THERESA May was accused of scurrying away from MPs yesterday after she claimed the SNP had “no mandate from the Scottish people to continue to pursue independence”.
The Tory leader’s comments came in response to Aberdeen North MP Kirsty Blackman during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions.
The SNP’s depute leader at Westminster told May that in January, “83% of Scottish MPs voted against the Prime Minister’s deal” and that on Tuesday “a historic vote in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament simultaneously rejecting the Prime Minister’s deal."
“Isn’t it the case that the Prime Minister had no mandate from Scotland for no deal or her deal,” Blackman asked.
May told the MP: "We entered the European Union as the United Kingdom, we will leave the European Union as the United Kingdom, and I also say to the honourable lady that the SNP has no mandate from the Scottish people to continue to pursue independence.”
That infuriated MPs on the SNP benches.
After the session, Ian Blackford stood up to raise a point of order, urging action to be taken against the Tory chief for misleading parliament.
But as he got to his feet, the Prime Minister left the chamber.
“I have to say it’s disappointing that the Prime Minister, who has been alerted that I will be asking a point of order, has chosen to scurry from the chamber," Blackford said.
He told the Speaker that the Prime Minister's claim the SNP had no mandate for independence was "simply not the case".
READ MORE: WATCH: PM 'scurries' away as SNP says she misled parliament over indy
Blackford added: "The Scottish National Party stood on a manifesto commitment to independence referendum if there was a material change of circumstances."
The SNP had, Blackford pointed out, won the election.
To heckles and cries of “boring” from the Tory benches, he continued: “Perhaps more importantly we took a motion to the Scottish Parliament, because there is emphatically a majority for independence in that parliament”.
May, he added, should come back to the chamber and “correct the record”.
But Speaker John Bercow insisted there had been “no procedural impropriety” and “nothing untoward in parliamentary terms about the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted herself.”
The clash was, Bercow continued, “in the nature of political debate and disagreement”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel