The Additional Members System (AMS), which forms the basis of Scotland’s electoral process, was designed to create a more proportional representation of voters’ preferences in Holyrood. However, over the years, this system has often worked to the advantage of unionist parties like the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, allowing them to maintain a significant presence in the Scottish Parliament, even as their constituency victories dwindled. While the mechanics of AMS may seem fair in theory, the practical outcomes for the independence movement have been less than ideal. Unionist parties have effectively leveraged the list vote to secure seats they could not win through the first-past-the-post system. This has raised the question: why has the pro-independence movement not fully capitalised on the potential of this system?

AMS allows every voter to cast two ballots: one for their local constituency MSP and another for a regional list. This list vote is critical for balancing the overall makeup of the Parliament. However, unionist parties, particularly the Scottish Conservatives, have consistently used this second vote to their advantage. Even in regions where they perform poorly in constituency races, they have been able to secure substantial representation in Holyrood through the regional list. For example, in the 2021 election, the Conservatives only won five constituency seats but managed to claim 24 seats through the list. Similarly, Labour, despite a dramatic decline in constituency wins, relied heavily on the list vote to secure representation.

This strategy has allowed unionist parties to maintain influence in Holyrood, acting as a powerful opposition to the pro-independence movement, despite their waning support in many parts of Scotland. It’s not that the unionist parties are out of touch with a portion of the electorate—they do represent a segment of voters—but the proportional nature of the list vote has enabled them to punch well above their weight. This system, meant to reflect a broader range of voter preferences, has instead allowed parties that support maintaining the union with the UK to hold onto a significant number of seats in Holyrood. These parties frequently use their influence to push back against moves towards independence and to align more with Westminster’s priorities than Scotland’s own.

For supporters of independence, this raises a significant issue. Why has this system, which could be used to strengthen the pro-independence majority in Holyrood, been left to benefit the opposition? The answer partly lies in traditional voting patterns. Many SNP supporters have voted "Both Votes SNP," believing that securing both the constituency and list votes would ensure a pro-independence majority. This worked in 2011 where the balance of constituency wins was aligned perfectly to make substantial amount of wins on the list.

Since 2011 the SNP has tried to replicate this without success. The reality of AMS is that the SNP, being so dominant in constituencies, often gains very few list seats, resulting in a wasted opportunity for the independence movement. In contrast, unionist voters have tactically placed their list votes with parties like the Conservatives and Labour, ensuring their continued presence in the Parliament despite constituency losses.

This voting pattern has had real consequences for the pro-independence cause. Instead of a Parliament dominated by pro-independence voices, the opposition benches remain filled with unionist MSPs who rarely prioritise Scotland’s sovereignty. Their focus tends to be on keeping the union intact and opposing any momentum toward independence. This creates a situation where pro-independence MSPs, particularly from the SNP, are constantly forced to debate with parties that do not share their vision for Scotland’s future. The dialogue, as a result, revolves around defending the right to even pursue independence, rather than debating how best to achieve it. This repetitive, stagnant debate slows down any real progress toward Scottish self-determination.

Imagine a different scenario. If independence supporters used their list vote more strategically, we could see a Parliament where the opposition is also filled with pro-Scottish voices—parties like the Greens or even smaller pro-independence groups. This would lead to real debates about Scotland’s future, focusing on how best to navigate independence, rather than whether it should even be on the table. The SNP, leading the government, would be challenged by an opposition that shares their broader goals for Scotland but holds them accountable on policies, pushing the pro-independence agenda forward with greater urgency and focus.

The Additional Members System presents an opportunity one that the unionist parties have taken full advantage of for years. But the independence movement has the same tools at its disposal. By rethinking the way the list vote is used, pro-independence voters could shift the balance of power in Holyrood, ensuring that every debate in Parliament is about how best to serve Scotland, not Westminster. The question is, why haven’t we done this already? Why have we allowed a system that could work in our favour to instead benefit those who stand against Scotland’s right to decide its own future?

The 2026 election is a chance to change that. It’s time to use the Additional Members System to our advantage, electing not just a pro-Scottish government, but a pro-Scottish opposition too. Consider a Scottish Parliament, filled with Pro Scottish MSP that only have the best interests of Scotland on their agenda. A debating chamber where both the party of government and the MSPs of the opposition debate about what is best for Scotland as opposed to a Scotland bad narrative from PArties that take their orders from Westminster.I know what I want to see in our Holyrood. Do you think you can remove yourself from your destructive partisan politics to see this agenda through? Do you think that fighting for Independence is about fighting each other? It is time to weaponize Holyrood for the benefit of our National Cause.