SNP prepares for ‘guerrilla’ war on Brexit after MPS’ walkout
●Party set to use arcane Westminster rules again to frustrate EU legislation
The SNP will mount a parliamentary “guerilla” campaign on Westminster after they dramatically walked out of the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions over an alleged devolution “power grab”.
Sources said arcane parliamentary procedure would be called on again in order to frustrate Brexit legislation, after the Nationalists nearly derailed the session in protest over the lack of debate on Brexit’s constitutional impact.
Nationalists were accused of staging a pre-planned “stunt” as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon pledged it would “no longer be business as usual”.
There was widespread anger among opposition MPS from Scotland on Tuesday when debate on amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill affecting devolution was squeezed to just 15 minutes, with only the government minister able to deliver a speech. Passage of the amendments marks the first time Westminster has overruled the Scottish Parliament, which has refused consent for the EU Withdrawal Bill.
In chaotic scenes yesterday, SNP MPS followed Ian Blackford out of the chamber en masse after the Commons Speaker John Bercow ejected the group’s leader.
Mr Blackford used standing orders of the House of Commons to demand an emergency debate in private on Westminster’s retention of 24 devolved powers after Brexit.
He refused to back down when Mr Bercow would not hold an immediate vote on the SNP MP’S demand, leading to his suspension from Parliament for the rest of the day. Leading SNP MPS out of Westminster in
the moments following his ejection, Mr Blackford told journalists that from now on, “normal courtesies will not take place”.
Speaking later outside Parliament, he said: “The power grab has now in effect happened. We have the outrageous situation that Scottish Members of Parliament have been unable to debate.”
Mr Blackford added: “I met with a representative of the UK government this morning, and I have told them that things have changed.
“We will do what we can as a parliamentary group to hold them to account, and use parliamentary procedures to best effect. The endgame is to make sure that the government recognise that they can’t get away with what they’re doing to the people of Scotland.”
Had a private session been agreed, it would have wrecked the government’s timetable for the day. A party source said parliament’s rule book, Erskine May, was being trawled for similar “guerilla tactics”. Scotland’s Brexit minister Michael Russell had already threatened to withdrawal from technical discussions with UK counterparts on how new powers would be shared after leaving the EU.
The First Minister posted on social media that she was “right behind” her party’s MPS, claiming Scotland and the Scottish Parliament “are being treated with contempt by Westminster and it needs to be highlighted”.
However, Scottish Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPS condemned the walk-out as a “stunt”, and said Mr Blackford had spoiled his chance of securing an emergency debate on devolution in the coming days.
An application lodged by the SNP yesterday morning could not be moved because of the suspension, and four Nationalist MPS gave up their chance to question the Prime Minister. His suspension also meant that Mr Blackford could not take part in the second day of debate on Lords amendments to the Withdrawal Bill, which included votes on the UK’S membership of the EU single market and customs union.
Conservative MP Douglas Ross condemned the SNP going down a “pathetic theatrical route”, and Labour’s Ian Murray said it was “time for grown-up politics, not manufactured grievances”.
He said: “This ridiculous stunt may grab headlines, but its impact demonstrates just how little the SNP really cares about stopping the Tories’ reckless hard Brexit.
“There are knife-edge votes in the Commons, particularly on our future relationship with the customs union, and now Ian Blackford has increased the chances of Theresa May and the Brexiteers getting away with it because he has been banned from voting.”
Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine said: “They pulled a political stunt rather than speak up for the people of Scotland. They abandoned Scotland for a political stunt to win them points.”
Mr Bercow appeared to join in criticism of the SNP, telling MPS: “If people absent themselves when they have the opportunity to make these applications, and I really do think it would be a good thing if we brought to a close the operation of stunts, and focused instead on the proper discharge of our responsibilities in this place.”
Tory MPS also ridiculed the SNP on social media after a script from Tuesday’s debate was found, listing points of order for Nationalists to raise in protest, including a choice of whether to voice “outrage / disappointment”.
Scottish Secretary David Mundell admitted that “the fact that there was a shorter time to debate that issue than anybodywouldhavelikedisn’t a good optic”, but insisted the EU Withdrawal Bill “does not in any way undermine or disrespect the existing devolution settlement”.
The Scottish Secretary will deliver a Commons statement today giving MPS the chance to debate Brexit and devolution.
Facing calls from the SNP for his resignation, Mr Mundell said: “I’m not responsible ultimately for how the House of Commons operates, or its procedures. I am, however, disappointed that we didn’t have more time for the debate.
“There is nothing the SNP would like more than to have a process row rather than talk about the substance – which is why they’ve chosen this stunt today, rather than to have the debate that through parliamentary channels was being organised.”
The SNP’S deputy Westminster leader, Kirsty Blackman, said Mr Mundell’s statement “must be his resignation”.
“He is ignored and sidelined at Westminster and he is too scared to appear at Holyrood … He is letting us all down by failing to lift a finger to protect our national interests. He must go.”
The SNP claimed it had gained 1,100 new members in the hours after the clash at Prime Minister’s Questions.
“The endgame is to make sure that the government recognise that they can’t get away with what they’re doing to the people of Scotland”
IAN BLACKFORD
Is there anyone – anyone at all – who knows what the government stands for? What the Prime Minister believes in? What the Conservative Party is for? For they seem lost, blind as to direction and broken beyond repair.
There’s a political vacuum all right – and it’s not just to be found on the Centre Left.
For here is the lost tribe in British politics – confused as to what it believes, deeply divided and bereft of conviction.
This week marked a grotesque cul de sac on what was called, laughably, a “meaningful vote amendment” – yet another farce in its blundering towards Brexit – or what it perceives to be Brexit.
But who is sure what that means any more? The lastminute compromise agreement at Westminster on Tuesday brought contradictory interpretations the next day as to what was agreed. What was supposedly agreed is not agreed at all.
The rebels (which are now the Remainers, not the Brexiteers) claim they were told the government would offer a new amendment in the House of Lords next Monday that would give parliament the power to prevent a no-deal Brexit. But government sources dispute this and say that it was only agreed to keep them talking. Meanwhile we look on, stupefied by the swamp that Brexit has become.
Why has no deal been reached with the Scottish Government on the return of Brexit powers, and so little time given to Scottish concerns – which so outraged SNP MPS?
Is there anybody – anybody at all – who has mastered the intricacies of the Irish border question, or the customs union (or “New Customs Arrangement”), or the trade arrangements, or where the famous Red Lines can be found, if they can be found at all?
And who is any the wiser as to which is now the front-runner in the bewildering alphabet soup of options trailed before us: CU, CETA, CETA+, EEA or EFTA, Canada+ (or is it Canada++ or Canada+++ ?) or WTO?
Whatever direction the government is headed – assuming it knows itself the direction – one outcome looms ever closer through the fog: a collapse of the Conservative Party.
Who knows now what it stands for? And how many of its grass roots activists and canvassers (those still left) can explain it, let alone campaign for it?
“We’re leaving the European Union” was the robotic parrot cry of the Prime Minister. But what of progress since that vote two years ago to leave the EU? “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” would be a more suitable mantra for her.
The “meaningful vote amendment” (sic) would have allowed Parliament to reject a no-deal Brexit and impose on the government a new negotiating mandate in its talks with the EU. This, said supporters, would have upheld the rights of parliament and democratic accountability.
But that, said critics, would effectively weaken the UK in the negotiations to the point of submission to whatever the EU is willing to offer. It would give the EU no incentive to offer the UK anything other than the worst possible deal. The European Commission could simply hold out for capitulation, as it could rely on the heavily pro-eu House of Lords to reject any deal until the EU got the deal it wanted.
In the wake of the resignation of Philip Lee from the Ministry of Justice, a lastminute agreement was reached after a meeting between Mrs May and 14 Remain supporters centred around Dominic Grieve. But what did that agreement contain? They are convinced that Mrs May gave ground and promised further debate.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Robert Buckland has played a master hand of obfuscation that would have delighted the script writers of Yes, Minister. While saying the concerns of the rebels would be listened to, he expressed his opposition to parliament giving the government “direction” and suggested that tying the hands of the government would actually make no deal more likely. Clear? Of course not. Nobody is. “Meltdown” and “confusion” were among the more repeatable verdicts. Now in all this there is a large element of grand standing: who could be opposed to powers returning to the UK? In defence of the Prime Minister, it could be said she is keeping the government in office through the most artful ambiguity, each side hearing only what it wants to hear.
And how else could she play this, given the hung parliament outcome last June, the presence of powerful Remainers not only on the backbenches but within her own Cabinet, and a House of Lords where 98 pro-remain Liberal Democrat peers enjoy an influence far in excess of the 5 per cent support of the party voters offered in last year’s general election?
Government is the art of the possible. Mrs May is now attempting the art of the impossible – a feat she can only achieve by putting aside the convictions held by a majority of her own party in the country.
Such is the anger this has aroused that barely a day goes by without the letters page of the Daily Telegraph being dominated by outraged supporters denouncing her in apoplectic fury. A poll carried out last week by the Conservative Woman website asking readers “Should Theresa May quit as Prime Minister” resulted in a resounding 95 per cent vote in favour.
Overwhelming? Only up to a point. In a hilarious retort, a reader wrote in to say the poll should be held again “because I didn’t understand what I was voting for”.
Few inside the party – its leadership and its grassroots activists – can make sense of the emerging chaos, still less articulate a programme on this and other issues such as tax and spending that would resonate with voters.
This is a party that has descended into super fudge – one that blocks the arteries and chokes the heart out of its core beliefs. Not just a lost tribe, but something worse – a party heading relentlessly towards its self-destruction.