A SCOTTISH LibDem MP has become embroiled in a row with his political opponents after he said he would prefer a No-Deal Brexit to a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.
Jamie Stone, MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, made the comments while appearing on the BBC’s Politics Scotland.
Both Labour and the SNP said the remarks showed the LibDems' “mask is slipping”.
Shadow Scottish secretary Lesley Laird called on Jo Swinson to clarify the remarks and said they showed the LibDems “are the same party that inflicted austerity on the country and they are now willing to inflict a No-Deal Brexit on the country”.
SNP MP Pete Wishart said: “It is astonishing the LibDems would be willing to inflict a devastating No-Deal Brexit on Scotland, which could cause a recession, destroy 100,000 Scottish jobs and inflict lasting harm on living standards, public services, and the economy.”
READ MORE: Scottish LibDem MP 'prefers No-Deal Brexit to Corbyn government'
However, Stone is now insisting that he had been misunderstood and was actually responding to an earlier question in which he had been asked to pick which option – a Corbyn-led government or No Deal – was worse.
He said: “I was quite clear in the whole interview that I oppose No Deal and oppose putting Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. So it is no use Labour deliberately misquoting me so as to twist the truth.”
Yet, footage of the conversation clearly shows Stone saying "It is No Deal every time ... I cannot possibly support him [Jeremy Corbyn]" when being asked to choose between Corbyn as prime minister and a No-Deal Brexit.
In order for you to make your own mind up, we’ve provided the full transcript of the exchange, which can be viewed here [30:22 onwards].
Stone was being interviewed alongside the SNP’s Kirsty Blackman, Labour’s Paul Sweeney and Tory David Duguid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviewer: “What matters more to you and your colleagues, avoiding No Deal or avoiding Jeremy Corbyn in No10?”
JS: “Let me answer that directly: we cannot possibly have Jeremy Corbyn in No 10. His popularity ratings are rock-bottom in the country. And secondly, I personally have grave doubts about him because of his equivocation and his closet Brexit view.
“But you’re quite right, we cannot possibly have a No Deal because that would ruin businesses in the remotest parts of my constituency. And I cannot, in all conscience, turn to my constituency [and say] ‘actually, for political reasons, cheerio, that’s your jobs and your livelihoods gone’. That’s not me.”
The other panel members are then questioned before the host returns to Stone.
Interviewer: "I don’t want to put words into your mouth so I’ll give you the chance to clarify. You seemed to imply a moment ago that actually from your perspective Jeremy Corbyn was even worse than a No-Deal Brexit. Could you just clarify that for a moment for us please?”
JS: “It’s as simple as this: we just cannot support Jeremy Corbyn as a prime minister.”
Interviewer: “Which is worse, Jamie Stone, which is worse if you have to choose – and it may be the real choice?”
JS: “It may be that somebody else may emerge from the Labour Party and I think the ball is very much in the Labour Party’s court to see what alternative they can find.”
Interviewer: “If no-one else does emerge and the choice that you face is between Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister or a No-Deal Brexit, then your position is you’re a pro-European party, you’re anti-No Deal, where do you stand? Is it Jeremy Corbyn or is it No Deal?”
JS: “It is No Deal every time. As I say, I cannot possibly support him [Corbyn]… because it will ruin my …”
At this point, Sweeney interjects to say: “That’s an extraordinary admission by the LibDems.”
Stone replies: “No it’s not at all.”
He continues: “The point is this. We’ve got to try and gold-plate this No Deal and I suspect if it has to come to it we may have to go to the courts to resolve this issue.”
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