The case against dual mandates
A key principle of better democracy is effective representation. Dual mandates, where MSPs, MPs or peers hold additional political jobs, go against this principle for several reasons.
Constituents ultimately deserve full-time representatives speaking up for them in parliament. Not part-time legislators.
This is a matter of best principle and practicalities. On the former, voters deserve representatives fully dedicated to represent them with one clear mandate in one sphere of power such as Holyrood or Westminster.
Not to mention, a full-time MSP representing a seat in Scotland attending the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh while also making trips to London as an MP or peer just isn’t practical.
Even for London Assembly Members who also hold seats in Westminster, while the geographic commitment is not as split and as geographically challenging as for Scottish MPs, both roles are still time consuming full-time jobs.
Empirical evidence backs this up, with a 2009 study of Members of the EU Parliament with additional mandates shown to be less productive than their single mandate counterparts.
Voters deserve full-time champions speaking up for them in one clear capacity. Not part-time representatives. It’s time to ban dual mandates once and for all.
READ MORE FROM UPGRADE HOLYROOD: 5 reasons to ban MSP-MP dual mandates
upgradeholyrood.com 