The Government's proposals for English votes for English laws are seen as "political expediency" and the result of "panic", a leading Tory former Cabinet minister has said.
In a withering attack, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said the only beneficiary of the plan set out by William Hague were the nationalist parties.
Commons leader Mr Hague has put forward three proposals in the light of the devolution of further powers to Scotland, the most radical of which would give English MPs the chance to veto legislation relating only to England.
Lord Forsyth said: "From the point of view of many people outside of this place, these proposals together with the further proposals for devolution in Scotland are regarded as having been conceived in panic, delivered in haste and fathered by political expediency."
He added: "The only beneficiaries of this approach are the nationalists, who are surging in the polls, and this is not a moment to divide unionists."
His comments came in the House of Lords after Baroness Stowell of Beeston, the Lords leader, had repeated Mr Hague's statement on the issue.
Lord Forsyth asked her: "Will you not reconsider there view that there should be a constitutional convention that will look at the matter on the matter of consensus between the parties, which is the basis on which we should make constitutional change?"
Lady Stowell told him that the Government was "not ruling out a constitutional convention at all".
"There are clearly matters which some people would like to see addressed in a constitutional convention," she said.
"What we are saying is that in light of greater devolution to Scotland there is a need for us to address a particular issue of English votes for English laws.
"This is not something that is being rushed into. This is something that Parliament has been looking at for a very long time.
"We have got some clear options, we are inviting people to debate these options and we think this should happen without delay and bigger issues beyond this should not be a reason to delay us getting on with something very important to the people of England."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article