DAVID Mundell has refused to deny that Theresa May’s controversial Brexit withdrawal agreement will leave Scots worse off.
Appearing on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme, the Secretary of State for Scotland would only say the consequences of May's deal would not be as cataclysmic as crashing out of Europe with no deal.
The draft agreement, published last Wednesday, triggered a crisis for the Government, with ministers resigning and leaving the Prime Minister facing a possible vote of no-confidence.
Of the 13 Scottish Tory MPs, just Mundell and West Aberdeenshire Andrew Bowie have said they’ll support the agreement when it comes to the Commons.
Mundell told the BBC show: "I'm supporting the deal because I believe a 'no-deal' outcome would be catastrophic for Scotland. I believe it would be a fundamental threat to the continuation of the United Kingdom and therefore, in the round, you have to weigh up all the issues.
“These are difficult and complex judgements, but I'm not prepared to countenance a no deal outcome for Scotland.”
“So it's not the best deal, it's the least worst deal?” the programme's host Gary Robertson asked.
"Everyone is clear it's not a perfect deal. It's not as bad a deal as characterised. It contains many positive elements, elements we've talked about previously in relation to the rights of EU citizens.”
Robertson then asked the veteran politician: "You believe Scotland would be better off as a result of this deal?
Mundell replied: “I believe Scotland would be considerably worse off if there was a no-deal scenario.”
The presenter pointed out that the MP had answered a different question.
“I'm assuming you went into politics to make people's lives better are you saying that this deal will make their lives better?” he asked.
“It will make their lives considerably better than having a no-deal scenario and voting down this option,” Mundell responded.
Asked if it was the least worst option Mundell replied: “That's where we are now.”
He added: “We're heading for a meaningful vote in two or three weeks time when MPs will have to look at what are the alternatives to this deal."
Asked again to say if people will be better of as result of this deal, he replied: “What I can say is that people will be better off with this deal than a no deal which is the alternative”.
“It’s less bad than the alternative?” Robertson said. “That's the best you can tell people after two and a half years of negotiations?”
Mundell said: “I have just set out for you some of the very ... some of the positive aspects that this deal will provide in terms of business, providing that access to markets for goods in the EU without tariff and quotas. That’s absolutely fundamental for Scotland’s businesses.”
The SNP said Mundell’s position was untenable.
“David Mundell makes himself look and sound more ridiculous with every day that passes,” MSP Tom Arthur said.
“First he indicated he would resign if Northern Ireland was given special treatment, then he reportedly voiced concerns about the proposed deal while in cabinet and now he has admitted Theresa May’s plan will leave Scotland worse off.
“But still he clings to office, without a shred of principle or credibility.”
Scots LibDem chief Willie Rennie said Mundell was, at least, accurate: “The Scottish Secretary can’t bring himself to say the Prime Minister’s deal will make life better for people in Scotland, and that’s because it won’t. Tearing ourselves out of Europe will hit every single Scottish household.”
Scottish Labour's Lesley Laird said Mundell was putting his party before his country: “Theresa May once believed that no deal was better than a bad deal. Now David Mundell is saying the exact opposite, yet sees no conflict with his position in Cabinet.
“To back this bad deal as the only alternative to a no deal Brexit is to accept a false choice. Instead of leadership from Theresa May’s government we are getting brinkmanship."
She added: "Scotland deserves better than Tory ministers and MPs who slavishly put party first and the people second. Mr Mundell must resign if he is to retain even a scrap of credibility on this."
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