THE House of Lords has long been regarded as being profoundly undemocratic and in need of either reform or of abolition.

But for years that political rhetoric has not been matched by action.

That failure has led to the current situation of a second chamber stuffed with political appointees and growing at an alarming rate.

Our current Prime Minister is poised to add to the number of peers sitting in the Lords by 200, taking the total tally to just shy of 1,000.

Successive prime ministers have used the right to create peers to stuff the Lords with, to quote Pete Wishart’s memorable phrase, “cronies and donors’’. Yet there is no mechanism to force lords to retire, and therefore no ability to ensure that the number of new peers is matched by those leaving the House.

This is clearly not sustainable. But the problem with the Lords is more than simply numerical. It is a strange type of democracy that allows unelected and unaccountable appointees the power to delay and potentially scupper legislation agreed by the elected government of the day.

The alleged antics of Lord Sewel do not in themselves make the House of Lords any less reputable. The failure of one man does not mean that the use of cocaine and experiences with sex workers are the norm among peers of the realm.

Sewel’s downfall may suggest that a prolonged exposure to the privileged world of the political elite can encourage a sense of being above the laws which proscribe the lives of “ordinary’’ men and women.

But, more importantly, it serves to cast a question mark over what purpose the House of Lords serves.

It is true there is merit in having a second chamber to rigorously review the plans of the Government. The committee system created within Holyrood was an attempt to create just such an overview. But it is not necessary to build a system of privilege and patronage to serve that purpose. It can be achieved in ways which better chime with a modern democracy. It is time an alternative is considered sand notice is served on the House of Lords.

Newsflash: we still want independence

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of many Scots’ attitude to another independence referendum.

That’s the only explanation of the hysteria in much of the UK media whenever there is any suggestion by an SNP politician that a second referendum on Scottish independence will be held.

And so it was that Alex Salmond’s blindingly obvious statement that at some point just such a referendum would take place was portrayed as a plot.

Here’s a newflash: the SNP – along with thousands of those who campaigned for ayes vote from outwith that party – actively want another referendum. Because – surprise, surprise – they still believe independence offers the best hope for the country’s future.

But that referendum will not take place until the Scottish people vote for it and independence will not become a reality until the Scottish people vote for it. That’s democracy.

Cameron’s dismissal of any suggestion that another referendum could take place within a random timescale of 30 years is entirely at odds with democracy. And that is a politically dangerous place to stand.