MPs should consider "party political partner counselling" to find a way to "rekindle some romance" between the Government and the DUP, it has been suggested.
Pete Wishart said it looked like the "shortest romance in political history is coming to an acrimonious end", after the Prime Minister's allies threatened to vote against the Budget if she breaks their red lines.
The SNP's Commons Leader called for an urgent debate to see if anything could be done to save the "very special relationship".
Wishart, speaking during business questions, said: "Forged in the passion of a billion pound dowry, how could they possibly have resisted the abundant charms of the cuddly DUP?
"Now it's to be sunk by a border between them, as deep as the Irish Sea, as the star-crossed political lovers will now bring themselves down as well as the country.
"So can we have an urgent debate about party political partner counselling, and see if there's anything possible we can do to rekindle some romance into this very special relationship?"
Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom replied: "I would say to [Mr Wishart] that trying to hide behind the DUP when in fact it's the SNP who have done far more during this passage of legislation to try and harm the prospects for a good Brexit for the United Kingdom than any other party."
Wishart also suggested MPs debate "covert political missions" as he claimed Scottish Tories were secretly trying to stop Boris Johnson from becoming Prime Minister.
READ MORE: Scottish Tory says colleagues are 'arseholes' for Boris Johnson plot
He said: "In Scotland, we have 'Project A.R.S.' – I won't give you the last letter – the codeword for the not so secret mission given to Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament to stop the prime ministerial ambitions of the former foreign secretary.
"Apparently they've got polling which suggests, such is his popularity in Scotland, that they'd all be wiped out if he ever got anywhere near Number 10.
"But knowing the Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament as I do, and I do know them quite well now, I know that they will only go and make an A.R.S. – last letter left out – of it.
"So can we have a debate about covert political missions, and perhaps to see what we can do to properly resource and facilitate the Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament so that they are successful in this mission?"
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