IT was Scottish Labour’s big idea in the wake of Brexit – a new Act of Union that would, according to Kezia Dugdale, “save the UK for generations to come”.
Yesterday, in an act of not very much union at all, Jeremy Corbyn appeared to dismiss his party’s Scottish leader’s proposals, saying, “I wouldn’t use the words 'new Act of Union'.”
In a speech to the IPPR in London in December, Dugdale revealed the plans for a more federal UK, telling the policy wonks and journalists that there should be “a People’s Constitutional Convention to re-establish the UK for a new age.” This would involve groups brought together to “deliberate on the future of our country and propose a way forward that strengthens the UK and establishes a new political settlement for the whole of our country.”
She had added: “I would not want the convention to just deliberate and report, but to produce a new Act of Union which would reaffirm the partnership between our nations and renew it for the future. After more than 300 years, it is time for a new Act of Union to safeguard our family of nations for generations to come.”
However, when BBC Scotland asked Corbyn if he agreed with Dugdale, he said: “I want us to look at the constitutional relationships. I wouldn’t use the words 'new Act of Union'.
“What we’ll be doing is looking at a new constitutional convention for the whole of the UK.”
He also said Nicola Sturgeon should not call a second referendum on Scottish independence as he did not think one is “needed”.
Corbyn, who this week said he wasn’t “wedded” to the idea of free movement of people, also dismissed Sturgeon’s plans to remain in the EU after Brexit, saying devolution of immigration legislation to Holyrood would be “very difficult”. A Scottish Labour spokesman said: “The Tories’ reckless Brexit gamble has given the Nationalists the excuse they need to try to force another independence referendum on the people of Scotland.
“More than two million people in Scotland voted to remain in the UK and that vote should be respected.
“Kezia Dugdale has proposed a new Act of Union to strengthen our union across the whole of the UK for generations to come.
“Being part of the UK protects jobs and the money we need to invest in our public services.”
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said: “I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn.
“But he’s quite right to reject the idea of a new Act of Union; it’s clearly little more than a Scottish Labour gimmick from a party all at sea on the constitution.
“Instead of constant flip-flopping on the issue, Labour should be standing full-square behind Scotland’s decision to stay part of the UK.”
The SNP’s Ivan McKee said the comments “fatally undermined” Scottish Labour’s position on the constitution.
“Just last week, Kezia Dugdale claimed that her London leader was backing her all the way, and that he supported her plan ‘unequivocally’.
“But it’s now clear that nothing could be further from the truth.
“It’s one thing for Scottish Labour proposals for a “new Act of Union” to be ridiculed and trashed by opponents, but quite another for them to be kiboshed by Jeremy Corbyn himself.
“On the constitution, there’s only one choice for Labour if they want to restore any credibility they may have left and avoid further electoral humiliation.
“They should back the SNP as we make the case for a Scottish Parliament with full powers which makes its own decisions. One which wouldn’t have to spend time clearing up the mess of a Tory Government we didn’t vote for.”
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