King’s Speech

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, in January 2022 the Constitution Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member together with my noble friend Lord Hennessy, published a report. The title, crafted by my noble friend himself, was Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. The committee said that there was

“evidence of an increasing ambivalence about the Union among the populations of each nation”.

Opponents of the union said that “its demise is inevitable”. The committee said:

“It is not, but there is no room for complacency”.


That message has been driven home even more powerfully by the fact that, following the recent elections, explicitly anti-unionist parties are now in the majority in each of the three devolved Governments. That cannot be left unnoticed.

The position is most compelling in Scotland. That is not because there is evidence that independence is the settled will of the Scottish people; it is far from clear that this is so. But the fact that the two pro-independence parties—the SNP and the Greens—once again have a significant majority over the parties that favour the union does matter. It provides the First Minister, John Swinney, with a platform that he is determined to exploit to develop his nationalist agenda.

At first sight, all the cards are with the Government here at Westminster. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 declares that

“the Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland”

is a reserved matter, so the referendum Bill that the First Minister is planning to introduce to the Scottish Parliament will get nowhere unless an order is made under Section 30 of that Act to modify that arrangement, which is not in prospect.

The Constitution Committee addressed this issue by stating that, while not a panacea, governance of the UK should be improved by greater respect and co-operation between the nations. Indeed, that was my noble friend Lord Hennessy’s message. This theme was repeated in the opening words of the gracious Speech, but, if the Minister will forgive me, this is no longer good enough; we must do more if the union is to be preserved. We must do more to ensure that the benefits of the union are recognised across all the nations. It needs to be clear what a vote for independence would involve, which is certainly not understood by most of those who favour independence.

I offer three suggestions. First, thought should be given to introducing a process for granting the Section 30 order by setting out in legislation the standard that needs to be achieved if a referendum on independence is to be authorised. Secondly, it should be made clear to the First Minister in any future discussions that a yes vote is only the starting point towards independence; we need to know what he plans to do next. Thirdly, and most importantly, thought should be given to introducing a provision similar to Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty on what would happen should any devolved Administration decide to withdraw from the union. It should be made clear that they will first need to negotiate and then conclude an agreement with the rest of the UK as to the arrangements to withdraw, taking account of the future relationship with the UK. That is what led to Brexit; the equivalent process for Scotland’s departure, should it ever happen, will be even more complicated. It cannot happen—and those who favour it should be reminded of this—unless and until a Bill that enables it to do so has been passed by the Parliament here at Westminster.