Scottish Parliament Election 2026

[H F Stephens]

The Highland Council need a slap for this shambles of a count!

They should, at least, receive appropriate acknowledgement for their diligent consistency.

 

[GusB]

Finally!

CURRIE, Vic - REFORM UK

BURGESS, Ariane - SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY - Vote Scottish Greens - Let's demand better

EAGLE, Tim - SCOTTISH CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY

BANNERMAN, Max - REFORM UK

MACCALLUM, Morven-May - SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

LEASK, Kristopher - SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY - Vote Scottish Greens - Let's demand better

TODD, Maree - SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (SNP)

Scottish Parliament Election 2026 results for the Highlands and Islands Regional List – Highland Council

Scottish Parliament Election 2026 results for the Highlands and Islands Regional List

www.highland.gov.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 May 2026 ==

Final tally:
SNP 58 (-6)
Labour 17 (-4)
Reform 17 (+17)
Green 15 (+6)
Conservative 12 (-19)
LibDem 10 (+6)

Not too bad for Labour, good performances from Reform, Greens and LibDems, but a drubbing for the Tories.

 

[H F Stephens]

Finally!

Scottish Parliament Election 2026 results for the Highlands and Islands Regional List – Highland Council

Scottish Parliament Election 2026 results for the Highlands and Islands Regional List

www.highland.gov.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 May 2026 ==

Final tally:
SNP 58 (-6)
Labour 17 (-4)
Reform 17 (+17)
Green 15 (+6)
Conservative 12 (-19)
LibDem 10 (+6)

Not too bad for Labour, good performances from Reform, Greens and LibDems, but a drubbing for the Tories.

Exactly.

The ‘effect’, whatever the media may generally portray, is a shift from right wing Conservative (and Brexiteer otherwise non-voters) to Reform, and a fracturing of the centre and mild left, without much of an impact on the nationalist single-issue populists.

There may be a lesson to be learned here.

 

[Falcon1200]

The main reason such requests will be refused is because any British government knows fine well that they can get away with it.

And the fact that figures such as those in @oldman's Post #22 demonstrate that a minority of Scottish voters actually want Indyref2!

 

[oldman]

The ‘effect’, whatever the media may generally portray, is a shift from right wing Conservative (and Brexiteer otherwise non-voters) to Reform, and a fracturing of the centre and mild left, without much of an impact on the nationalist single-issue populists.

Not quite - on the constituency vote (copied from the BBC)

SNP - 9.5%
CON - 10.1
REF + 15.7
LIB + 4.4
LAB - 2.4

The Greens don't stand in most constituencies and there is a lot of tactical voting against the SNP, but the centre and mild-left vote didn't change much. Turnout was down 10%.

The BBC also has analysis of the regional list votes on their live page (at 2240 8 May), which claims:

Half of Reform list votes are from previous Tory voters, 11% Labour, 12% SNP, 15% did not vote/new voters.

Greens got 24% from their previous voters, 28% former SNP, 24% did not vote/new voters. (which doesn't add up to 100!)

Arguably the 'real' story is a poor result for the SNP, saved by tactical voting for the Greens in the list vote.

 

[317 forever]

Although this is the fewest seats for the SNP since 2007, their 41 seat lead against the 2nd placed party (albeit this time a tie) is the biggest ever margin of victory at a Holyrood election.

 

[oldman]

To complete the data (source), the shares of the regional list votes:

Nationalist SNP 27.2 / Green 14.0 = 41.2%
Unionist LAB 16 % / LIB 9.4 / CON 11.8 /REF 16.6 = 53.8%

There a lot of 'others' (in Edinburgh 12 other parties and 4 independents!) - some are explicitly nationalist, so the nationalist total is a bit higher, but a fair bit short of a majority.

 

[GusB]

And the fact that figures such as those in @oldman's Post #22 demonstrate that a minority of Scottish voters actually want Indyref2!

I'm not sure that the results allow you to draw such conclusions. Quoting post #22:

Very easy indeed. The test should be how many constituency votes were for nationalist parties or if you prefer how many list votes, not double-counting because some people split their votes between two nationalist parties. The problem with this voting system is that it encourages gaming the system as Alex Salmond tried to do with his Alba party. We could do with a proper PR system.

The BBC gives the following for the constituency vote for 68 out of 73 seats.

SNP + GREEN 41% (-8%)
LAB + CON + LIB + REF 58%

A long way from a mandate.

It's simply not possible to deduce how people would vote in a future independence referendum based on the recent election results.

There will be people who favour independence but won't necessarily vote for the SNP or the Greens because of their own political beliefs. Someone who favours independence but leans towards the right of the political spectrum is, essentially, politically homeless in Scotland; do they vote for a party that promises to deliver independence, or do they vote for a candidate that represents them in the current climate? There will also be people who either don't want independence or are in the "don't know" category but think that things aren't actually so bad under the SNP administration and lend their vote accordingly. I'm sure there'll be a few people who vote a certain way because their father and grandfathers did so and nothing will change their minds; I was, once upon a time, a Labour voter!

At the end of the day, the most recent election was about which party governs Scotland for the time being and it wasn't a referendum on independence. I voted for parties that are pro-independence, but my main concern was about how Scotland will be governed in the next few years.

You may think that we're "a long way from a mandate", but what's the harm in asking the question again? Some people will change their minds over time and many of those who answered the yes/no question twelve years ago are dead. We don't simply shrug our shoulders and say "well the Tories* won this election, the will of the people has been settled and we'll never vote on the matter again", do we?

*Insert favoured party

One matter on which we do agree is that our voting system isn't too great - I'd prefer Single Transferrable Vote over the Additional Member System that we currently have. Firstly, it'd remove the distinction between list and constituency MSPs. I really detest the idea that if a candidate doesn't get elected in a constituency they're automatically deemed to have failed in the election process and are somehow second-best.

 

[Falcon1200]

At the end of the day, the most recent election was about which party governs Scotland for the time being and it wasn't a referendum on independence.

Indeed, although John Swinney and the SNP thought voting for a referendum on independence was exactly what the election was;

Party leaders make pitches to Scots as they hit campaign trail

With the Holyrood election just six weeks away, hopefuls have kick-started their campaigns.

www.bbc.co.uk

The SNP leader said that if his party won a majority - at least 65 out of 129 seats - it would deliver the "prize" of securing Scotland's right to decide its constitutional future in a referendum.

I voted for parties that are pro-independence, but my main concern was about how Scotland will be governed in the next few years.

Unfortunately, as a committed believer in the Union, my vote was, as it always is in elections in Scotland, skewed if not decided by the never-ending independence question.

but what's the harm in asking the question again?

The harm would be the time, money and effort wasted in having Indyref2, the diversion from addressing the issues affecting us all in Scotland, and the divisiveness the process would cause. Not to mention that, as we learned in 2014, a defeat by any margin for the separatists would not in any way put an end to the question. Indyref3, 4, 5 ad infinitum.

 

[oldman]

It's simply not possible to deduce how people would vote in a future independence referendum based on the recent election results.

I didn't suggest it was. I offered some data (facts are chiels and all that) to help anyone who just saw the 'SNP/Green triumph' headlines based on seats, and argued that the way as the two nationalsit parties got well under half the votes, the result was not a mandate for another referendum.

It is however obvious that the constitutional question is a major driver of how people vote and many nationalists are claiming the outcome as a mandate.

The worst thing for Scotland would be a narrow majority for separation. It would be like Brexit again - I voted for it, but it was just a protest vote; they cheated; they never told us that was going to happen; they said there would be more money for us; can we have another vote; can we have a soft Indy where we sort of stay together for some things.

If the SNP could build a real and enduring majority, in votes not seats and in opinion polls, then independence would follow easily - a negotiated separation confirmed by a referendum. But they know they can't build that support. Instead all they can do is hope that one day they will get lucky and score a deflected goal in the last minute of extra time in the third replay and we are the champions for ever.

 

[GusB]

The harm would be the time, money and effort wasted in having Indyref2, the diversion from addressing the issues affecting us all in Scotland, and the divisiveness the process would cause. Not to mention that, as we learned in 2014, a defeat by any margin for the separatists would not in any way put an end to the question. Indyref3, 4, 5 ad infinitum.

It's possible to have a referendum on constitutional issues and continue with the day-to-day governance at the same time. It's not as if everything else stops. Whether you like it or not, the independence question is never going to go away. Why not just ask the question again and if it's a negative result for independence we can wait another 12 years? Using your logic, we should scrap all future elections because the public has decided what government it wants and there's no point in asking again.

I didn't suggest it was. I offered some data (facts are chiels and all that) to help anyone who just saw the 'SNP/Green triumph' headlines based on seats, and argued that the way as the two nationalsit parties got well under half the votes, the result was not a mandate for another referendum.

But it's seats that count, at the end of the day; that's what gets any policy through parliament.

The worst thing for Scotland would be a narrow majority for separation. It would be like Brexit again - I voted for it, but it was just a protest vote; they cheated; they never told us that was going to happen; they said there would be more money for us; can we have another vote; can we have a soft Indy where we sort of stay together for some things.

If the SNP could build a real and enduring majority, in votes not seats and in opinion polls, then independence would follow easily - a negotiated separation confirmed by a referendum. But they know they can't build that support. Instead all they can do is hope that one day they will get lucky and score a deflected goal in the last minute of extra time in the third replay and we are the champions for ever.

If we wait for a ”real and enduring " majority of votes then absolutely nothing would get done, ever, on any issue. It's not how the Scottish Parliament works. It's not even how Westminster works these days. Using your rules, the current Labour government has no mandate to do anything, nor did the previous Tory administration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time the governing parties had a majority of votes was in 2010 and going forward it's highly unlikely that any party will ever be able to achieve this again in future.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why not just ask the question again and if it's a negative result for independence we can wait another 12 years? Using your logic, we should scrap all future elections because the public has decided what government it wants and there's no point in asking again.

Parliamentary elections are held at a maximum set period, and on every occasion the voters have the chance to retain the same administration or choose another. I very much doubt that, should Scotland ever vote Yes to independence, even if by a tiny margin, that there would later be another vote to see whether we still wanted it or had changed our minds, perhaps when the true cost and effects of separation became clear.

How many Indyrefs should there be? One every 12 years until Scotland comes to the 'right', ie Yes, answer?

 

[GusB]

Parliamentary elections are held at a maximum set period, and on every occasion the voters have the chance to retain the same administration or choose another. I very much doubt that, should Scotland ever vote Yes to independence, even if by a tiny margin, that there would later be another vote to see whether we still wanted it or had changed our minds, perhaps when the true cost and effects of separation became clear.

We've had five elections where the people of Scotland have chosen the SNP as the largest party. On each of those occasions the electorate has chosen to retain the same administration. Why is that? You can't blame the electoral system too much because there's an element of proportionality built-in. It's not perfect, but it's about as close as we'll get to the "will of the people" under current rules.

Should Scotland ever vote "Yes" to independence, I'd expect that decision to be implemented as soon as possible but if further down the line the people decided that it wasn't necessarily in their best interests, I wouldn't deny those people the right to decide to take another path. Obviously I wouldn't be happy with it, but I fundamentally agree with the right of a population to determine its own future. If a majority of Scotland's people decided to rejoin the UK, so be it.

There will be costs and effects of separation - that is inevitable. I don't think it'll be nearly as bad as you make out, though.

How many Indyrefs should there be? One every 12 years until Scotland comes to the 'right', ie Yes, answer?

You are saying that because we were asked a question in 2014 and answered "no" that we'll never been able to ask that same question again, ever? That the answer is set in stone for all eternity. Sorry, but that's not how democracy works.

 

[Falcon1200]

You can't blame the electoral system too much because there's an element of proportionality built-in.

Don't think I actually blamed the electoral system for anything! While I will never vote for them I recognise, and even applaud, the SNP's success in Scottish Parliament elections, and have no problem accepting their mandate to govern.

Sorry, but that's not how democracy works.

Democracy works because the will of the people prevails; The people have, repeatedly and most recently on the 7th May, not given the independence-supporting parties anyway near 50% of the votes cast, and that is why there is no mandate for Indyref2. Should things change, and the SNP etc win more than 50%, I would accept their case.

 

[oldman]

On each of those occasions the electorate has chosen to retain the same administration. Why is that?

The largest factors are:

1 A sizable group for whom the constitution really, really matters, sometimes in a positive way, sometimes not, giving one party a head start.
2 Support for generally centre-left policies, buttressed by the Barnett dividend which funds significantly more per capita spending in Scotland, paying for popular 'extras' like no tuition fees. (More recently this is also funded by higher income tax for most full-time workers.) Scottish politics is very much about spending, macroeconomics doesn't really feature.
3 A convenient scapegoat - if we spend more on X it's thanks to the generous and caring SNP; if we spend less on Y, it's because of those skinflints at Westminster. We don't really do economic literacy.

It is rarely a good idea to have the same government going on and on, even if you support it politically.