Lords and SNP

I observe that while SNP has some, allegedly recently increased,
popularity in Scotland and a (rather small) representation in
Westminster House of Commons, they appear unrepresented in Westminster
Lords.

Dag T. Hoelseth...

Please remember that not everyone at alt.talk.royalty except those who
live in Scotland or in the UK will immediately recognize the shortened
form of SNP.

I gather that you are talking about the Scottish National Party,

Dag T. Hoelseth

Malcolm...

That's because the SNP has long banned any peer who is a member of the
SNP from sitting in the Lords.

chornedsnorkack...

What do those peers do?

There is a political party in UK whose election manifesto, I gather, is
that they have no plan of sitting - they show up in Westminster to
claim their seats, then wilfully refuse to swear the oath to sit there
and let themselves be thrown out. They keep winning elections on that
platform.

SNP does sit in Westminster Commons - even now that they have the
Scottish Parliament.

Marag Dubh...

As do all Scottish and Welsh MPs of every party. And your point is...?

chornedsnorkack...

To compare the SNP policy of boycotting the House of Lords with the
Sinn Fein policy of boycotting the Commons - and contrast SNP policy of

Graham Truesdale...

A policy which can itself be contrasted with the policy of Bernadette
McAliskey (nee Devlin) of taking her seat in the Commons and
assaulting Maudling there. Not to mention the policy of Eamon de
Valera of taking his seat in the Parliament of the Irish Free State and
swearing an Oath of Fidelity to His Majesty King George V.

- and contrast SNP policy of

boycotting the House of Lords with SNP policy of not boycotting the
Commons.

Jackie Mulheron...

Members of the House of Lords are unelected. Not comparable.

Marag Dubh...

Yep. No comparison; but that is one of the many anachronisms that we
have with an unwritten constitution and a German monarchy.

Can SNP peers vote in elections to the House of Lords?

Malcolm...

Only a small minority of peers attend the House of Lords. The rest do

Stan Brown...

Because most of them aren't *members* of it, and haven't been for
seven years.

Stan Brown...

That's the reason now. It is true however that when all peers were
members of the House of Lords the attendance was still only a small
minority.

Don Aitken...

The was something published about this a couple of years ago, which I
posted about here at the time. As I remember it, the proportion of
eligible peers applying for a writ of summons hit a low point in the
early to mid 20th century - both before and after that, it was
substantially higher. Actual attendance was at a minimum during WWII
when it was frequently no more than a dozen or so - hence the use of
the Robing Room while the Commons borrowed their Chamber.

Does anyone know how current attendance figures relate to current
membership figures? Do most elected members of the House of Lords
actually attend most sessions?

Don Aitken...

Dunno. but would be interested to find out.

whatever they do. Some are businessmen, some look after their estates,
some live abroad, some do very little, some do a lot.

Malcolm...

A handful of Sinn Fenn MPs, elected in Northern Ireland, have done this.
Unfortunately, the silly rules of the Commons allow them to draw their
salaries even though not attending.

That isn't, though, the whole of their manifesto. They do have another
platform - namely separating Northern Ireland from the UK and joining
the Irish Republic.

Malcolm...

So do the Welsh Nats. It's an anomaly.

Malcolm...

There are no elections to the House of Lords. It is part hereditary,
part appointed.

Al...

No, the hereditary peers elect from within their number those to sit.

Westminster House of Lords has a large number of "cross-bench" peers, a
small group of "non-affiliated" peers and I think just 1 "Independent".
There is an independent in Commons, too, but no cross-benches.

Just what is the difference between being independent, being
non-affiliated and being cross-bencher?

Don Aitken...

The cross-benchers are an organised group of peers who do not belong
to any political party. It has existed for many years, and is
recognised in Standing Orders; the hereditaries who belong to it
counts as a separate group for the purposes of election of members of
the House. "Non-affiliated" means that the peer concerned is neither a
member of a party nor of the cross-bench group (usually because he or
she takes no part in the proceedings of the House). Who is the
"independent"?

Malcolm...

The Lords has benches facing the throne as well as on either side of the
house. The Commons only has benches on either side. The benches in the
Lords facing the throne are called the cross benches, and those Lords
who chose to sit on them are the cross-bench peers. They owe no
allegiance to any particular party. As the Commons only has benches on
either side there can't be any cross-benchers!

Non-affiliated peers are not affiliated to any party and presumably do
not regard themselves as cross-benchers.

Independents regard themselves as independent of any party and
presumably do regard themselves as either non-affiliated or
cross-benchers.

Sir Sean Connery is known to be adherent to SNP. Are there any Scottish
peers adherent to SNP and not members of Westminster House of Lords?

Don Aitken...

I would have thought there must be some, but I can't think of any.

Marag Dubh...

No, none, nada. The late Donald Stewart PC MP was offered a seat when
he retired as the SNP Leader, but told them where to stick it.

Malcolm...

There are apparently 366 Scottish peers, so I would have thought it
probable that some favour the SNP.