Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP
In recent weeks, the number of Labour MSPs failing to vote on motions in the Scottish Parliament has increased, leading to concerns that their absence could be "changing the result of the votes".
Last Wednesday for example – the most recent day of voting at the time of writing – 39% of Labour MSPs (nine members) did not vote in the chamber, compared with 6.7% of Tory MSPs (two members) and 1.6% of SNP (one member).
The National analysed all the main votes which have taken place so far in June, excluding amendments, and found that among the three main parties, Labour consistently had the highest percentage of absent MSPs, with the Tories following not far behind, while the SNP had the highest turnout.
READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action
Between June 1 and 19, an average of 20.1% of Labour MSPs failed to vote in motions, compared to 14% Tory and 6.6% SNP.
Of the 10 votes that took place in that time, there were only four instances where turnout for both Labour and the Tories was higher than 90%. Meanwhile, the SNP turnout was above 90% in all of these votes.
Scottish Labour had a higher turnout when it came to their own motions, such as their Planning motion on June 11, which was missed by one MSP, and their motion on Scotland's medical and nursing workforce crisis also on June 11, which all Labour MSPs voted on.
More Labour MSPs tended to turn up when it came to voting on bills. At the Scottish Languages Bill debate on June 17, 17.4% of Labour MSPs did not vote, compared with 20% Tory and 8.2% SNP.
And at the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill on June 10, 8.7% of Labour MSPs were absent, while the Tories had double, at 16.67%, and the SNP had 6.6%.
But when these figures are compared with the start of the year, it shows a significant drop in attendance from Labour MSPs.
READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election
The National found that in January, an average of 7.9% of Labour MSPs failed to vote, compared with 9.1% Tory and 6.6% SNP.
And in February, the average number of MSPs missing votes stood at 15% Labour, 10.1% Tory and 6.2% SNP.
When looking at the smaller parties, the Greens and LibDems – which have seven and five MSPs respectively – were much more likely to show up to votes.
In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Scottish Greens have had a full turnout at 86.9% of votes (53 out of 61 votes), while the LibDems had 65.6% (40 votes). In the instances where full turnout was not recorded, this was down to a maximum of two MSPs not voting.
READ MORE: Scottish civil service reaches 'record' size, figures show
There is one Alba MSP (Ash Regan) and one Independent MSP (John Mason), who turned up to 75.4% (46 votes) and 100% of votes respectively.
For parties with higher numbers of MSPs, it is more difficult to achieve a full turnout.
The SNP, which have 60 MSPs, recorded a full turnout at just two votes (3.3%) – the Assisted Dying Bill on May 13 and an SNP motion on Scotland's Hydrogen Future on May 1.
The only instance where every single Tory MSP (of which there are 30) took part in a vote was for the Assisted Dying Bill (1.6% of the total number of votes), while Labour (which have 23 MSPs) saw a full turnout at four votes (6.6%) – but three of those were motions submitted by Labour, while the fourth was for the Assisted Dying Bill.
While it is expected that MSPs will not be able to make every single vote, such as due to illness or maternity leave, there are proxy voting arrangements in place which mean that the absence would not affect the overall result of a vote.
Commenting on the figures, Greens MSP Ross Greer – who has voted in every motion analysed by The National – said that "if Labour MSPs don't want to do the jobs they were elected to, they should resign".
He added that the proxy voting arrangements mean "there is no excuse for almost half of the Labour group casting no vote at all" in some cases.
Ross Greer MSP"That is bad enough on ordinary motions, but it is totally unacceptable when we are deciding on the laws of this country," he said.
Greer added that "it is a privilege to serve Scotland in Parliament", and that turning up to vote is "the bare minimum" that voters expect of those they elect.
READ MORE: SNP the only pro-indy party not to sign pledge condemning Gaza genocide
He continued: "This isn't a one off. The attendance of Labour and Tory MSPs has been shocking for years.
"It has absolutely changed the result of votes and therefore meant that Scotland's laws are different than they otherwise would have been if everyone elected by the public had actually turned up to do their job."
Commenting, SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said: "The fact Labour and Tory MSPs are increasingly failing to turn up to Parliament shows that Scotland is always an afterthought for the unionist parties.
"SNP MSPs have the best attendance rate of any party – we are in Parliament every day, standing up for our constituents – while Labour and the Tories are nowhere to be seen when it matters most."
Scottish Labour did not respond when approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
18 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Denbighshire, Conwy, Gwynedd & Anglesey MPs back assisted dying bill
MPs voted 314 in favour, to 291 against, during the third reading of Labour's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) in Parliament on Friday (June 20). This does not mean the bill has become law, but it allows it to now progress to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. The majority almost halved since the last vote in November, during the bill's second reading. If successful, the bill would make assisted suicide legal for terminally ill adults expected to die within six months, and with the mental capacity to make a choice about how to end their life. Below are comments from MPs Llinos Medi, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hughes, Gill German and Becky Gittins on why they all backed the bill. Llinos Medi (Image: Submitted) "I am assured that the bill has been strengthened during the scrutiny process. For example, I voted in favour of an amendment to prevent health professionals such as doctors from initiating conversations with under-18s about assisted dying, which passed. "Regardless of today's vote, scrutiny does not end here. As MPs, we have a duty and I remain committed to listening to all voices, including those who oppose the bill. "Whatever your opinion on today's outcome, I believe that we should show respect to both sides of the debate. Days like today are not easy and we must show compassion to all." Liz Saville Roberts (Image: Submitted) "I believe that adults who are terminally ill, with a prognosis of six months or less to live, and who have full mental capacity, should have the legal right to make this profoundly personal decision for themselves, free from coercion and with strong safeguards in place. "I fully understand the concerns many people, including disability rights groups and medical organisations, have raised about protecting individuals. "That is why I support the inclusion of strict safeguards, involving medical professionals, social workers and judicial oversight, to ensure that each decision is carefully assessed, voluntary, and free from pressure. "I am also conscious of concerns about the so-called 'slippery slope'. However, the bill is tightly framed, applying only to terminally ill adults and excluding those whose suffering is solely related to mental illness. Any further changes would require full parliamentary scrutiny." Claire Hughes (Image: Submitted) "Fundamentally, I believe we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and when enough is enough. "I believe that the status quo - where only terminally ill people with the wealth to enable them to travel to Dignitas are able to exercise control over their final moments - is not good enough. "This bill has gone through a robust process, making it rigorous, practical and safe, and is rooted in the principles of compassion, justice and human dignity. "I want, again, to make it abundantly clear that good palliative care and giving terminally ill people the choice to choose an assisted death, are not mutually exclusive." Gill German (Image: Rick Matthews) "During report stage, I supported New Clause 10, which expands the bill's protection for medical practitioners to ensure they have 'no obligation' to administer an assisted death and provide legal protections for medical professionals to ensure they are not subject to punishment for refusing to carry out an assisted death. "Further, I voted against New Clause 1 and 2. While I respect the deeply held views on all sides, I believe both amendments introduced unnecessary risks by restricting open, compassionate conversations between clinicians and patients that are often essential to end-of-life care. "New Clause 1, which was not adopted, would have banned doctors from raising assisted dying with adult patients at all, even when clinically appropriate. This clause would disproportionately harm those with lower health literacy who may not know how to start the conversation. "New Clause 2, which was passed, prevents doctors from discussing assisted dying with under-18s in any context. I believe this risks isolating terminally ill teenagers or young relatives of dying patients, by preventing doctors from discussing assisted dying with under-18s in any context. "This may drive vulnerable young people towards unregulated and potentially harmful sources of information." Becky Gittins (Image: Submitted) "I believe there are as many safeguards as practically possible contained within this bill to ensure free and fair choice for patients to make this decision in an informed way, free from coercion. "I hope that the high level of parliamentary scrutiny that this bill has received will encourage a more forensic consideration of the role of patient decision-making across the UK and broader society. "Throughout the legislative process, the attention given to the needs of the most vulnerable people and the importance of ensuring a free choice has brought an essential focus on the role of coercion, domestic abuse, disability, ableism and poverty on people's ability to genuinely make a free decision about their lives – whether on this issue or many others."
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
SNP's blame game and ‘grievance' politics is out of control – voters are fed up
Anyone following public debate will have been aware of this dreary, dismal sound for the past decade or so CHRIS MUSSON SNP's blame game and 'grievance' politics is out of control – voters are fed up A DARK cloud has lingered over Scotland for years now – pumped out and replenished daily by the doom-mongering SNP. With less than 11 months until the 2026 Holyrood elections, the daily drumbeat of despair from the machinery commanded by Nats chiefs is starting to grow ever louder. 2 Chris Musson has his say on the SNP's blame game rhetoric under John Swinney Credit: Andrew Barr 2 The First Minister recently said Scotland is 'prey to a broken system and a failing economic model' Credit: Alamy Anyone following public debate will have been aware of this dreary, dismal sound for the past decade or so. More often than not, it emanates from the industrial-scale, taxpayer-funded grievance machine which the Scottish Government has morphed into under recent incarnations of the SNP. The person currently at the control panel, twiddling the dials of misery and blame, is Captain Glass Half Empty himself, First Minister John Swinney. Those who don't tune into Scottish politics may be blissfully unaware of the gloom and grumbles. I envy them. They may even think that Scotland is a pretty good place to live in the grand scheme of things. Which it is. Despite being tuned in daily, as a journalist, I sometimes forget about the monotonous moaning, given it's become like background noise. But every now and then, the beat grows louder, the shrieking more hysterical, making you sit up and pay attention. Recently, that's happened again, with Swinney's return to focusing on independence ahead of next year's election. The 'grievance' dial has been turned up to ten, culminating in Swinney's deranged, paranoid drivel in a self-billed 'keynote' speech last week. Fresh from an event where he claimed the 'status quo is broken' - ignoring the fact he has been the status quo since 2007 - Swinney dusted off the decades-old nationalist playbook. John Swinney defends Gray's car use after minister was 'driven to pub' He told an Edinburgh audience that Scotland has been left to 'thrive on what amounts at worst to poison pills and at best policy scraps from the UK table'. We are an 'afterthought' for Westminster, he complained - ignoring the fact that devolution means that we are, by and large, left to our own affairs with key services. As the SNP says it wants. And with a bizarre, anti-capitalist flourish, Swinney claimed Scotland was 'prey to a broken system and a failing economic model'. Has he got one eye on another coalition with the Scottish Greens next year? Or maybe Swinney has been coming out with this nonsense for so long he actually believes it. Find out what's really going on Register now for our free weekly politics newsletter for an insightful and irreverent look at the (sometimes excruciating) world of Scottish Politics. Every Thursday our hotshot politics team goes behind the headlines to bring you a rundown of key events - plus insights and gossip from the corridors of power, including a 'Plonker' and 'Star' of the Week. Sign up now and make sure you don't miss a beat. The politicians would hate that. SIGN UP FOR FREE NOW After all, this is the man who, in 2001, appears to have invented the SNP's claim that rivals think Scotland is 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' to be independent - a charge levelled only by the SNP. What Swinney actually said all those years ago, during his first, disastrous stint as SNP leader, was that Labour and Tories were 'terrified of the idea that the lives of millions of Scots would be improved if control of Scottish resources were in Scottish hands'. He then said: 'And that is why they will always say we are too stupid and too poor to be trusted to run the affairs of our own country.' Swinney's frankly bonkers suggestion - in 2001, and now - that leaders in England desire and indeed plot for Scotland to be impoverished and miserable is the kind of zoomery you might get from a basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist. This sort of nonsense has a ceiling in terms of public support. We're seeing that now, borne out by polls showing the SNP nowhere near a majority next year. Listening to Swinney last week, I found myself asking a question which the SNP of 2025 should also ask itself: Is this really what we want to be as a country? Because, by God, this party of devolved government has lost its way. A movement which had flirted with sunshine in those latter years under Alex Salmond, has turned into a thunder cloud that's hung over the country ever since. Optimism is snuffed out as they look inwards. Their primary aim is no longer to better Scotland's lot. That is the only way to independence, and if the SNP were to get there by those means, then they would deserve it. But their underlying and self-destructive mission since Nicola Sturgeon took the helm, and continuing since she left, seems to be to persuade people that Scotland is terrible because it's part of the UK. Of course, everything is far from ideal. Not only for the UK, but for Europe and for much of the world. The economic headwinds which have battered the world, from the pandemic to wars, have taken their toll and continue to. But let's get some perspective. We are a successful, advanced nation. We have leaders who are generally trying to do their best. We're not oppressed or subjugated. At the last count, for 2023/24, a staggering £22.7billion more was spent on public services in Scotland than was raised here in taxes. That's £2,417 per head MORE than the UK average - meaning all those universal freebies, that extra cash spent on benefits, the higher public sector pay despite lower cost-of-living than elsewhere in the UK. Is that the 'poison' Swinney refers to? In the past decade it's seemed at times that nothing - not even cold, hard figures - can stop the SNP-run grievance machine. But as we've seen in the past year or so, the mood music of the nation is shifting. More and more people are looking at the downbeat drudgery of a party who claim to speak for Scotland, and are thinking they no longer speak for them. If the SNP don't change their tunes, then come next May, voters may finally show them the door.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Nigel Farage slammed for plotting 'golden ticket for foreign billionaires'
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is planning to let wealthy business tycoons pay £250,000 for a so-called Britannia Card, which would excuse them from taxes on overseas earnings and inheritance tax Nigel Farage is accused of plotting a "golden ticket for foreign billionaires" to avoid paying a raft of UK taxes. The Reform leader is set to announce his plan to let wealthy tycoons from overseas get "non-dom" tax status if they pay a one-off fee of £250,000. But Labour numbercrunchers say this means less money will be raised for the Treasury, meaning Farage and co would have to raise more money elsewhere. Those who hand over the cash for a 'Britannia Card' will be shielded from paying UK tax on overseas earnings and avoid paying inheritance tax entirely. Mr Farage claims the money would be distributed among Britain's lowest paid workers. But a Labour spokesman hit back: ' Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants - the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country. 'As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere - through tax hikes on working families or through Farage's promise to charge them to use the NHS.' Mr Farage will say in a speech on Monday that he plans to "'restore the social contract between rich and poor". A statement from his party says: 'We are serious about repairing the social contract. It's time workers feel the benefit of high-net-worth individuals entering the country. 'We are taking policy formulation very serious internally, as can be seen by today's announcement.' It is not the first time Labour has accused Reform of dodgy sums. Last week a Labour backbencher drew laughs across the Commons when he asked how the Government was helping improve maths standards for adults before mocking Mr Farage. The Reform leader looked sheepish as both AdamThompson and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner poked fun of him. Ms Rayner said it proved that Reform's sums "don't add up". Mr Farage came under fire after claiming to have unearthed £7billion of "wasteful" spending on diversity and equality programmes in Whitehall. But closer inspection showed the civil service actually spent £27million - 250 times less, the Commons heard. Backbencher Mr Thompson asked: "As a trained physics teacher and a former engineering lecturer, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what this government is doing to help people improve their math skills after they've left school? "I came across an awful case the other day, a 61-year-old man who believes he counted up £7billion in government spending, but it was really only £27 million. "What can we do to people like the leader of Reform UK, who evidently can't add up." Mr Farage, 61, watched on as the exchange unfolded. Ms Rayner, who was stepping in for Keir Starmer as he was returning from the G7 summit in Canada, responded: "Mr Speaker, my friend highlights an important fact - Reform's sums simply don't add up. He'll be pleased to know that we're investing £136million for skills boot camps, and I will be sure to send the details to the honourable member for Clacton (Mr Farage)." At the end of last month, Reform said cutting DEI programmes would make the massive saving. A spokesman for the party told The Times that the figure came from a review of spending carried out by the Conservative Way Forward group.
