THE oath MPs must take before sitting in the House of Commons is discriminatory and another should be offered, General Election candidates have said in a letter to the Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle’s office has been asked to provide an alternative to the current oath which sees MPs pledge to “bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors”.

“The current oath required of MPs, which entails pledging allegiance to the monarch, poses a significant dilemma for those whose political beliefs are republican in nature,” according to the letter sent by Independent for Independence candidates Eva Comrie and Sally Hughes, along with the Not my Parliament campaign group’s Allan Petrie, and Leanne Tervit from Schemes for Indy.

They go on: “Forcing individuals to swear allegiance to the monarch contradicts their deeply held convictions and infringes upon their rights to freedom of belief and expression as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: It's time for a grown-up debate on future of monarchy

“The letter contends that individuals with republican beliefs are entitled to the same protections under the law as those with religious beliefs or other philosophical convictions. Therefore, the authors propose the implementation of an alternative oath that would allow MPs to pledge allegiance to the people of their constituency rather than to the monarch.”

They add: "It is our contention that the current oath system effectively discriminates against individuals based on their political beliefs."

According to the UK Parliament website, the wording of the oath comes from the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, while the form and manner of giving it are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.

It further states: “MPs take the oath by holding the sacred text in their uplifted hand and saying the words: ‘I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.’”

MPs can also take it in the “Scottish manner”, which is the same but without the “sacred text”.

Alternatively, there is a “solemn affirmation”, which is used for people who do not wish to swear on the Christian god. However, they must still swear allegiance to the King.

This solemn affirmation states: “I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”

Any changes to the oaths would require legislation, it is understood.

The group said they were sending the letter to the Speaker’s office to mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, which was made on April 6, 1320 and declares the independence of the kingdom of Scotland.

The group said: “As we commemorate the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, a seminal document in Scottish history that espouses principles of self-determination and sovereignty of the people, it is only fitting that we reflect upon the ongoing quest for equitable representation and democratic participation.

“The call for an alternative oath serves as a testament to Scotland's commitment to upholding fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of Scotland and others who hold republican views.”

READ MORE: Quebec indy leader in 'fundamental' warning to Scotland on diplomatic tour of Europe

In 2022, the pro-independence Parti Québécois made headlines after their leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, refused to swear an oath to King Charles.

Plamondon was blocked from taking his seat in the Quebec parliament as a result, but the rules were then changed to allow him to do so without swearing to the British monarch.

The Speaker’s Office said the oath was not within their remit.