THE SNP are considering a “disengagement” protest in the House of Commons in order to keep pressure on the embattled Speaker Lindsay Hoyle, reports say.
SNP Westminster group leader Stephen Flynn has led calls for Hoyle to lose his position after he broke parliamentary convention and allowed a Labour amendment on SNP opposition day, letting Keir Starmer’s party dodge a sizeable rebellion.
Amid the chaos that followed, Hoyle apologised and offered an emergency debate to the SNP on a ceasefire in Gaza, but on Monday he U-turned and refused the party’s request.
After Hoyle reneged on his offer, Flynn told the BBC that he had “lied” to MPs and to the public.
Now, reports say the SNP group is considering how they can “disrupt” processes in the Commons in order to keep pressure on Hoyle.
A party source told the BBC: "We are acutely aware we could cause a lot of problems down here that could disrupt the process.
"We don't want to cause trouble for the sake of it – there's a purpose to everything we're trying to do."
There are suggestions, elsewhere refuted, that the SNP may look to a "disengagement" protest. This could see their MPs declining to take part in debates outside of the main Commons chamber or sit on committees.
The BBC reported that no strategy has been decided, but the SNP group leadership wants to send a message about being treated as "an irrelevance" by the Westminster establishment.
However, Flynn later issued a statement denying the plans.
On X/Twitter he said: "No, they aren’t.
"The importance of our role has been exemplified these last few weeks, driving debate over Gaza and changing Labour Party policy.
"Until we achieve our independence, we will never leave Scotland voiceless in Westminster."
At the time of writing, 86 MPs had signed an early day motion of no confidence in Hoyle.
Elsewhere, reports have suggested that Conservatives unhappy about the Speaker's position have considered ways they could disrupt the Commons process.
One suggestion was that motions calling for the House to sit in private could be lodged at random, leading to frequent votes.
UK ministers are also said to be in talks about the possibility of referring Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee amid concerns he may have pressured Hoyle into changing parliamentary rules for his own political benefit.
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