Scotland needs a stronger democratic voice rather than more politicians appointed to the House of Lords, according to the Scottish Greens, who are renewing calls for Westminster’s unelected upper chamber to be abolished.
The party’s co-leader Gillian Mackay MSP has challenged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber, arguing that appointing additional Scottish politicians would do nothing to address concerns about democratic accountability.
Her intervention follows comments from former SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford, who indicated support for SNP politicians taking seats in the Lords during an appearance on The National’s podcast.
The SNP has traditionally opposed the unelected chamber, but the suggestion raises questions about whether refusing to participate limits Scotland’s influence over legislation considered at Westminster.
For the Scottish Greens, however, the issue is more fundamental than which political parties occupy the seats.
They argue that anyone helping to make the country’s laws should ultimately be accountable to voters, rather than appointed through a political process.
The dispute comes amid continuing scrutiny of the House of Lords, including concerns about political appointments, outside business interests and the relationship between politicians and influential organisations.
Mackay has pointed to former Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar’s appointment to the Lords and a ministerial position in Burnham’s government following Labour’s disappointing Scottish Parliament election result.
She has also highlighted former Labour deputy leader Lord Tom Watson’s senior role at American technology company Palantir, which has faced criticism over its work with the Israeli military.
The Greens have additionally cited the controversy surrounding Peter Mandelson’s association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as another example of the reputational questions confronting the chamber.
These controversies involve different circumstances and do not establish wrongdoing by members of the House of Lords generally.
Nevertheless, they form part of the Greens’ argument that a system based on political appointments lacks the direct accountability provided by elections.
Gillian Mackay said:
“We need to be setting our sights higher than finding room for the more people in Westminster’s unelected club.
“Scotland deserves far better than a bigger stake in Westminster’s political retirement home.
“We need representatives chosen by voters, accountable to voters and removable by voters, just as any normal democracy does.
“The answer is simple: abolish the unelected House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber.
“Scotland’s democratic deficit would not be solved by appointing more politicians to an unelected chamber in Westminster.
“The Scottish Greens will always make the positive, hopeful case for an independent Scotland, where power rests with the people who live here, and everyone who makes our laws are accountable to them.”
Mackay also challenged Burnham’s commitment to political reform, arguing that promises of a different approach to government should include fundamental changes to Westminster’s institutions.
She said:
“Andy Burnham promised a ‘new politics’ and talked about electoral reform all while leaving Westminster’s unelected chamber intact.
“From Mandelson’s Epstein scandal to former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson’s job at US tech firm Palantir and Sarwar’s peerage after Scotland rejected his bid to become First Minister, Westminster keeps showing why this unaccountable system must end.
“If his ‘new politics’ means unelected jobs for insiders, and a Westminster veto over Scotland’s future, his promise of democratic renewal is already being broken.
“If the Prime Minister wants to retain a shred of democratic credibility, he must abolish the unelected House of Lords, replace it with a proportionally elected chamber, and respect Scotland’s right to choose our own future.”
Supporters of the existing system argue that the Lords provides detailed scrutiny of legislation and allows people with specialist knowledge and experience to contribute without the pressures of electoral politics.
Critics counter that those advantages do not require members to hold seats without facing voters.
The debate also raises practical questions about how an elected second chamber would operate, what powers it would hold and how representatives from Scotland and other parts of the UK would be chosen.
For the Scottish Greens, the immediate priority is to move beyond arguments about which parties should receive appointments and towards a system in which the public has a direct say over those scrutinising the laws that govern their lives.
