YOUR correspondents today (Letters, July 30) are mistaken. Every institution contains its share of people whose behaviour deviates from what is acceptable. Churches and youth organisations have had paedophiles and adulterers; a lord uses prostitutes and sniffs cocaine. Do they imagine that the House of Commons is somehow innocent of deviance? Of course it is not. Nor is it inexpensive to maintain. The House of Lords is a tried and tested part of the most revered democracy in the world. Its function is to provide a second tier of experience and ability which can put a brake on the actions of the Commons. You tamper with such structures, long in the making, at your peril.
Of course the structure can be improved. But the difference is that by being appointed and not elected, we get lords who are able in unusual ways that the man in the street may not understand. How many excellent people will have failed to be used by the country just because they have no taste or inclination to promote themselves? Self-promotion and fighting on the hustings are not things that any really intelligent person wishes to spend time at. That is, precisely, a waste of his time. Should the president of the Royal Society have to compete in an election to be a lord? Of course not. His ability is already recognised and it matters not that the electorate understand his expertise.
The House of Lords should be a repository of the best brains in the country. Because of that, it should be unelected, for many very good minds have decided that they are the best.
Should the Prime Minister have the power to appoint another clutch of able people to the house just to try to prevent his moves being obstructed? Of course. That is how it works. Some more able people have been given the power to exercise their ability and integrity for the good of the country. And they may not, after all, support the PM, for they are independent and cannot be made dependent.
The House of Lords can even have its numbers reduced if that seems necessary, which has happened. But even a democracy needs checks and balances. That is what the Lords provide and they are, individually, however it may seem, independent in every way. Our lords are ambassadors and role models. Though unelected, they represent the people, but if found unworthy, they must be sacked.
William Scott,
23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.
I CANNOT agree with Iain Macwhirter's argument for the SNP to join in that insult to democracy that is the House of Lords (“SNP should lift Lords boycott and sit as peers for abolition”, The Herald, July 30). Trying to reform it from within would be a task beyond the tiny minority of peers that the SNP could muster, and by accepting peerages for whatever noble purpose would ultimately be seen as tacit approval of this absurdity.
The real engine for change in the Lords must be driven by the Labour Party, who have shown throughout their history a schizophrenic attitude when tasked with its removal. Too many of their contingent within the Lords have betrayed their earlier political principles when offered the opportunity of ennoblement.
Only when the bulk of these act as ''abolition peers'' as Mr Macwhirter advocates for the SNP will we see the removal of this impediment to real democracy and equality. Then we can turn our attention to that other absurdity in this 21st century – the monarchy.
James Mills,
29 Armour Square, Johnstone.
More letters: http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/letters/
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