Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament: consultation analysis

Prohibiting MSPs from holding dual mandates

Under the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, the Scottish Government is required to lay draft regulations which would have the effect of prohibiting dual mandates between the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons, and between the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords. The Act also gives Scottish Ministers the option to lay draft regulations including provisions prohibiting dual mandates between the Scottish Parliament and local authorities.

As shown in Table 2, below, there was strong support both for disqualifying MPs and Peers from being MSPs (66 and 60 respondents agreed respectively, with 3 and 9 respondents disagreeing), and for changing the law to prohibit an MSP from being a councillor at the same time (63 responded ‘yes’ to this proposition; and 6 respondents said ‘no’).

There was more of a split in opinion on the question of whether a member of the House of Lords who is on a leave of absence should be permitted to be an MSP. While a majority of respondents (48 of the 74 who provided a response to this question) thought that they should not be allowed to be MSPs; almost three in ten (21 of 74) thought that they should be.

The majority of respondents provided reasons for their views in the subsequent open text question as set out below.

The most common reason cited in favour of ending dual mandates across all three scenarios was that each role should be considered a full-time commitment, requiring complete dedication. Respondents with this view emphasised that having dual roles diminished the quality of representation. Typical views included, "An elected representative cannot possibly give their full attention to both parliaments without some conflict of interest," and "Both roles are full-time jobs, impossible for one person to carry out both simultaneously”. Another respondent expressed the view: "councils are actually the tier of government that most affects our daily lives... it really isn't suitable to be both at the same time."

A secondary theme, cited by approximately half of respondents to this question, was concern about practicalities such as conflicting schedules, travel demands, and workload management. Common comments highlighted logistical impossibilities, summarised by sentiments like, "One cannot be in two places at once".

Around one-third of respondents expressed ethical concerns, such as conflicts of interest, particularly for dual mandates involving MPs and Peers, but also for dual mandates involving Councillors. For example, an individual respondent expressed concern about representatives being required to balance competing local and national interests: "Local government and Holyrood are frequently opposed, creating situations where they thought representatives could find themselves "on both sides of the fence."

A smaller minority (around 1 in 10) disagreed with prohibiting dual mandates or showed flexibility toward them under certain conditions, primarily from a practical and logistical perspective. For MPs, a small number cited potential financial insecurity or the high cost of unnecessary by-elections. Regarding Councillors, a few respondents stated they were less concerned about dual mandates due to the perceived part-time nature of council roles. One respondent stated: “many elected members already balance multiple roles or jobs, and that this flexibility should not be denied outright if managed transparently and fairly.

The views of the small number of respondents who are or had been elected representatives were aligned with those of individuals who aren’t/haven’t been, with three of four respondents to the questions agreeing that dual mandates for MPs, Peers and should be prohibited, and that the law should be changed to prohibit dual roles for Councillors. Views expressed included that it is not possible to discharge both roles fully or responsibly, that holding two full-time elected roles is unfair to constituents as it reduces the attention and energy devoted to each post, and that holding two parliamentary jobs was "tantamount to legalised fraud". Another suggested that the public would receive a lower level of service compared to having two dedicated individuals in separate roles.

Responses from organisations (including political parties) generally supported prohibiting dual mandates, particularly for MPs and Peers. Of the political parties that responded, the SNP stated, "the role of MSP and MP should not be held concurrently, as both positions are full time roles, with demanding responsibilities." The Scottish Greens echoed this, arguing that it "would be a disservice to those members of the public who elected you... for it to then be split between two equally incredibly demanding roles in Parliament’s hundreds of miles apart."

Regarding Councillors, views varied slightly more. Of the local councils that responded, South Lanarkshire Council supported prohibiting dual mandates, stating that "it is in the interests of constituents that an elected representative is fully engaged in only one such role at any given time." Aberdeen City Council noted that they would not be commenting on “the rights or wrongs of introducing these regulations” but did think it was important to raise the administrative and financial implications of banning dual mandates and requiring immediate resignation. They noted that, "the introduction of these regulations will result in a high number of Council by-elections between SP [Scottish Parliament] elections and LG [local government] elections – currently scheduled 1 year apart. This will have a significant financial cost to local authorities which should be recognised," and emphasised the resulting strain on council election teams and other services.

The SNP took a neutral stance on Councillor dual mandates, acknowledging arguments on both sides and noting, "there is a case that because the role of Councillor is defined as a part-time position... no change to the law is required here." The Scottish Greens opposed changes, stating, "the current de-facto arrangement whereby councillors elected as MSPs stand down at the local elections the subsequent year has worked perfectly adequately thus far."

The Electoral Commission detailed practical issues relating to administrative impacts, noting that, following the 2021 election, 18 newly elected MSPs were also sitting councillors, and highlighting that forcing immediate resignations would have led to a series of costly council by-elections during the school summer holidays. They advised, "the Scottish Government should ensure that any changes are made clear by October 2025 to enable parties and independent candidates to familiarise themselves with the rules... and to allow us to update our guidance to support them".