of Scotland. However, the 2024 UK General Election results weakens this argument in the eyes of people who are anti-independence or pro-union. The 2024 UK General Election resulted in a Labour landslide, with the Labour party winning 37 of Scotland’s seats. This is in contrast to the SNP (the largest Scottish party which supports independence), who lost 39 of their seats, winning just 9 out of 57 across Scotland. At the same time, opponents of independence point to stalling or falling support for a second referendum on Scottish independence (the first vote having been held on 18th September 2014), and argue that the Scottish Government should focus on delivering for Scotland using the powers currently afforded to them via devolution. However, devolution is another reason some support independence.

Some argue that devolution merely limits what Scotland can do. Supporters of independence argue that devolution shows Scotland can control its own affairs, but that devolution limits the aspirations of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, given that the Scotland Acts of 1998, 2012, and 2016 only name certain areas as devolved, meaning the Scottish Government controls these public policy areas, and the Scottish Parliament can pass legislation related to them. Those who advocate for independence believe that  separate Scotland, with control over all affairs related to Scotland, would mean a different Scotland could be created - one that’s more equal and fairer. For example, not long after he became First Minister, John Swinney said that independence would be necessary if Scotland is to become “a fairer, more equal country”. Those in favour of independence also argue that that circumstances have changed since the 2014 independence referendum, and that promises made haven’t kept, such as Scotland being “dragged out of the European Union”, according to the SNP. Those who support Scotland remaining in the UK counter these views by saying that public services in Scotland have declined in recent years, showing that using current powers should be the focus for some politicians, not independence. Those who are pro-union also argue that changing circumstances is normal, and that the referendum on 'Brexit' was a UK-wide vote, not just a Scottish one.

What is devolution? What are the arguments for and against devolution in the UK?

Devolution was a key plank of New Labour's 1997 UK general election manifesto. New Labour won the 1997 UK election in a landslide, including winning 56 seats in Scotland, out 74. Following through on their election pledge, the New Labour UK government held a referendum on 11th September 1997. That vote asked people whether they agreed there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether it should have tax-varying powers. People voted Yes to both questions and what followed was the Scotland Bill – later to become the Scotland Act, once Royal Assent was given.

The 1998 Scotland Act created the Scottish Parliament and set out the rules for how the Parliament would work – including elections of MSPs as well as powers. Under the Act, some powers were ‘devolved’, meaning given to the Scottish Parliament while others kept ‘reserved’ to London, meaning the UK Parliament kept control over those areas. Some devolved powers include: health and social work, education and training, local government and housing, justice and policing, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the environment, tourism, sport and heritage, and economic development and internal transport. One of the arguments in favour of devolution is that these devolved areas provide for Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.

Supporters of devolution believe it has allowed for Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, rather than UK parliamentarians offering solutions from London. For instance, since the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Holyrood has passed laws to abolish tuition fees (2001), ban smoking in public places (2006), legalise same sex marriage (2014), abolish the right to buy council homes (2014), force school buses to have seatbelts (2017), ensure that 50% of people on public bodies’ boards are women (2018), and increase the age of criminal responsibility to 12 (2019).

Another argument in favour of devolution is that devolution is also flexible and can be adapted as needs be, helping the relevant government (be it Scottish or UK) make the right decision(s), at the right time. For instance, the Scotland Act 2012 was the first legislation to add more powers to the Scottish Parliament. This Act handed down measures such as the drink drive limit, which the Scottish Parliament lowered to 22 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of breath. Then, the Scotland Act 2016 devolved some aspects of social security, income tax and abortion law. The Scottish Government has used this to alter tax bands and establish new Social Security benefits.

However, some people argue that devolution is a process, not an event. These people often believe that the "ultimate goal" of devolution should be Scotland separating from the UK to become its own independent country. For instance, according to the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament is responsible for around 40% of Scotland’s taxes, and around 60% of Scottish public spending. As a consequence, supporters of independence believe a separate Scotland, controlling all of Scotland’s tax and spending, could make better decisions - these people often view devolution as a process towards separation from the UK, and often argue that devolution still constrains the influence of Scotland within the UK. For example, in September 2024, First Minister John Swinney said that independence could be the "solution to the day-to-day challenges faced by Scotland.

What is federalism? What are the arguments for and against federalism in the UK?

Federalism would be considered by some proponents to be devolution max, or 'devo max', in effect giving Scotland as much control over public policy as possible within the UK. While there is no clear and single proposal for federalism, the key plank of federalism is decentralisation. With a federal UK, the different countries of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), or even regions of these countries, could control significant aspects of public policy, leaving a London based national government to effectively govern over 'bigger' issues, such as national defence. While it would be novel to the UK, federalism is not uncommon around the world.

For instance, the tenth amendment to the US Constitution states that every power not granted to the federal government under the constitution is delegated to state governments. Germany has a similar arrangement, with its lander governments effectively allowing different regions of Germany to control most of the public agenda day-to-day. This control over much of day-to-day policy is often termed 'home rule', because many of the decisions affecting people are taken by people much closer to home.

When it comes to federalism within the UK, and more specifically for Scotland, supporters often cite public opinion as a reason why federalism could, and should, be delivered. Opinion polling has previously shown clear majorities of Scottish voters back further federalism. However, opponents of federalism point to other polling, such as specifically on federalism, which shows limited support. Those against federalism also argue that it could be a stepping stone towards the destruction of the UK, and that the current arrangement of devolution offers Scotland the "best of both worlds", with control over devolved areas within the economic and political security of the UK.

What is independence? What are the arguments for and against Scotland separating from the UK?

Independence would see Scotland politically separate from the United Kingdom. As opposed the current arrangement of devolution, independence would see a Scottish Government control all aspects of public policy, rather than just devolved areas, as it is at present, where the UK Government has control over reserved matters, and can even over-rule Scottish Government decisions in certain areas of policy. The political divisions between the Scottish and UK governments is one reason some people argue for Scotland to be independent. 

Some campaigners point to the election of Conservative governments at the UK level as a reason for independence. For instance, the SNP once tweeted about Liz Truss that, "Scotland hasn't voted Tory since 1955, and Liz Truss is the ninth Tory Prime Minister without a mandate in Scotland." They who support this argument contend that an independent Scotland, separate from the UK, would always get the governments the people of Scotland elect, and therefore decisions would reflect the wishes of the people of Scotland. However, the 2024 UK General Election results weakens this argument in the eyes of people who are anti-independence or pro-union. The 2024 UK General Election resulted in a Labour landslide, with the Labour party winning 37 of Scotland’s seats. This is in contrast to the SNP (the largest Scottish party which supports independence), who lost 39 of their seats, winning just 9 out of 57 across Scotland. At the same time, opponents of independence point to stalling or falling support for a second referendum on Scottish independence (the first vote having been held on 18th September 2014), and argue that the Scottish Government should focus on delivering for Scotland using the powers currently afforded to them via devolution. However, devolution is another reason some support independence.

Some argue that devolution merely limits what Scotland can do. Supporters of independence argue that devolution shows Scotland can control its own affairs, but that devolution limits the aspirations of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, given that the Scotland Acts of 1998, 2012, and 2016 only name certain areas as devolved, meaning the Scottish Government controls these public policy areas, and the Scottish Parliament can pass legislation related to them. Those who advocate for independence believe that  separate Scotland, with control over all affairs related to Scotland, would mean a different Scotland could be created - one that’s more equal and fairer. For example, not long after he became First Minister, John Swinney said that independence would be necessary if Scotland is to become “a fairer, more equal country”. Those in favour of independence also argue that that circumstances have changed since the 2014 independence referendum, and that promises made haven’t kept, such as Scotland being “dragged out of the European Union”, according to the SNP. Those who support Scotland remaining in the UK counter these views by saying that public services in Scotland have declined in recent years, showing that using current powers should be the focus for some politicians, not independence. Those who are pro-union also argue that changing circumstances is normal, and that the referendum on 'Brexit' was a UK-wide vote, not just a Scottish one.

What does the phrase "best of both worlds" mean politically, in Scotland?

The phrase, "best of both worlds", relates to Scotland's position within the UK. Why the phrase can be traced to a variety origins, it's main use was a speech by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, in February 2013. In that speech, Cameron said, "Scotland within the UK has a system of government that offers the best of both worlds." His argument, being an opponent of Scottish independence and a supporter of the UK union, was that independence would be a risk. Cameron's argument, ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, was that devolution offered Scotland control over significant areas of public policy, within the economic security of the larger United Kingdom. The phrase would become a common use among those advocating for a 'No' vote in the 2014 referendum.

Effectiveness of parliamentary representatives in holding government to account

• Read through Mr Campbell's course PowerPoint presentation for this heading.

How effective are parliamentary representatives in the UK at holding the government to account?

There are various ways politicians in the UK Parliament can scrutinise the UK government and hold them to account. Some such methods include: Question Time, debates and divisions, Urgent Questions, and Select Committees.

Question Time is an opportunity for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to question government ministers about matters for which they are responsible. These questions are asked at the start of business in both chambers and are known as 'oral questions', with the most notable example being Prime Minister's Question Time – often shortened to PMQs.

Debates occur when an MP or Member of the House of Lords puts forward a proposal for debate by moving a motion which is read out as a question before the chamber, thereby starting a debate. When the debate has ended, the Chair asks the question again and a decision is made, which may be through a vote (division). During a division, members of both Houses register their vote for or against issues by physically going into two different areas either side of their debating chambers. This is known as 'dividing the House', while the areas concerned are 'division lobbies'.

Urgent Questions allow MPs to apply to the Speaker to put a question to a Government Minister that same day. The Speaker's decision doesn't need explained, and if the Speaker accepts an Urgent Question, the relevant Government Minister has to come to the Chamber to explain what the Government is doing on the issue raised that day.

Select committees are largely concerned with examining the work of government departments and continue working throughout a whole parliament. There is a Commons select committee for each government department, examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration. These departmental committees have up to 11 members, who decide upon the line of inquiry and then gather written and oral evidence. The outcomes of these inquiries are public and many require a response from the government.

To what extent are Oral Questions in the UK Parliament effective at holding the government accountable?

Question Time is an opportunity for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to question government ministers about matters for which they are responsible. These questions are asked at the start of business in both chambers and are known as 'oral questions'.

In the House of Commons, Question Time (when oral questions happen) takes place for an hour, Monday to Thursday, after preliminary proceedings and private business. Each government department answers questions according to a rota called the Order of Oral Questions. The questions asked must relate to the responsibilities of the government department concerned.

Commons oral questions are tabled by MPs at least three days in advance of the Question Time the relevant government department is due to answer. The order in which the questions are asked is determined by the ‘shuffle', carried out randomly by a computer. On the day the questions are due to be asked they are printed in ‘Business Today' in the Order Paper.

MPs who are called by the Speaker to ask their question do not read it out, but simply call out its number. When the government minister has replied, the MP can ask one further question, known as a supplementary. Other MPs may also be called to ask supplementary questions at the discretion of the Speaker. The Minister must reply to each in turn. Supplementary questions must be on the same subject as the original question.

The most notable example of oral questions in the House of Commons is Prime Minister's Question Time – often shortened to PMQs. PMQs occurs every Wednesday the House of Commons is sitting between 12pm and 12.30pm.The session normally starts with a routine question from an MP about the Prime Minister's engagements. This is known as an 'open question' and means that the MP can then ask a supplementary question on any subject. The Speaker decides who speaks in the chamber, and when, jumping between MPs who've won a question in the computer ballot with 'bobbers' (MPs who stand and sit to catch the eye of the Speaker).

It could be argued that is effective because PMQs is the most watched part of the parliamentary week, meaning that errors and mistakes can be politically damaging, giving MPs a key opportunity to scrutinise the government and hold them accountable. For example, PMQs is often live streamed on various UK TV channels, radio stations, and online streaming websites. Clips of interactions at PMQs often circulate social media afterwards, and can dominate news coverage for the rest of the day, if not longer. Given the media attention, PMQs can lead the agenda in the media, shaming or forcing the government into action, meaning MPs have a good chance to hold the government to account.

However, PMQs is seen by some as a chance for politicians to have a slagging match, with little in the way of substance achieved, bar politicians trying to get ‘soundbites’ out. Therefore, some see PMQs as an ineffective method for MPs to scrutiny the government and hold them accountable. Another reason for PMQs being ineffective is arguably due to Whips (people in charge of discipline in their party). The government party’s Whips will send their party’s MPs suggested favourable questions to try and ask their PM. These favoured questions simply waste time and don’t scrutinise the government.

To what extent are debates and divisions in the UK Parliament effective at holding the government accountable?

A debate in the House of Commons or House of Lords is a formal discussion of a particular proposal. MPs or Members of the House of Lords take it in turns to speak. The way in which debates are conducted follows a number of rules and conventions.

To start a debate, an MP or Member of the House of Lords puts forward a proposal for debate by moving a motion. A motion can be substantive such as “I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time” or it could be general and expressed in neutral terms such as ‘That this House has considered investment in cycling' The Chair then puts the question to the House, which repeats the terms of the motion, for example 'The question is, that the Bill be now read a second time'. The question is then debated, with MPs or Peers taking it in turns to speak on the subject concerned.

When the debate has ended the Chair asks the question again and a decision is made, which may be through a vote (division). During a division, members of both Houses register their vote for or against issues by physically going into two different areas either side of their debating chambers. This is known as 'dividing the House', while the areas concerned are 'division lobbies'.

These lobbies are called the Aye and No lobbies in the Commons and the Contents and Not Contents lobbies in the Lords. MPs and Lords record their vote by tapping their pass against one of several pass readers installed in the lobbies. In the Commons, the two tellers in each lobby record the numbers of MPs voting as they pass through - the number counted by the tellers is the definitive result of the division. Immediately after a division, the Speaker (Commons) or the Lord Speaker (Lords) announces the result of the division. The whole process takes about fifteen minutes.

Divisions can take place at almost any time that the House is sitting. Divisions usually happen at the regular 'moment of interruption' of the main business of the House of Commons, which is 10pm on Mondays, 7pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 5pm on Thursdays and 2.30pm on Fridays; but divisions can and do take place later - or earlier - than these times.

To notify Members that a division is taking place, division bells located throughout the Parliamentary estate and surrounding premises ring and TV screens with a specialised feed (called the 'annunciator service') display that a division is taking place. When the division bells ring Members have eight minutes to vote before the doors to the division lobbies are locked.

Debates and divisions could be an effective method for politicians to hold government to account because many MPs use debates in the Commons to represent the views of their constituents on matters, while Peers (who're appointed for life and don't face election) are able to use their professional expertise to participate during debates and vote according to their knowledge and understanding of the matter at hand.

However, the effectiveness of debates and divisions is limited, in the House of Commons in particular, by the fact that MPs tend to vote in line with their party policy, limiting independent scrutiny - this is due to Whips. Whips work to ensure their party’s MPs vote in line with party policy, and when it comes to divisions, Whips will either issue a one line or three line whip on divisions. Failing to follow ‘the Whip’ on three lines votes means an MP may have the Whip removed, meaning they are longer an MP for their party) and could be deselected, i.e. not able to run as a candidate for the party in future elections. The power of Whips, coupled with the fear of deselection and of being overlooked for future promotions due to rebellion can make MPs less likely to vote against their government or make critical speeches in debates.

To what extent are Urgent Questions in the UK Parliament effective at holding the government accountable?

If an urgent or important matter arises which an MP believes requires a quick answer from a government minister, they may apply to ask an urgent question. MPs may request that the Speaker considers their application for an Urgent Question each day. Applications for urgent questions must be submitted to the Speaker to receive an oral answer later that day, with the deadline for applications set at 11.30am on Mondays, 10am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 8.15am on Thursdays, and 8.30am on Fridays.

Urgent questions could be seen as an effective way to hold the government to account, because if the Speaker accepts an Urgent Question, the relevant Government Minister has to come to the Chamber to explain what the Government is doing on the issue raised that day. The Speaker does not have to explain decisions behind granting an Urgent Question or not.

The Minister who attends will answer the urgent question and would then usually take questions on the subject from MPs. The Department is also asked to provide a background briefing on the issue for the Speaker and declare any relevant interests. Given the lack of notice that an urgent question has been granted, government is effectively on the spot, with little time to prepare, meaning urgent questions is often more substantive - and less about soundbites - as other events, such as Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs).

However, urgent questions could be seen as a questionable way for politicians to hold the government to account. This is because while an urgent question can compel a Government Minister to attend the House of Commons, a particular individual cannot be compelled to attend. This has led to junior Ministers being sent to answer Urgent Questions when Cabinet Secretaries would have been better equipped. As a consequence, key government officials are effectively able to send surrogates in their place, and arguably avoid scrutiny as a result.

To what extent are Select Committees in the UK Parliament effective at holding the government accountable?

House of Commons select committees are largely concerned with examining the work of government departments and continue working throughout a whole parliament. There is a Commons select committee for each government department, examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration. These departmental committees have up to 11 members, who decide upon the line of inquiry and then gather written and oral evidence.

The outcomes of these inquiries are public and many require a response from the government, with the findings reported to the Commons, printed, and published on the Parliament website. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee's recommendations. Select committees also carry out their work through correspondence, by engaging with the public through events and surveys, holding round-table discussions and undertaking visits.

Select Committees can be seen as an effective means for MPs to scrutinise the UK government because long-serving Select Committee members can gain more knowledge of a particular policy area than government ministers, who are in post for an average of 2.1 years. Select Committees also commit evidence-based, in-depth inquiries, with the power to gather written and oral evidence and to summon witnesses and appoint specialist advisers to assist them in their work - at the end of which they produce a report with recommendations, to which the government is expected to respond within 2 months.

However, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons say that the distribution of Select Committee chairs must reflect the composition of the House. This means that the governing party will have significant influence over Select Committees. Another limitation is that while Select Committees can call witnesses, they cannot compel the Crown or members of the Commons and Lords to attend and answer questions. The exemption for the Crown is significant because it includes ministers. For example, the Liaison Committee can request, but not compel, the Prime Minister to appear before it.

Strengths and weaknesses of different electoral systems used in elections within the UK

• Read through Mr Campbell's course PowerPoint presentation for this heading.

What is First Past The Post (FPTP)? Is it good at providing fair representation and choice?

First Past The Post (FPTP) is a majoritarian system used to elect the 650 MPs in the House of Commons and the 73 constituency MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. The name of the system derives from horse racing, as it is the candidate with the most votes who wins their constituency, i.e. the first candidate past the winning post.

Given that these politicians represent a constituency, it could be argued that FPTP provides for fair representation. This is because FPTP delivers strong and stable majority governments, such as Labour winning a 174-seat majority in the 2024 UK general election. Furthermore, FPTP means there is a strong link between constituents and their representatives. For example, under 2023 UK parliament boundary changes, each MP represents between 69,724 and 77,062 voters - people MPs need to keep on seat if they hope to retain their seat in the next election. 

However, while FPTP can provide fair representation on a constituency level, it could be said to be ineffective at providing for fair representation nationally. For example, in the 2024 UK General Election, Labour got 33.7% of the vote and 63.2% of seats in the House of Commons. This means that most voters didn't back Labour, yet the country has a Labour government with a significant majority of seats and therefore significant power over the Commons.

When it comes to voter choice, FPTP is limited. When voters elect an MP or MSP under FPTP, they simply put an 'X' next to their one preferred candidate on their ballot paper. This means voters only have one vote, an given that candidates can win a constituency with a plurality of votes, and not a majority, it could be said that many votes are simply wasted, with voters given poor choice and influence.

What is the Additional Member System (AMS)? Is it good at providing fair representation and choice?

The Additional Member System (AMS) is a proportional voting system which is used to elect the 56 regional MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. These regional MSPs represent one of the eight regions of Scotland. Each of these regions have 7 regional MSPs.

When it comes to voting in Scottish Parliament elections, voters are given two ballot papers. One ballot paper is for their constituency. On this ballot paper, voters put an X next to their preferred candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins the constituency - this system is called First Past The Post (FPTP). The second ballot paper uses AMS.

On the second ballot paper in Scottish Parliament elections, voters vote by putting an X next to their preferred political party. The votes each party receives in each of the 8 regions are counted, with the 7 regional seats in each of the 8 regions assigned to political parties using the D’Hondt method.

D’Hondt is essentially a calculation which works in 7 rounds, in order to fill each of the 7 seats each political region has. The calculation is as follows: Number of votes party won in a region ÷ (Number of seats already won + 1)​. The party with the most votes won at the end of this calculation wins a regional seat, with the rounds continuing until all 7 regional seats are assigned.

When the D'Hondt calculation is completed, it is up to the political parties to fill the seats they've been allocated. They do so by choosing people off of their party lists. These lists are often voted on by political party members.

Given that political parties fill the allocated seats from their party lists, some argue that AMS doesn't provide for fair choice or representation. This is because these lists are voted on by members of political parties, with voters merely putting an X next to a political party on their regional ballot paper in Scottish Parliament election. This then feeds into the argument that AMS is not fair for representation, given that regional MSPs do not have a personal mandate, given that their name was not on the ballot paper, and they were instead chosen to fill a seat by their political party.

However, other people argue that AMS does provide for fair choice and representation. For instance, as a consequence of the D'Hondt calculation, the more constituencies a political party wins, the less chance they have to win regional seats. This allows for smaller parties, such as the Scottish Greens, to be elected to the Scottish Parliament, allowing for fairer representation of a greater range of political opinions and viewpoints. AMS is also arguably more proportional than other systems, such as FPTP. For instance, the SNP won around 45% of all votes in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election and won 49% of the seats. If the Scottish Parliament only had constituency MSPs, the SNP would have won 85% of seats (62 out of 73) on 47.7% of the vote.

What is Single Transferable Vote (STV)? Is it good at providing fair representation and choice?

Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportional system which is used to 1,227 Councillors across Scotland's 32 local authorities ('councils'). These Councillors represent small ‘Wards’ (hundreds of people) on the local council, with these wards being multi-members, i.e. having at least a couple of Councillors. 

When it comes to how the election works, candidates appear on the ballot paper ordered by their surname, alongside their party name, logo, and personal address. Voters ‘rank’ candidates from 1 upwards, numbering as many candidates at they would like. For this reason, some argue that STV provides voters with significant voter choice, given that they don't just have one vote, such as under First Past The Post (FPTP) or the Additional Member System (AMS).

With the votes cast, comes the count, which is where some people argue STV provides for fair representation. To win a seat on a local council in Scotland under STV, a candidate needs to be meet a quota. The quota is worked out as: Number of votes cast / (seats to be elected + 1) + 1, with the votes counted in stages, in as many stages as necessary to fill the council vacancies in every ward.

In the first round, only first preference votes are counted, i.e. those candidates who were ranked as number 1 on the ballot paper by voters. In subsequent stages, remaining votes are transferred to see which candidate next achieves the quota. The candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated at each stage. Given that votes are transferred in accordance with voter rankings, it could be argued that STV provides fair representation. This is because more peoples' votes are included in the counting, compared to FPTP.

Another argument for STV being good for representation is that STV is proportional, meaning party's percentage of votes generally translates into a similar percentage of seats. For example, in May 2022’s Scottish council elections, the SNP won 34.1% of first preference votes and 37% of seats. Furthermore, unlike FPTP, STV leads to less wasted votes. For example, in May 2022, rejection rates were low (1.85%) nationwide.

However, some counter the argument that STV provides for fair representation because STV usually means that parties need to work together to agree to power sharing or coalitions. Given that STV is proportional, local council elections in Scotland often result in no one party controlling councils. This encourages parties to seek to form coalitions, where two or more parties agree to govern together. However, coalitions can mean voters’ preferences are ignored, such as by smaller parties teaming together to lock the bigger parties out of office.

What are the different types of electoral systems used in Scotland and the UK?

Electoral systems tend to fall into one of two types: majoritarian or proportional. Majoritarian systems aim to create a decisive win, usually for one political party, while proportional systems tend to create coalition or co-operation, with the percentage of a party's vote usually closely aligning with the number of constituencies/ elected officials/ seats they win.

First Past The Post (FPTP) is a prime example of  a majoritarian system. FPTP is used to elect the 650 MPs in the House of Commons and the 73 constituency MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. The name of the system derives from horse racing, as it is the candidate with the most votes who wins their constituency, i.e. the first candidate past the winning post.

When it comes to proportional systems, there are two to consider in Scotland. The Additional Member System (AMS) is a proportional voting system which is used to elect the 56 regional MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. These regional MSPs represent one of the eight regions of Scotland. Each of these regions have 7 regional MSPs. Then, there's Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV is a proportional system which is used to 1,227 Councillors across Scotland's 32 local authorities ('councils'). These Councillors represent small ‘Wards’ (hundreds of people) on the local council, with these wards being multi-members, i.e. having at least a couple of Councillors.

Factors which influence voting behaviour including class, age and media

• Read through Mr Campbell's course PowerPoint presentation for this heading.

What were the results of the 2024 UK General Election?

The 2024 UK General Election was held on 4th July 2024. As part of the election, all 650 constituencies in the House of Commons were up for election. Those aged 18 and over could vote, assuming they brought valid photographic ID to their polling station. When people voted, they put a cross next to their preferred candidate, with the candidate who received the most votes winning that constituency. The party which wins the most constituencies is typically invited by the Monarch to form the UK Government. In 2024, Labour won a landslide victory, winning 412 seats, giving them a majority of 174. Meanwhile, the election was the worst Conservative result in terms of seats in history, with the party on 121 seats. The Liberal Democrats won their highest number of seats since 1923, taking 72. The SNP have nine seats – their worst election since 2010. Meanwhile, Reform UK have five and Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have four each. However, the results of the election left a bad taste in some peoples' minds, with the Labour party winning around 63% of the seats in the House of Commons on just 33.7% - the most unproportional General Election result since the Second World War. At the same time, only around 60% of people registered to vote actually did so - down around 7.5% on the 2019 UK General Election.

To what extent does age explain voting behaviour in the UK?

Age is one way to explain how people vote. Ordinarily, older people are more likely to vote conservatively because the right tends to have policies which favour their interests, such as low tax, higher pensions, lower inheritance tax, etc. Meanwhile, the opposite is true of young people – the left tends to have policies which appeal more to young voters, such as higher spending on public services, meaning young people tend to vote for left-leaning parties in elections. For example, according to YouGov, 41% of 18-24 year olds voted Labour in the 2024 UK General Election, only 8% voted Conservative. However, as people age, their economic situation generally improves, with them often earning increasingly more money, growing their savings, owning property, and looking ahead to maintain their wealth, meaning that they would traditionally be pushed more conservative over their lifetime. Therefore, their class changes over time, meaning class could be seen as a better, more relevant, way of explaining voting behaviour. For example, according to Ipsos MORI, while just 5% of 18–24-year-olds voted Conservative in 2024, that figure was 43% among voters aged 65 and over.

To what extent does class explain voting behaviour in the UK?

Class is the traditional lens through which voting behaviour in the UK is often explained.In the UK, the traditional view of class-based voting behaviour is that those in the upper classes (AB) and upper middle class (C1) tend to vote for more conservative parties. This is seen as a consequence of the policies more conservative parties tend to offer, such as lower taxation, as well as home and land ownership incentives – all of which appeal to more affluent voters. Meanwhile those in the lower middle class (C2) and working classes (DE) were traditionally seen as more likely to vote for left-leaning parties, and the Labour Party in particular. This is seen as a consequence of the Labour Party’s roots and close ties with the trade union movement, as well as the party’s policies such as social security, which tends to benefit those from more deprived backgrounds. For example, according to YouGov, 33% of British voters in the lower middle and working classes (C2DE) voted Labour in the 2024 UK General Election, compared to 23% voting Conservative. However, given that the upper classes were more likely to vote for the Labour Party in the 2024 UK General Election (36% of ABC1 voters backed Labour, while just 33% of C2DE voters did) – a reversal of the traditional stereotype that the lower classes vote Labour – it could be argued that issues are the main factor influencing how people vote. For instance, Ipsos MORI's Issues Index in June 2024 found that while the main concern for ABC1 voters was healthcare (typically a left-wing cause), the top issue among C2DE voters was immigration (typically a right-wing cause).

To what extent do issues and issue-based voting explain voting behaviour in the UK?

The theory of issue-based voting behaviour argues that voters will decide who to back in an election based on the issue(s) they care about most. Voters will look at the policies offered by parties on the issue(s) they care about, and vote depending on which party will best address those issues. For example, according to polling by YouGov, 45% of voters named the cost of living as of the most important issues in deciding how they would vote in the 2024 UK General Election. Health was second on 34%, with the economy third on 32%. In the 2024 UK General Election, the Israel-Gaza conflict was also another issue on the minds of some voters. The conflict led to some independent candidates seeking election on anti-war platform. According to BBC News, Labour lost five seats in the 2024 UK General Election with large Muslim populations, with Labour's shadow minister Jonathan Ashworth even losing his Leicester South seat, which he previously won with a majority of more than 22,000. However, the issues people care about often depend on their age bracket, as peoples’ needs and aspirations change over time. Therefore, it could be argued that age is a more influential factor in influencing how people vote. For example, polling by YouGov ahead of the 2024 UK General Election found that the cost of living was the top issue in the election for 18-24 year olds, while immigration was the top issue for voted aged 65 and over.

To what extent does media explain voting behaviour in the UK?

The media highlights important issues, with journalists expected to ask politicians difficult questions in order to establish their policies and hold them accountable for their decisions. When it comes to TV political news, this must – by law – be neutral, while parties are also able to book slots for Party Election Broadcasts in TV at certain times of the day, usually after the evening news programmes. As a consequence of PEBs and TV news, politicians have an opportunity to appeal directly to voters and get their messages across quickly. The same can be said of TV election debates, which the UK has had since the 2010 UK General Election. In the 2024 UK election, ITV’s head-to-head TV election debate between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer attracted 4.8 million viewers. As a consequence of TV debates, politicians have a chance to appeal directly to voters and get their message(s) across. They also have a chance to present themselves, and demonstrate both why they’re fit for office, but also in touch with the voters. For instance, YouGov polling after ITV’s head-to-head between Starmer and Sunak found 51% of voters felt Starmer performed best on the cost of living – a key issue of the election campaign. Aside from TV, there are also newspapers. Unlike TV news, newspapers are allowed to back political parties, and can publish editorials to encourage their readers to vote a certain way. For example, f the 12 UK national daily newspapers, Labour secured the endorsement of five (Daily Mirror, FT, Guardian, Independent, and The Sun) in the 2024 UK General Election, while the Conservatives were backed by 3 (the Daily Express, Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph). However, The influence of the media is limited as voters are arguably tuning out. For instance, the 2019 UK General Election TV debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn had 7 million viewers - far more than the 2024 ITV debate. Meanwhile, the type of media voters access seems to depend on their age, suggesting age is a more significant influence on voting behaviour. For example, according to YouGov's ‘How Britons get their news’ survey from June 2024, 72% of 18-24 year olds were getting election news from social media, while 74% of voters aged 65+ got their election news from TV.

Ways in which citizens can influence government decision-making, including pressure groups

• Read through Mr Campbell's course PowerPoint presentation for this heading.

How influential is protesting as a means for UK citizens to influence decision making?

Protesting is one way people can seek to influence government decision making and politicians. Protests involve people taking to the streets in order to call for government action on an issue they care about. In law, protesting is a “qualified” right, meaning that government can put restrictions on it, in certain circumstances. Those organising a demonstration should seek to inform the police and gain permission for particular routes (e.g. roads) to be closed. In the UK, the largest protest was in 2003 when around 750,000 people protested against the invasion of Iraq, although Just Stop Oil's actions throughout 2022 offer a more recent example. During their activities, the group's activities held a number of protest, such as on 14th October when two protesters threw tomato soup at a Vincent van Gogh painting in the National Gallery and in November when protesters closed the M25. As a consequence of these protests, Just Stop Oil's activities and cause were widely promoted given that they grabbed the media’s attention - this led to more people becoming aware of the organisation and its aims. However, protests can be a poor way for people to influence government and politicians, given that protests are a "qualified" right. This means politicians can ignore protesters and potentially even make protesting harder. For example, the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 in the UK Parliament means that some protesters can face up to 10 years in prison. As a consequence, people might be put off from organising protests, therefore limiting their ability to influence government decision making.

How influential is petitioning as a means for UK citizens to influence decision making?

Petitioning the UK Parliament is a way Britons can seek to influence politicians and the government. In 2015, the UK Parliament and UK Government launched an e-petition website. As a consequence, petitioning parliament and government are easier than ever, giving Britons the chance to have a greater influence over decision making. To begin the e-petition process, British citizens will submit a petition and get the support of 5 people. The petition is then reviewed, and if it meets the criteria and standards, it is published online for the public to sign. The Petitions Committee of the House of Commons reviews all petitions published. Petitions with 10,000 signatures on UK Parliament site receive a government response. At 100,000, it’s considered for a parliamentary debate. For example, during the 2017-2019 UK Parliament, 456 e-petitions received a UK Government response with 73 debated in the Commons. However, despite being a quick means of campaigning, petitions have limited impact on decision making. This is because they can simply be ignored. For example, at the start of January 2022, over 35,000 petitions had been submitted via the UK Parliament website. However, over 28,000 over these were rejected. Furthermore, the most signed UK Parliament e-petition was to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU, with 6.1 million signatures. While this was debated in parliament in April 2019, the government went ahead with Brexit, showing that petitioning the UK Parliament can have limited influence over government decision making.

How influential are recall petitions as a means for UK citizens to influence decision making?

Recall petitions give voters a chance to remove their constituency's Member of Parliament (MP), and force a by-election. Recall petitions were introduced in 2015, following the MPs' expenses scandal, when mis-trust of politicians and anger at corruption were notable voters.  Under the procedure, a by-election can be triggered if 10% of eligible voters in a constituency sign a recall petition which remains open for six weeks. MPs can face a recall if they are convicted of an offence, suspended from their job by the Committee on Standards, or convicted of making a false or misleading expenses claim. For example, in June 2019, Conservative MP Chris Davies lost a recall by-election, after being convicted of making a false expenses claim. He was the second MP to be unseated by a recall petition. As a consequence, recall petitions can offer voters influence over politicians, given that they can effectively fire their MP in-between general elections. However, recall petitions can be seen as a limited way for people to influence decision making. This is because MPs who have been recalled can stand in the by-election triggered anyway. As a consequence of losing a recall petition, a by-election is called. However, the MP who was removed by the recall petition can stand in the by-election, meaning that voters' wishes are effectively ignored, limiting their influence.

How influential are pressure groups as a means for UK citizens to influence decision making?

Pressure groups are organisations that wish to influence political decision making on a specific matter/ topic. People are able to join, donate to, and/or campaign for these organisations. Where pressure groups have the support of government, they are referred to as 'insider groups'. Given that insider groups already have the support of government and might work with them regularly, it can be said that insider groups are more likely to be successful and influential. One example is the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) which campaigns on behalf of the 190,000 businesses which are CBI members. As a consequence of their insider status, CBI lobbying led the UK Government to cut business rates by £2.4 billion, in 2019. The same year, CBI lobbying led the Scottish Government to scrap plans for introducing business rates levy on out-of-town businesses. Further evidence of the CBI's influence is the CBI Annual Conference. Held annually, the conference is usually addressed by key British politicians, including a keynote speech by the UK Prime Minister. However, if a pressure group has little support, funding, or backing of politicians, it is less likely to be successful. Such organisations are referred to as 'outsider groups'. Outsider groups tend to adopt tactics that gain it media publicity in order to further their cause, given that they don't have the support of government or discrete influence behind the scenes. Insulate Britain is a good example of an outsider group whose direct actions (protests and disruption) fails to achieve their goals. For example, between 2021 and 2022, Insulate Britain organised a series of protesting, including 62 protesters blocking roads around the UK Parliament on 4th November 2022. However, Insulate Britain has stated on their website that, “We have failed” and there has been no action(s) by them since November 2022.

How influential are trade unions as a means for UK citizens to influence decision making?

Trade unions are organisations which attempt to improve the pay and working conditions for their members, who pay a subscription in relation to their salary. Trade unions try to influence government by engaging in negotiations with employers and government before consulting with their members. Around 6.2 million people in the UK trade union members. Trade unions can also represent members at employment court (called a ‘tribunal’), while the ultimate sanction of a trade union is industrial action whereby workers refuse to work, but they can also organise workers to ‘go slow’  and ‘work to rule’. The mere threat of a strike can been impactful. For example, a 5-day strike threat by UNISON in October 2021 won an improved pay offer for Scottish council workers such as school cleaners, caterers and janitors. However, the Trade Union Act requires that a 50% turnout in trade union ballots, in which 40% of members back a strike, is needed before strike action can go ahead. As a consequence, strikes are harder to organise, given the strict legislation which is in place. This therefore limits the influence trade unions can have, as their threats of industrial action are harder to realise.