All four nations must be included in the future Scottish independence vote, colleagues have heard.
Bishop of Blackburn RT Rev. Julian Henderson proposed a referendum on the union, as the Scottish independence referendum could include all four nations as colleagues discussed pressure on the British union.
Many colleagues also expressed concern that the pressure on the union was getting worse.
The debate erupted when Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first SNP minister, began campaigning for a second Scottish independence referendum, suggesting that such a vote could take place early next year.
In his closing remarks, the bishop told the Lords: “I wonder if there is pressure on a referendum on whether such a big decision for the whole union should be decided by only one part and not the whole point of view.” Should keep
“But I know it’s controversial.”
Elsewhere in the debate, many colleagues expressed concern that tensions were rising in the union.
A former Commons clerk and cross-bench peer, Lord Lesvano, said that since he had last discussed in 2019 where Bridget’s influence had been discussed, he said: “More than three years later, he is uncertain. The situation is stable, and in some cases even worse. “
Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Wallace of Solitaire said: “The pressure on the Union is clearly increasing.”
“Stress and tension; it’s getting worse, if anything,” added Stan Gate, a Labor Pier Weiss Count.
“We’ve been dead for almost 25 years. We have plenty of time to get used to it, enough time to sleep with our constitutional provisions,” said Lord Strathclyde, a former conservative Lord’s leader. And we don’t have that yet.
“Tensions and tensions just seem too much, too complex, and obviously it will take a long time for them to work on a workable proposal.”
Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Bruce of Benachi told the upper house that the SNP was “weakening and trashing the cooperation between the revolution and the United Kingdom”, adding: “They claim they have a mandate for independence. But that is not the case. Freedom was denied when the question was asked, and opinion seems to be settled at almost the same level.
In an earlier discussion, independent cross-bench Wescount Waverley spoke of the importance of considering why deviant nations voted to stay within the EU.
He said: “Bridget was a claim made mostly by the British and most of the time this government is considered British. And only occasionally a British.
“Considering that it was the British community in Wales that persuaded the country to leave the EU, should we consider why deviant nations voted to stay in the EU?”
He added: “What is it about one state of a union that does not apply to another state?
“One of Bridget’s effects is to loosen the social contract that binds the United Nations to the United Nations, which shows that, like the British, for the British, through the British.
“And overall, nowhere is there an example of a federal state where one of the components of the federation is so large.”
The Minister for Communities, Lord Greenhall, said the British government was “fully committed” to the transition across the UK, adding that the Scottish people wanted their two governments to address these issues instead of discussing a second independence vote. Focus on what is really important. “
The debate erupted when a cross-party group of colleagues considered the future of Britain and how it could be put together in the future.
The Lord’s Constitutional Committee sought evidence from Communities Secretary Michael Gove, Greater Manchester Labor Mayor Andy Burnham, and Wales Labor First Minister Mark Drakeford, among others.
In its report, the committee emphasized that there was “no room for complacency” about the future of the UK and that there were “clear and achievable” means of adapting to the 21st century.