Three-quarters of Scots want to see the House of Lords reformed, according to an exclusive new poll.
The Survation survey for Ballot Box Scotland and The Herald found that 24% would prefer a fully elected house, while 20% wanted to see the upper chamber abolished entirely.
Another 18% want to see a mix of elected and appointed members, and 13% would back a fully appointed but serving a limited time.
Just 8% of Scottish voters say it should not be reformed.
READ MORE: Labour lead solidifies but quarter of Scots seats on a knife-edge
Labour has promised “immediate modernisation” of the Lords, including a mandatory retirement age of 80, the removal of hereditary peers and a new participation requirement.
All of these measures are expected to be introduced in the first term of a Labour government, though all fall short of Sir Keir Starmer’s 2022 promise to abolish the “indefensible” House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber.
The party’s manifesto states Labour is “committed” to replacing the Lords with an “alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”, adding it will consult the public on this.
Michelle Mone was made a peer by David Cameron in 2015, but only managed to speak five times before taking a "leave of absence" last year "to clear her name" over allegations she profited from a £200m government contract for personal protective equipment during the pandemic.
Meanwhile, Survation also asked voters about adopting a proportional voting system. Some 55% would back a change, compared to 12% who oppose and 24% who are neutral.
The polling firm also found that only 26% of Scottish voters supported the need for candidates at the election to pay a £500 deposit. Those who fail to win 5% of the vote lose their money.
At the 2019 election, 1,273 candidates lost a total of £636,500.
The poll found that 56% of Scottish voters believed that instead of paying to stand, candidates should gather signatures from the public.
There was also some public reluctance around campaigns being funded by private donors.
Only 18% feel parties should be funded exclusively by donations. Public funding based on votes received is supported alongside caps on donations by 32% of voters, as the sole model of funding by 19%, and without caps on donations by 9%.
READ MORE: Boost for SNP coffers as single donor hands Swinney's party £128k
Willie Sullivan, Senior Director Scotland for the Electoral Reform Society, welcomed the polling. He told The Herald: “It is clear from this polling that voters in Scotland want to see serious reform of Westminster.
"They want an end to the distorting First Past the Post voting system that means the Commons often doesn’t accurately reflect the way the country voted and also reduces the focus of the main parties to just the handful of ‘swing seats’ that change hands at elections, rather than delivering for the whole country.
“It is also clearly time that we ended the ridiculous and unsustainable situation of having a bloated and unelected House of Lords. At around 800 members, the upper house of Parliament is the second largest legislative chamber in the world after China’s National People’s Congress.
"Voters in Scotland clearly want to see it replaced with a democratic chamber, where the people of this country, not Prime Ministers, decide who sits in Parliament shaping our laws.
“These polls also show that people in Scotland are not happy with the role big private donations are playing in our politics. People will rightly question who benefits from these and what very wealthy donors expect for their money. We need to look at ways to redress the balance and ensure political parties are beholden only to the voters so that we don’t end up with a politics for sale to the highest bidder."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel