THE Tories have accused the SNP of "manufacturing" a legal row over the UK's Brexit power grab in order to push for a second independence referendum.
The claim came as MPs debated the UK Government's decision to challenge emergency Brexit legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in the courts.
The devolved nations had rejected the UK Government's EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which has returned to the House of Lords, branding it a Westminster "power grab" and instead chose to pass their own "continuity Bills" to transpose EU law.
Scottish Tory MP Kirstene Hair described the move as a "political manoeuvre" designed to bring about another referendum.
Hair, speaking the Commons, said: "Myself and my colleagues have been concerned that the SNP's continuity Bill is a political manoeuvre designed to create precedence for legislation on a second independence referendum.
"It's time for the SNP to put this grievance to one side and get serious about working together as one team for the best possible Brexit."
SNP frontbencher Pete Wishart told ministers the decision to challenge the Bill represented an "utter contempt" for Scottish Parliament.
He said: "This is quite extraordinary, there's only a question about this legislation because the Tories have chosen to question it.
"They've been democratically defeated in the Scottish Parliament by an overwhelming majority and they're now showing their utter contempt for Scottish democracy by seeking to have this democratic decision overturned in the courts."
Speaking earlier in the question session, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the "continuity Bills" raised "serious questions about legislative competence that need to be explored".
He told MPs: "The key purpose of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill before this Parliament is to provide certainty across the UK on day one after exit from the EU and the Scottish and Welsh continuity Bills would frustrate this objective.
"If the continuity Bills were to become law, there would be impacts not just on the governments and legislatures but on widespread understanding of and confidence in UK law after exit."
SNP justice and home affairs spokeswoman Joanna Cherry described the UK Government's action as "unprecedented", saying: "The Scottish Parliament's Bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of 95 votes to 32.
"Only the Tories and one LibDem did not support the Bill. The rest of the Parliament – the SNP, Labour Party, the Greens and the rest of the Lib Dems – supported the Bill.
"Scottish ministers are satisfied it's within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In this view they have the support of Scotland's most senior law officer, the Lord Advocate."
Cherry, who secured the urgent question, asked: "Why is this Tory Government seeking to defeat a Bill in the courts which it couldn't defeat by democratic means in the Scottish Parliament?"
Wright, replying to this question, said a "substantial part" of the Bill in the Scottish Parliament was a "re-run of amendments she sought to get passed in this House and failed to do so".
SNP MP Stewart Malcolm McDonald later accused Wright of talking "tosh" as he claimed the Government wanted to "abolish" the Scottish Parliament.
Wright replied: "That's a bit of a stretch even for him."
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