A Labour minister’s admission that Brexit has failed to deliver its promised benefits has prompted fresh demands for another Scottish independence referendum, with the SNP accusing the UK Government of applying different democratic standards to Scotland.
The dispute follows comments by Labour Minister for Local Energy and Jobs Martin McCluskey on the BBC’s Sunday Show, where he discussed the consequences of Brexit and the possibility of reconsidering the UK’s relationship with the European Union.
McCluskey said:
“We can see Brexit hasn’t delivered the benefits we were promised”
When questioned about when the public should have a say, he added:
“We’re having a conversation”
“I think Andy Burnham has just said very clearly that it’s a conversation we’re all having, so we might as well have it in public about what the benefits are”.
The SNP argues that Labour cannot support reconsidering Britain’s relationship with Europe while maintaining its opposition to another vote on Scottish independence.
The party points to the 2016 Brexit referendum, when 62 per cent of voters in Scotland supported remaining in the European Union, with every Scottish council area recording a majority for Remain.
That result came less than two years after the 2014 independence referendum, when 55.3 per cent voted to remain in the United Kingdom.
During the independence campaign, Scotland’s continued membership of the European Union was among the arguments advanced by supporters of remaining within the UK.
The subsequent Brexit vote fundamentally changed that position, although whether those circumstances justify another independence referendum remains a matter of political disagreement.
SNP Westminster leader Dave Doogan said:
“Martin McCluskey and an increasing number of his Labour colleagues are finally admitting what the SNP and people in Scotland have known for ten years.
“The Brexit promises made in 2016 were broken, and everyone is now suffering the damage.
“But Labour can’t have it both ways, if broken promises justify revisiting Brexit, then broken promises justify revisiting an independence referendum.
“Scotland didn’t vote for Brexit, or the trade barriers, or the lost opportunities for young people, or the hit to our economy.
“And if a Labour Minister accepts that the public should be able to think again about Brexit, he has no reason to deny the people of Scotland the same chance to think again about our own future.
“Because Scotland was sold the biggest broken promise of all, that a No vote meant staying in the EU.
“Scotland was also promised a No vote would protect our pensions, ensure cheaper mortgages, keep our country safe and defended but Sotland is living with the consequences of every one of those broken promises.
“Labour cannot argue that open, public debate and choice is allowed for Brexit while insisting the question of independence for Scotland must be off the table.
“That isn’t a principle.
“It’s rank hypocrisy.
“Ultimately, the best way for Scotland to get back into the European Union is as a normal independent country and the people of Scotland deserve the right to make that choice.
“No Westminster government, Tory or Labour, should stand in the way.”
The argument highlights a distinction between political discussion about Britain’s relationship with Europe and the legal requirements for holding another independence referendum.
In November 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for an independence referendum without the necessary authority from Westminster.
That ruling did not prevent another referendum taking place through an agreed constitutional process, as happened in 2014.
McCluskey’s remarks concerned discussion about the UK’s relationship with Europe rather than an explicit commitment to another Brexit referendum.
Nevertheless, the SNP is using his acknowledgement of Brexit’s shortcomings to challenge Labour’s position on allowing Scotland another opportunity to decide its constitutional future.
Whether those two questions should be treated alike remains the central political disagreement.
