Concerns over women’s Representation realised
‘First decline in progress in more than a century’
FEARS that women’s representation in Scotland would reverse have been “realised”, with fewer women elected to Holyrood than in the last parliament.
With the full results of the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections now confirmed, the Sunday National analysed the figures for male and female MSPs in comparison to the record number elected in 2021.
At the last election, 58 women were elected as parliamentarians, making up 45% of the 129 seats in Holyrood. But in 2026, that has fallen to 56 women taking up 43% of the seats available.
Out of 73 constituency seats available, 42 male MSPs were elected and 31 female MSPs.
Of the remaining 56 regional seats, there were 30 male MSPs elected, 25 female MSPs and one transgender non-binary MSP.
Lyanne Nicholl, the CEO of 50:50 Parliament, told the Sunday National that the regression was due to a “combination of party candidate selection processes and a pipeline of women that simply isn’t big enough”.
Elect Her, a group which supports women entering politics, said that the figures mark the “first decline in women’s representation” in
Scotland after more than a century of progress.
We previously told how Reform UK were standing the most male candidates in the Holyrood elections, with the Scottish Conservatives and Scottish LibDems not far behind.
With the final results in, the Scottish Greens were the only party to have more female MSPs elected than male. Both their constituency wins were with female candidates – Lorna Slater in Edinburgh Central and Holly Bruce in Glasgow Southside. The first transgender MSPs elected to the Scottish Parliament – Iris Duane and Q Manivannan – are also Greens.
Out of their 15 MSPs, 10 are women, three are men and one non-binary.
The SNP, who were by far the largest party with 58 MSPs, will have 31 male representatives and 27 female representatives in the next parliamentary term.
Both Reform and Labour – who tied in second place with 17 MSPs – had the same gender breakdown, with 10 male MSPs and seven female.
The Scottish Tories, who won 12 seats, have 10 male MSPs and two female MSPs, while Scottish LibDems, who won 10 seats, will have seven male MSPs and three female MSPs.
“With the numbers of women selected to stand in this election stubbornly low, there was a real fear we’d see regression in women’s representation at Holyrood,” Nicholl told the Sunday National.
“That fear has been realised. The regression is not huge but it is one nonetheless. The numbers are clearly moving in the wrong direction, and that should concern everyone.
“We don’t campaign for equal representation for fun. We don’t even do it simply because it’s fair, though 51% of the Scottish population being women makes a pretty compelling case. We do it because the case for representation is clear and evidenced: more women and greater diversity improve policy-making and create better outcomes for everybody.”
The CEO of 50:50 Parliament added that the charity had been watching the latest elections with “growing concern” and that at both the local and national level, gained, it makes it more difficult to gain the next.
In Mid Scotland and Fife, there are nine constituencies, eight of which were won by the SNP, one by the LibDems.
The vote totals for each party were SNP: 81,018; Reform UK: 45,632; Labour: 41,056; Conservatives: 37,155; Greens: 36,286; LibDems: 34,363; Alliance: 2802; IGV: 2490.
In reality, these results led to two seats for Reform UK, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives, as well as one for the Greens.
However, if we swapped the IGV votes to the Scottish Greens, they would have comfortably beaten the Conservatives on vote share, there were patterns repeating of “stagnation, regression, and not enough women being selected to stand”.
“The ambition of equal representation on our elected bodies is starting to feel more and more like a mirage,” she added.
“The reasons women don’t get selected are multiple and interconnected, but put simply: it has never been an even playing field – particularly for women of colour and other marginalised identities. 50:50, and our partners, are here to try to level it, to get more women selected and elected, and to strengthen our democracy at a time when that has never mattered more.”
On Scotland going “backwards”, Nicholl added: “It’s likely a
clinching the seventh seat, ousting former chief whip Stephen Kerr.
This could have had major implications for Holyrood as the Scottish Greens would grow to 16 MSPs while the Tories would drop to 11, a 20 seat drop from 2021.
The seat results if IGV votes went to the Greens would be: Reform UK (45,632/1 = 45,632); Labour (41,056/1 = 41,056); Greens (38,776/1 = 38,776); Conservatives (37,155/1 = 37,155); Reform UK (45,632/2 = 22,816); Labour (41056/2 = 20,528); Greens (38,776/2 = 19,388).
The Scottish Greens had warned voters to be careful not to vote for the IGV. It came after the party lost out in two tight-run contests in the 2021 Holyrood election, blaming the IGV.
In the 2021 election, the group won 2210 votes in Glasgow, where the Greens were 1000 votes away from taking a second regional seat, which eventually went to the Tories. In South Scotland, the race was even combination of party candidate selection processes and a pipeline of women that simply isn’t big enough. Both problems are rooted in misogyny and outdated norms, but our increasingly polarised political landscape isn’t helping either.”
A spokesperson for Elect Her added that the 2021 results were a “historic high point for women’s representation”.
“Today’s results mark the first decline in women’s representation in Scotland after more than a century of democratic progress,” she added.
“They are a stark reminder that progress in women’s political representation cannot be taken for granted. But with urgent action, this trend is not inevitable.
“While it is encouraging to see
closer, as IGV won 1690 votes, where the Greens only needed 100 votes to take the final regional seat.
The National previously revealed that more than 300 complaints from voters concerning the party’s name and logo potentially misleading voters were submitted to the Electoral Commission in 2021.
The reports showed that the group had confused some voters and the similar name and logo were particularly dangerous for elderly voters or people with lower vision.
One wrote: “My mother, in her 80s, did not know or expect there to be two Green parties, and she voted for the Independent Green Party in error as a result.
“I suspect many more people may make the same natural mistake.”
Another voter, who said they are registered blind with low vision, also said they were confused by the party name and logo and that they “almost” voted for them. some progress in representation beyond the traditional political norm, women remain significantly underrepresented across Scottish political life, highlighted in these elections with some parties returning overwhelmingly male MSP cohorts.
“Looking ahead, parliament, the media and society all have a responsibility to work collaboratively to create an environment where every MSP elected yesterday can thrive over the next five years as they work to improve life for people across Scotland.
“If we want to build a democracy that truly reflects the communities it serves, political parties and institutions must do more to create cultures where women feel able to step into politics – and stay.”
They added: “This group seems to have intentionally misled voters and it is unacceptable that it should be allowed.”
Responding, the Electoral Commission claimed that there is “clear and sufficient differences” between the appearances of the two parties.
The commission said: “We assess applications for party names, descriptions and emblems against the criteria set out in law, including the requirement to ensure that, in our opinion, voters would not likely be confused between two parties as a result of how their identity marks look on a ballot paper. If a party’s application meets the legal criteria, it must be registered.
“We are satisfied that there are clear and sufficient differences between Independent Green Voice’s registered name, descriptions and emblems, and those used by other parties on the register. Independent Green Voice has been registered since 2003.”