Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament: consultation analysis
We conducted a consultation between 20 January and 23 March 2025, seeking views on the principles and practical issues of ending dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament. The consultation received 77 responses. This report summarises the views provided.
Introduction
Background
Dual mandates is the term used to describe the scenario of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) also holding a seat in the House of Commons (MPs), House of Lords (Peers[2]) or representing a ward in their local council (Councillors), in addition to their seat in the Scottish Parliament.
In December 2024, the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 (the Act). Part 2 of the Act requires Scottish Ministers to create regulations prohibiting MSPs from holding dual mandates and Peers. Ministers also have the discretion to extend these prohibitions to local Councillors. The regulations must address conditions such as grace periods for transitioning out of existing roles, participation limits during such periods, and any adjustments to salaries and allowances.
The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation seeking views on the principles and practical issues of ending dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament.
This report provides a summary analysis of the consultation responses.
The Consultation
The consultation was live on the Citizen Space online platform between 20 January 2025 and 23 March 2025. [3] It asked 18 open and closed questions seeking views on:
- whether MPs and Peers should be disqualified from being MSPs at the same time, and whether the law should be changed to prohibit an MSP from being a Councillor at the same time;
- the length of any grace period which should be afforded to each category of person (MP, Peer and Councillor) to allow them time to leave their existing role once elected as an MSP;
- salary limitations during any permitted grace period;
- participation in parliamentary proceedings during grace periods; and
- withdrawal or retention of certain rights and privileges or any other technical aspects relating to dual mandates during any grace period.
Respondents to the consultation
The consultation received 77 responses, including 68 from individual respondents and nine from organisations. Five of the individual respondents, and one respondent on behalf of an organisation, were either currently or had in the past been elected representatives.
| Respondent categories | Number of responses | (N umber who are / have been elected representatives) |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals | 68 | (5) |
| Organisations | 9 | (1) |
| Total number of respondents | 77 | (6) |
Where respondents have given permission, full responses are published at the consultation page: Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament - Scottish Government consultations - Citizen Space.
The following nine organisations (including political parties) responded to the consultation and agreed for their organisation to be named and their responses to be published:
- Aberdeen City Council
- Dumfries and Galloway Council
- South Lanarkshire Council
- Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
- Scottish Green Party
- Scottish National Party
- The Electoral Management Board for Scotland
- Law Society of Scotland
- The Electoral Commission
Methodology
The consultation consisted of 18 questions, including four closed questions (inviting agreement or disagreement) and 13 open questions, inviting respondents to provide comments. A further question asked respondents whether they were currently or had ever been an elected representative.
Responses to the consultation were accepted via the Citizen Space online platform and via email submissions. Those received via email were entered manually onto Citizen Space to create a complete database of responses.
All comments made by respondents were considered and the issues raised relevant to the consultation topic were grouped into key overarching themes, which are explored in the following analysis.
It should be noted, as with all consultations, that the views of those who have responded are not necessarily representative of the views of the wider population. Those who have a keen interest in a topic – and the capacity to respond – are more likely to participate in a consultation than those who do not. This self-selection means that the results reported cannot be generalised to the wider population. For this reason, the overall approach to consultation analysis is primarily qualitative in nature. The aim was to identify the main themes and the full range of views expressed in relation to each question, and to draw out areas of agreement and disagreement between different groups of respondents.