BORIS Johnson's administration has been dealt a blow after a Lords whip quit his post in protest against the suspension of Parliament.
The announcement came after Scottish Tory leader Davidson said she had taken the decision to stand down as she wanted to concentrate her time on her young family.
But she also highlighted "the conflict I have felt over Brexit", adding: "I have attempted to chart a course for our party which recognises and respects the referendum result, while seeking to maximise opportunities and mitigate risks for key Scottish businesses and sectors."
READ MORE: Ruth Davidson formally resigns as Scottish Tory leader
Lord Young of Cookham, a UK Government whip in the upper house, was more direct, saying was "very unhappy" with the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament for an extended period as the the October 31 deadline for Brexit looms.
A legal challenge brought by a cross-party group of MPs and lords asking the Court of Session in Edinburgh to overturn Johnson’s plans to suspend Parliament was set to be heard at noon on Thursday, leader petitioner Joanna Cherry announced.
Scottish court will hear our #prorogation challenge at 12 noon today #Cherrycase #Brexit #StopTheCoup
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) August 29, 2019
The resignations of Davidson and Lord Young came as Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg hit back at the PM's critics, saying the outpouring of outrage it triggered was "phoney".
The leading Brexiteer also hit back at Commons Speaker John Bercow's criticism, saying it was "not constitutional" for the Speaker to intervene in such a way.
Rees-Mogg insisted the prorogation move was not intended to limit the time available for MPs to debate Brexit but will allow the Government to tackle other issues.
READ MORE: Brexit: MPs launch legal bid to reverse Parliament shutdown
He said: "I think the outrage is phoney and it is created by people who don't want us to leave the European Union and are trying very hard to overturn the referendum result and don't want the benefits of leaving the European Union."
He added: "Parliament wasn't going to be sitting for most of this time anyway. This is completely constitutional and proper."
On Bercow's intervention, Rees-Mogg said: "It is not constitutional for the Speaker to express his opinion without the direction of the House.
"He has had no such direction and therefore his comments were in a private capacity. They can't be as Mr Speaker."
Rees-Mogg led the Government's defence of the prorogation as Labour and opposition parties vowed to press ahead with attempts to block a no-deal Brexit using legislation despite the decision to suspend Parliament for more than a month before the October 31 exit deadline.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: This was the day independence became inevitable
Shadow international trade secretary Barry Gardiner said: "It is going to be extremely difficult. That's why the Government is disingenuous to say this is not about trying to stop us doing that.
"We will be seeking measures on Monday to try and have what is known as a Standing Order Section 24 debate. We will seek to try and put through the appropriate legislation in this constrained timetable that the Government has now put before us.
"Downing Street is lying when it claims this is about the conference recess. If he wanted to get on with his domestic agenda, he would in fact be having a shorter period of prorogation."
Thousands of people rallied for hours outside Parliament on Wednesday night, and there were smaller demonstrations in other towns and cities as Remainers reacted to the prorogation announcement.
More than 1.4 million people have also signed a petition calling on Johnson not to suspend Parliament.
And some Conservative MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit joined the chorus of disapproval as lawyers prepared legal challenges to the move in the English and Scottish courts.
Johnson said on Wednesday that he wanted to prorogue Parliament in order to bring the current record-breaking session to a close in order to bring forward his Government's new legislative agenda.
But former Tory prime minister Sir John Major was among those who attacked the move, saying he was seeking advice on its legality.
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