England can keep the House of Lords - as part of an independent English Parliament
Labour have decided to put the decision to get rid of the Lords in the hands of the Lords - we wonder what the outcome of that will be?
In one more betrayal to add to more than a century of broken promises, Keir Starmer has just announced that instead of abolishing the unelected Upper House, he will form a committee. Of members of the Lords, to consider the issue. The Lords committee will take at least a year and probably much, much longer to debate its own future.
Another step on the road to independence
A report from serial intervenor Gordon Brown said that replacing the Lords with a Senate of the Nations and Regions would be a vital step - if England were serious about continuing the union with Scotland over the long term.
Believe in Scotland is no fan of Brown’s - but he was right.
Despite what vocal Unionists argue, England is really not that bothered about continuing the Union with Scotland, which is good news for Scottish independence supporters. Scots watching the gradual drift apart of the UK can be assured that if we did nothing but watch and wait, the UK is moving closer to break up.
Of course we are not waiting, we will force the pace - the Scottish independence movement will continue to grow and strengthen its voice for a better future to make sure this happens sooner than later. See Believe in Scotland’s path to independence plan here.
But with this announcement, England is demonstrating where its priorities lie. It is not prepared to pursue meaningful change. It can of course keep the House of Lords - as part of an English Parliament.
Starmer has ceded the future of Scotland to the independence movement
The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament cannot lawfully hold an independence referendum, stating that sovereignty lies with Westminster. How long will we be expected to accept that we should leave our future in the hands of an institution, more than half of whose members have no right to represent anyone other than themselves?
It is obvious that more and more Scots are refusing to accept this.
A democratic second chamber is a powerful tool and an independent Scotland should have a citizens’ chamber not Lords.
In democracies, a second chamber can represent nations and regions, balancing the voices of the whole country rather than centralising power in one place.
In Canada, for example, the Senate allocates seats by province - Quebec holds 24 of 105 - ensuring its distinct national identity is directly represented in federal decision-making.
In Germany, the Bundesrat gives each of the 16 Länder (states) votes in national legislation
Switzerland’s upper house is called “The Council of States” and has 46 members. They are allocated to the country’s 20 cantons, who each choose how to elect their own representatives.
The US Senate has 100 members, two each for every state. The French Senate has 348 members, who are elected mostly by members of local councils across the country.
Even the Chinese Congress is more democratic
The only undemocratic parliamentary chamber in the world larger than the Lords is China’s National People’s Congress, with 2,980 members. The population of the UK is 67 million; the population of China is 1.4 billion.
The Chinese Congress is clearly non-democratic but at least its members serve for 5 years while Lords are for life and Congress members are drawn from every region of the country. When it comes to democracy, keeping up with China is setting the bar pretty low and the House of Lords doesn't even achieve that.
By contrast, the UK’s House of Lords provides no such balance. It is overwhelmingly dominated by London and the south of England. Even “Lords” and “Ladies” of Scottish origin don’t usually live here - scandal-hit underwear tycoon Michelle Mone for example has lived in Mayfair for many years.
Every one of the “Scottish” peers is a Unionist - although more than 50% of Scots support independence. Not one of them has any right to represent anyone other than themselves.
Seats are for sale
Seats in the House of Lords are widely acknowledged to be for sale - or as it is more coyly put - “linked to donations”.
Another “Scottish” peer - the Unionist propagandist Malcolm Offord was rejected when he stood for election at the ballot box. He received his peerage soon after donating £147,000 to the Conservative Party. He also donated to fund Michael Gove’s personal election expenses.
Peter Cruddas was appointed to the House of Lords despite the fact he was judged unsuitable by the House of Lords’ own selection committee. That appointment came after a donation to the Conservative Party of £500,00.
We have no explanation as to why the Russian Evgeny Levedev, bankrolled by his KGB father, holds a seat in the Lords.
Recent research by Transparency International UK exposed the scale of political patronage in the Lords. Between 2013 and 2023, 68 out of 284 new peers nominated by political parties were major donors, who collectively gave £58 million to party coffers. A dozen of these “super-donors” accounted for over £50 million of that total.
The report warns that, while selling peerages is supposed to be illegal, the link between donations and lifetime seats raises “valid concerns about the sale of peerages as rewards for substantial contributions.”
The Lords does not meet the EU standard of democracy
The Copenhagen Criteria, which set out the EU’s standards for democratic governance, state:
“Functional democratic governance requires that all citizens of the country should be able to participate, on an equal basis, in political decision-making at every level… This also requires free elections with a secret ballot.”
By that measure, a state partly ruled by hereditary peers, donors-for-seats, and political appointees-for-life would not qualify for reentry even if they wanted to.
England can keep its House of “Lords”. Every nation in these islands should be an independent and complete nation. Each should decide upon their own institutions - institutions that suit them and promote their nations wellbeing.
It will be an opportunity, for Scotland at least, to move on from outdated institutions that hail from a feudal past and build new ones that are democratic and that the people choose.
This is the moment to relight the fire for Scottish independence but we need your help to do it: https://www.believeinscotland.org/crowdfunder2025
