THE prospect of more Liberal Democrat peers being created despite the party's catastrophic performance at the General Election, which could see Scots grandees like Sir Menzies Campbell and Sir Malcolm Bruce ennobled, has been branded "absolutely absurd".
After an election, the Prime Minister can hand out peerages to former MPs in a Dissolution Honours List.
Senior Conservative sources have confirmed Nick Clegg's party is now planning to appoint more people to the Upper Chamber, which will result in the Lib Dems, who already have more than 100 peers, having 13 times more seats in the Lords than the eight MPs who survived the party's near wipeout on May 7.
Baroness Stowell, the Tory leader in the Lords, said: "If and when a Dissolution Honours List marking the end of the previous Parliament is published, it would be surprising if it did not reflect the fact that there were two parties in government."
But the SNP's Kirsty Blackman noted: "The situation is absolutely absurd. Despite a resounding rejection by the public at the General Election, the Lib Dems look set to bolster their numbers in the equally absurd House of Lords."
She said it was an affront to democracy in the 21st century that there remained a legislative chamber completely unaccountable to the electorate.
"In the SNP, we think elected representatives should make the laws rather than over 800 ermine-clad peers who are answerable to nobody and cannot be got rid of. It is time for the House of Lords to go altogether and be replaced with a wholly elected chamber," added the MP for Aberdeen North.
Labour peer Lord Campbell-Savours was equally critical, saying: "How can we justify adding to the existing 101 Liberal Democrat peers when their party secured only 7.9 per cent of the poll, winning only eight seats on a collapsed national vote at the General Election?
Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society, added: "The news that our already bloated House of Lords is set to swell even more simply beggars belief."
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 hereComments are closed on this article