If Team Yes win the vote next year, amongst the governance changes required will be an expansion of the number of MSPs, primarily because we’ll need to staff more ministries and more Committees. Consider Westminster, bloated as its offices may be.
Starting with ministers, this page lists around 100 of them, and that’s just counting the Commons. The largest Holyrood grouping seen so far was just 73, the 1999-2003 Lab/LD coalition, down to 72 when Steel became PO. They couldn’t all be Ministers, not just because some of them weren’t up to it.
Now clearly there’s more to manage when you run an administration covering 63m people (with varying levels of devolution) compared to one which would the sole national administration for just over 5m people. But we’d need Ministers to cover pensions, social security, foreign affairs, defence, and a host of other junior Ministers too.
The same applies to Committees – currently there are 14 regular ones at Holyrood, plus a few on pieces of private legislation, plus welfare reform and one for the Referendum Bill. We’d need a permanent committee for the areas mentioned above, and there just aren’t enough MSPs to go round. Almost every MSP who’s not a Minister (or the PO, or Margo, or Johann Lamont, or Ruth Davidson) is on a Committee, sometimes two, sometimes three.
So what’s normal for an independent European country of our size? To pick the four such countries who have a population between five and six million, we find the following:
Bear in mind also that we’ll be celebrating the departure of 59 MPs who represent Scottish constituencies, plus a proportion of the 781 members of the House of Lords, however calculated. 65 would be our pro-rata share of the hereditaries and the bishops and those installed through patronage. So a Holyrood seating anything up to about 250 would be a net reduction in the number of parliamentarians representing Scotland. Oh, and we’d get more MEPs – to be honest, a greater proportional influence in the EU sounds more useful than about 95% of the peers I’ve ever taken notice of.
But 250 is excessive. Somewhere between 150 and 200 would make sense and fit that European pattern. I’m going to plump for 200 and y’all can haggle me down if need be.
So how would we elect them? The path of least resistance would be to expand the existing AMS system. Increasing both halves of the equation proportionally would give us about 113 constituencies and about 87 regional members. That’d be easiest done as regional lists of 10 rather than 7. Right now each constituency MSP represents just over 70,000 people on average (remembering that Orkney and Shetland have an MSP each, each representing around 20,000 people). Under this change each constituency MSP would represent about 47,000 people. Seems okay.
Another option would be to elect a second chamber by some other method – perhaps a national list or similar. And find somewhere else to house them (for a smaller chamber of, say, 71, the old Royal High would actually work). This is architecturally easier than expanding Holyrood, although I enjoyed being press officer for the building process and am ready to do it again if need be.
But if we’re going to do this thing, why not do it properly? Let’s get rid of the damn lists altogether, which were a compromise of their time between Labour and the Lib Dems, end the division between constituency and regional MSPs, and elect every last one of them fairly. STV works for Scottish local elections, it ends the kind of games which AMS encourages, and it allows the public to express more sophisticated preferences if they wish. Voters are already used to it, and it would reduce the number of electoral systems in play, making voter education an easier task.
The obvious way to do that (again, with tweaks for the islands in particular) would be to break each of the eight regions into five mini-regions, and elect five MSPs for each mini-region. People would complain that the constituency link would be lost, no doubt – they always do – but mini-regions like that would actually only be about twice the size of existing constituencies, and people living in each one would have five much more local representatives to talk to when they need help. Consider also the role of the Highlands and Islands list MSP just now. They represent an area the size of Belgium (as Eleanor Scott always reminded us), stretching from the most northerly point in Shetland to the southern tip of the Mull of Kintyre, a point further south than the whole of the central belt.
But I’m afraid it’s unavoidable: we’re going to need to do some building work to accommodate them all. I’m sure that’ll go more smoothly this time.
Update: By coincidence, Professor Paul Cairney wrote about this too, yesterday.
Pingback: If the Vote is Yes: What Will Be the Size of the Scottish Parliament? | Paul Cairney: Politics and Policy
#1 by @cairneypaul on November 12, 2013 - 11:11 am
It will stay at 129 though, eh? http://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/if-the-vote-is-yes-what-would-be-the-size-of-the-scottish-parliament/
#2 by James on November 12, 2013 - 11:16 am
I’m pretty sure what Nicola says goes, at least when it comes to choosing hashtags. Not sure a reassurance for the twitchy during the referendum campaign will be a permanent answer. Also, getting rid of AMS definitely makes sense.
#3 by Danny on November 12, 2013 - 12:02 pm
I’d go with either
STV using current Holyrood constituencies – 3 members each(216 MPs)
STV using Westminister constituencies – 4 members each(236 MPs)
We could drop the “S” I think.
#4 by James Parker on November 12, 2013 - 1:47 pm
First, we need a Scottish Parliament. Not the Parliament that was established by Westminster using the Scotland Act 1998, an Act that will have no status in an independent Scotland. “There shall be a Scottish Parliament” will be re-stated on behalf of the Scottish People. Our Parliament should not be a continuation of the existing child of Westminster, but a fully sovereign institution, an institution that will settle its own constituencies.
#5 by Doug Daniel on November 12, 2013 - 2:36 pm
“But I’m afraid it’s unavoidable: we’re going to need to do some building work to accommodate them all. I’m sure that’ll go more smoothly this time.”
Iain Docherty said on Twitter last night that there are rumours engineering drawings exist showing how the chamber can be modified to accommodate 200 folk. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t consider it to be of massive importance – you don’t have all 200 members in the chamber at all times, and on the few occasions where everyone would want to be in the chamber, it’s not like we haven’t seen the House of Commons being reduced to standing room only many a time. Offices are probably the far more important thing, but these don’t have to be in the same complex, not initially at least. It wouldn’t be the end of the world if some of the parliamentarians had to have their offices off-site for the first few years.
The sad thing is, however, that there will be people who use the space restrictions in Holyrood as an excuse for why we can’t have more parliamentarians.
200 seems slightly excessive, but then if there are sound reasons for it, then it’s as good as any other number we could arbitrarily choose. There’s certainly a nice symmetry to it, and it would make it easy to compare the seat share with the vote share – a party should then get a seat for every 0.5% of the vote they get. That would be a daft reason to choose that number, though.
I have no objection to dumping single-seat constituencies and just going for multi-member regional constituencies. I’d rather not use STV for that though, as I don’t like the “voter management” that it encourages. I also think that if 100% of the voters in a constituency want to be represented by the same party, then it should be possible for that to happen, which is only possible if the parties put up enough candidates – something STV discourages, since it can lead to splitting your vote between candidates of the same party. In local elections, a party can currently get 100% of the first-preference votes, but still only end up with 25% of the seats. The voter management strategies are based on predicting the outcome, which invariably ends up using the previous election as your default, meaning a sudden, unpredicted surge in support in a constituency gets missed out, because you assumed you were only going to get one person elected, when you actually got enough support for three. Result? Someone the voters weren’t all that enamoured with ends up getting elected by default.
(Mind you, I suppose that’s what canvassing is for…)
Sweden manages open lists – I don’t see why Scotland couldn’t as well. That way, parties don’t have to worry about shooting themselves in the foot by fielding too many candidates, and the voter still has the power to decided the order of the candidates – meaning habitually-rejected, charmless idiots can’t get elected just on the strength of their party’s vote (obviously I’m not referring to anyone in particular here, certainly not a North-East list Labour MSP…). Or, if the voter wants, they can not bother putting preferences and simply vote for the party, making it as easy or as complicated as the voter wants it to be. Seems a win-win to me. I would then use that in other elections as well…
Pingback: The Role of the Scottish Parliament in a Devolved or Independent Scotland | Paul Cairney: Politics and Policy
#6 by AFaulds on November 12, 2013 - 4:52 pm
Yes to more MSPs and a better voting system, no to STV. Is great for local elections due to comparatively small size of wards, don’t think would be nearly as good nationally.
First of all, creating 40 mini regions does not break the constituency – representative link, merely redefines it from 1 cons – 1 rep to 1 cons – 5 reps. As with any system built on small constituencies, this leaves it susceptible to problem of reasonably proportional local representation at cost of disproportional national representation. basically only way to break the link is with huge regions or a single national constituency.
Although a massive improvement compared to FPTP, STV is still capable of leaving large swathes of voters poorly or unrepresented. Although transfers alleviate the problem somewhat, it would be quite possible with STV for a party to average 10% of the vote nationally but never the 16.67%+1 (strictly speaking) required to nab a seat in a constituency and thereby go totally unrepresented in Parliament.
My personal preference is to keep AMS but chuck FPTP in the constituencies for AV and d’Hondt in the regions for Sainte Lague. Both keeps a close level local link whilst giving a good proportional spread regionally. Ideally, we’d also bump up to, say, 160 seats at same time (80 of each type, with 20 total per region).
Although I don’t know what effect AV would have had, merely using SL would (assuming I didn’t make a total arse of my calcs) have given a 2011 result of 64 SNP, 34 Lab, 15 Tory, 7 LD, 7 Green, Margo and George Galloway. Yes, I’m gutted by the latter too.
Still by no means a perfect system, as the divisor can mean lots of small parties with one seat (tipping point seemed to be about 3%, which is why we’d win a seat in every region except Central where we only pulled 2.4%), which some countries counter by using a marginally higher initial divisor. At the other end, preservation of constituencies can still lead to an imbalance in favour of large parties, although unlike both STV and d’Hondt, Sainte Lague takes direct account of seats already won in allocating further seats.
I have to admit I actually like AMS for exactly the dirty compromise it is. If you support both localism and proportional representation, neither a purely proportional national system or a totally local FPTP/AV system quite fits the bill, so AMS can be an attractive compromise – it’s just about getting exact methodology right.
#7 by James on November 12, 2013 - 10:33 pm
Your calculations are spot on, in fact. Richard did the SL maths here in 2011!
However, you definitely don’t need 16.67%+1 of first prefs to get elected in STV. Liam got in in a 3-member ward in 2012 with barely half that. And I’m talking about 5-members. If you can’t get a few elected at that rate you aren’t very transfer-friendly, and probably don’t deserve to get in, no?
#8 by AFaulds on November 13, 2013 - 6:56 pm
Oh man, should have known someone would have done all the maths already and looked it up rather than doing it myself… Though the maths was half the fun. (Yes, really.)
Of course, it’s unlikely that any party would get a reasonable vote share without having enough focus SOMEWHERE to get a seat or two, but still reckon it’s just not proportional enough to go national. Obviously first prefs aren’t everything ( the whole point of STV clearly being the expression of complex preferences), but see Ireland in 2011 – Fine Gael won almost 46% of seats on only 36% of first prefs. Personally, I’d far rather see a more accurate representation of peoples first preference parties than one that allows expression of preference, even if that means some votes are potentially wasted.
Which has just added a third dimension to what I thought was the two dimensional game of electoral design… Need to balance local representation,p roportional representation and wasted votes. Good fun. If we do get Indy and do draft our constitution via a specially elected assembly, I see this being one of the more fun debates to follow.
#9 by Mike on November 12, 2013 - 10:24 pm
This is all very dandy/nice etc but the Yes campaign has to win next year and talking to my family/friends etc I wouldn’t hold my breadth. This site is only talking to itself!
#10 by James on November 12, 2013 - 10:37 pm
And you, apparently. Besides, we take different views here, or at least Aidan does..
#11 by Danny on November 13, 2013 - 12:41 pm
Can I point out that I quite like the aspect of localism that FPTP/AV brings(I personally prefer AV, because it’s my opinion that the least unpopular candidate, not the most popular, should be elected)
STV also works to an extent with the larger constituencies.
The four options I see are:
1) Keep AMS as it is but increase the number of MPs
2) STV
3) AV+(Very similar to AMS, but uses AV in the constituencies)
4) 2 chambers. Do away with AMS and just use FPTP/AV in chamber one, meaning you get the chance to elect your local MP. Then, chamber 2, no constituencies at all, just a national list using d’Hondt