John Swinney has pledged to carry out formal duties required by the ministerial code while refusing any informal collaboration or convention-based arrangements with Reform UK if they win seats at Holyrood
The contest over how Holyrood will operate if Reform UK secures seats has moved to the forefront of the campaign after John Swinney said he would not enter into any voluntary or informal working relationships with Reform MSPs should he lead the next government.
He made clear that he would comply with all requirements of the ministerial code — answering questions, participating in debates and carrying out official responsibilities — but would draw a hard line against broader policy co-operation or conventional arrangements with the party associated with Nigel Farage.
Swinney’s announcement comes amid forecasts suggesting Reform could become the second-largest group at the Scottish Parliament, with polls putting them on a substantial gains trajectory. The pledge to isolate Reform is being framed by the SNP as a defence of devolution and parliamentary norms, while critics argue it raises questions about how cross-party business and committee organisation will function if established conventions are upended.
What Swinney has promised and the limits of obligation
At the centre of the leader’s position is a distinction between compulsory duties and optional collaboration. Swinney has emphasised that ministers would be obliged to respond to formal parliamentary mechanisms — including written and oral questions and First Minister’s Questions — and therefore cannot decline every interaction. Yet he insists that on matters of policy agreement, shared working groups or convention-led responsibilities he will not cooperate with Reform in “any way, shape or form.” The SNP frames this stance as a refusal to legitimise a party it regards as hostile to the principles of Scotland’s self-government.
Legal and procedural boundaries
Recent changes at Holyrood mean committee conveners are elected by members rather than allocated automatically by party size, and the parliamentary standing orders instruct the cross-party bureau to “have regard to the balance of political parties” when proposing committee membership. That technical framework still leaves room for the largest party or bloc to influence who chairs committees and how debate time is agreed. The SNP says it would avoid voluntary conventions that would hand Reform executive-style roles or disproportionate agenda-setting influence, while acknowledging it cannot refuse the formal functions elected MSPs are entitled to perform.
How this could reshape Holyrood business
If the SNP follows through, everyday parliamentary operations could feel the strain: allocations of debate time, cross-party boards and convention-based roles have often been worked out by agreement between parties. With an explicit refusal to engage with Reform, the SNP and allies could block customary concessions such as convenerships or bureau-backed allocations of time. Still, the mechanics of legislation and the need for ministers to answer parliamentary questions means interaction of a formal kind will remain unavoidable, creating a two-tier relationship between compulsory contact and voluntary cooperation.
Practical effects for ministers and committees
Senior SNP officials have told journalists the party will not seek deals with Reform, whether to obtain support or to negotiate behind-the-scenes arrangements. Ministers would perform statutory duties and respond to scrutiny, but the party intends to refuse invitations to sit on cross-party working groups or to recognise Reform as a partner in setting the parliamentary agenda. That approach aims to deny the party the levers of influence it might otherwise claim through convention-driven roles.
Responses from other parties and the wider election picture
Across the political spectrum, many Scottish parties have already signalled they would not work with Reform. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has publicly ruled out cooperation and used sharp language to reject the party’s proposals, while the Scottish Conservatives, Greens and Liberal Democrats have also distanced themselves. The campaign has been fraught: Reform has drawn controversy for proposals on immigration and asylum policy and for remarks criticised as targeting bilingual children, increasing resistance from rivals who argue the party’s platform is divisive and outside devolved competence.
Polling collated by one projection suggests the SNP could be the largest party with 56 MSPs, falling short of an outright majority; that same projection puts Reform on 19 MSPs, Scottish Labour on 18, the Greens two seats behind that, Conservatives on 11 and Liberal Democrats on 9. The SNP and its opponents each confront the practical challenge of running a parliament where conventional cross-party cooperation may be curtailed, and where elected politicians will still exercise their formal rights even if denied informal recognition.
