UK Parliament / Open data

Scotland Bill

It is a question that could be raised again, given that we have a legislative workload on Scotland and that we would benefit from hearing the views of the Scottish National Party. I have an additional point, and here I agree very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. I do not want to see the balkanisation of Britain. The first casualty, though, could be the language of constitutional debate. We really should not be using language like ““rigged”” or ““fixed””. If there was someone here to answer and hit back at us in this debate, it would be bold and brave to use such language; it is not bold and brave to use it when there is nobody here to speak for the side that one is attacking. To accuse someone who is not represented here of being devious seems very unwise. We have very serious constitutional questions to address. I am a unionist. It is very important for the future and the health of the union that we address these questions in sober, polite and reasonable parliamentary language.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c1172 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Legislation
Scotland Bill 2010-12
Back to top