Twelve months ago, the SNP looked politically exhausted. Nicola Sturgeon was gone, the party was engulfed in scandal, and Scottish Labour was starting to sound like a government-in-waiting again. The assumption in much of the political commentary was that Scotland was finally on the verge of moving on from the SNP after almost two decades in power. Instead, the SNP has secured a fifth consecutive term, Reform has bulldozed its way into joint second place without winning a single constituency seat, and the long-predicted Labour breakthrough in Scotland still has not materialised.
The result says a lot about where Scottish politics now sits. Not necessarily in love with the SNP, but still unconvinced by the alternatives. After almost two decades in government, the party’s dominance no longer looks fuelled by momentum or enthusiasm. Instead, it reflects an opposition that remains fragmented, divided and unable to consolidate around a clear alternative.
Recent polling suggested enthusiasm for both John Swinney and the SNP remained relatively muted. After years in government, fatigue was always going to become a factor. And yet, when voters were presented with the alternatives, the SNP still finished comfortably ahead, once again proving that Scotland’s political landscape remains stubbornly difficult for opposition parties to crack.
A lot of the immediate reaction has focused on the SNP falling short of a majority. But much of that analysis misses the point. Scotland’s Additional Member System is designed to make outright majorities difficult. Voters cast two ballots, one for a constituency MSP under first past the post, and another regional “list” vote intended to make the final parliament more proportional. Make no mistake – the SNP stormed the constituency vote, winning the overwhelming majority of local seats, before the list system balanced things out.
That is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
So while the SNP may not have crossed the symbolic majority line, this was still a decisive victory. The idea that the party somehow underperformed because it did not secure an outright majority feels wildly overblown given the electoral system Holyrood was specifically designed around.
Reform’s rise will understandably dominate much of the post-election analysis, particularly after the party’s breakthroughs in England. But Scotland tells a more complicated story. While Reform finished joint second and secured a significant foothold at Holyrood, every single one of those seats came through the regional list system rather than constituency wins. For all the noise around Reform’s rise, not one part of Scotland actually voted to send a Reform MSP to Holyrood directly.
The comparison with England matters. South of the border, Reform has started converting frustration into actual electoral control, winning councils and proving capable of topping polls in specific places. In Scotland, the support appears far broader than it is deep. Voters were willing to use the list ballot to send a message, but much less willing to hand Reform a constituency victory outright.
For Scottish Labour, the result will be deeply uncomfortable reading. Just two years ago, the party believed it had momentum again. Instead, it now finds itself tied with Reform and once again searching for a clear identity north of the border.
Keir Starmer’s impact hangs heavily over that. Scottish Labour has always had to balance its own identity with the wider UK party, but when Westminster Labour struggles to inspire enthusiasm, Scottish Labour inevitably feels the consequences too. Anas Sarwar remains a recognisable and capable figure, but voters increasingly seem unconvinced that Scottish Labour offers something meaningfully distinct from London.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, continue to lose ground from both sides, squeezed by Reform on one flank and tactical anti-SNP voting on the other. The Greens and Liberal Democrats have both emerged with enough influence to matter, reinforcing the sense that Scotland is moving further into an era of multi-party politics where power is more dispersed and alliances matter more.
Of course, a more fragmented parliament is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction. Holyrood was designed to give smaller parties a voice and avoid the winner-takes-all politics of Westminster. In many ways, this result reflects the system working as intended. But the nature of that fragmentation has changed. Increasingly, voters appear less anchored to parties by loyalty or ideology, and more willing to move between parties depending on the issue, the leadership or simply frustration with the status quo.
What this election ultimately exposed is not overwhelming enthusiasm for the SNP, but the absence of a convincing alternative. The party has successfully consolidated much of Scotland’s centre-left and pro-independence vote, while the unionist side of Scottish politics is now fragmented across Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform, all competing for very different voters with very different political visions.
That leaves the SNP in a powerful position even at a time when public affection for the party appears softer than it once did. Around half of voters hold negative views of both John Swinney and the SNP, yet no opposition party has managed to unite enough voters around a credible alternative. Until that changes, Scotland’s political landscape may continue to look remarkably familiar.
