Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament: consultation analysis

Salary limitations

The consultation paper sought views on whether and what sort of salary limitations should be put in place, if any, for the duration of any grace period for each category (MP, Peer, Councillor dual mandates). At present, an individual serving as an MSP and MP has their MSP salary reduced to one-third of an MSP salary. Members of the House of Lords do not receive a salary for their parliamentary duties but are eligible to receive allowances and, within certain limits, the travel expenses they incur in fulfilling their parliamentary duties. Those who have taken a leave of absence from the House of Lords cannot claim allowances or expenses during their leave of absence.

There were varied views on limiting salaries for MSPs holding dual mandates during any grace period. Across all three categories, however, the most common theme was a strong preference for salary limitations, reflecting widespread concerns about "double jobbing", fairness, appropriate use of public funds, and that holding dual roles should not result in financial advantage.

Salary limitations for MP dual mandates

Most respondents stated that, in the case of MSP/MP dual mandates, the elected representative should only be allowed to receive a single salary. Some respondents suggested the retention of the higher of the two salaries, while around half suggested it should be the original salary that ceased upon election to the Scottish Parliament.

A smaller proportion of respondents (around one-quarter) proposed alternative arrangements, such as halving each salary, capping the total income at the average between both positions, or restricting spend at the position the elected representative will be departing to staffing and transition-related expenses only. Some respondents stated that parliamentary transitions should mirror standard workplace norms, advocating comparable notice periods and salary constraints arising from ceasing one employment before beginning another.

Of those respondents who have been or are currently elected representatives, 4 of 5 favoured only receiving a single salary during the transition, with one suggesting it should be the higher of the two, and another suggesting the other salary should be donated to charity. Another current/former elected representative stated “If the grace period can be restricted to 6 months, then I believe 50% full pay and then 50% half pay during that 6 month period to allow transition of responsibility from one Parliament to the next. If longer than 6 months [..] then maximum of 25% of Westminster salary for next 3 months and then nothing thereon”.

The only responses from organisations received to this question were from the Scottish Greens and the SNP. The SNP stated: “we would suggest that no MSP salary should be able to be drawn until such time as any MP elected to that office ceases to draw their MP salary. This would of course require consideration against any rules that Westminster have in place or might put in place in future”. The Scottish Greens, however, noted “Where a grace period is kept to a very short period of time, limiting salaries would seem like more effort than it is worth”.

Salary limitations for Peer dual mandates

Two thirds of respondents to the consultation responded to the question on salary limitations for Peer/MSP dual mandates but, of these, around a third simply reiterated their view that there should not be any grace period for (or should not be) Peer/MSP dual mandates. Around 1 in 5 of those providing a view stated that elected representatives in this position should receive one salary only / no remuneration from the ‘second’ job, and just under 1 in 5 thought that salaries should be limited or capped. Around 1 in 10 respondents stated that they should receive full remuneration from both positions, provided the grace period is short.

Of those respondents who have been or are currently elected officials, the prevailing view was that no second salary should be drawn / “Total remuneration should not exceed MSP salary”.

The Scottish Greens and the SNP stated their views were consistent with those they had expressed regarding MP/MSP dual mandate salary restrictions, although the SNP reiterated their view that there should be no grace period for Peers who are elected as MSPs.

Salary limitations for Councillor dual mandates

Overall, the balance of views expressed on salary limitations for Councillor/MSP dual mandates were similar to those for Peer/MSP dual mandates, with around 1 in 10 in favour of individuals receiving full remuneration from both positions during any grace period. In setting out reasons in favour of limiting individuals to receipt of only one salary or other limitations, a small number of respondents stated that it was already usual practice for MSPs dual-mandating as councillors to donate the council salary to local charities, but that this could be ‘encouraged’ or ‘made clearer’ in the interests of fairness.

The views of those who were current or former elected representatives were in line with other individual respondents to the consultation, with four in five in favour of individuals receiving either only one salary (3 of 5) or 50% of each salary (1 in 5). One other respondent made the point noted above regarding donation of the councillor salary to charity during any grace period and noted the importance of being proportionate and fair for all during what is a limited period.

Two of the three councils who responded to the consultation did not provide a view on salary limitations. South Lanarkshire Council did set out its view: “The Council considers that during any grace period there should be no such limitations, this period being a temporary concession pending the MSP vacating their role as a Councillor. The Council would, however, note that when its Executive Committee considered this on 12 March 2025 other views were also expressed on this point, in particular that a limitation would be appropriate based on the principle that one person cannot undertake two such roles simultaneously”.

Similarly, two of the three responding political parties did not provide a view on salary limitations for Councillor dual mandates. The SNP set out its view as follows: “We believe this situation is slightly more nuanced for those holding the position of MSP and MP during a transition phase, because those are both full-time roles and therefore only one salary should be received. However, given our view that we should provide greater flexibility for individuals to combine MSP and Councillor duties for a length of time, there is a case for limiting salaries here too, to minimise the cost to the public purse and to reflect that there will be some limitations on the ability of the individual to fully meet the responsibilities of each role at times. Paying a proportion of MSP salary that accounts for the existing Councillor salary might be the most appropriate method of achieving the desired outcome”.

All other responses from organisations expressed neutrality or indicated the subject was outside their remit.