STEPHEN DAISLEY: Bungling Burnham’s position on independence should be enshrined in law as ‘not now, not ever…’
Andy Burnham's apparent gaffe during a question time appearance, in which he described Scotland and Northern Ireland as being in "exactly the same" constitutional position on holding a referendum, has been seized upon by the SNP and other nationalist parties as effectively conceding Scotland's right to a future independence vote. Downing Street scrambled to row back the comments, but commentator Stephen Daisley argues the episode shows the UK government urgently needs a clear, legally defined policy on independence referendums to prevent any minister inadvertently reopening the question again.
Daisley notes that First Minister John Swinney responded by writing to Downing Street to request talks on arranging another referendum, while Wales' Rhun ap Iorwerth and Northern Ireland's Michelle O'Neill were reportedly preparing to meet him in Cardiff to jointly demand the devolution of referendum powers. The article weighs possible legal fixes, including adopting the Northern Ireland-style trigger (a referendum whenever the Scottish Secretary judges a Yes vote likely, with a seven-year bar after a No) and a Canada-style "Clarity Act", which lets Ottawa's parliament assess the legitimacy of any independence vote after the fact — an approach Daisley says would be undemocratic if applied retrospectively at Westminster.
- Burnham's referendum remarks reignited Scottish independence debate.
- Swinney and other devolved leaders are pushing for referendum powers.
- Article debates legal options, like Northern Ireland or Canada-style rules.
New here? Start with this
Andy Burnham is Mayor of Greater Manchester, a senior Labour politician who has become a prominent voice within the party. During a recent question time appearance, he made comments comparing the constitutional position of Scotland and Northern Ireland on holding independence referendums, which some interpreted as suggesting Scotland already has an established right to another vote. This matters because the UK's rules on when and how a region can hold an independence referendum are not clearly written down in one place, leaving room for confusion or dispute whenever the topic comes up.
The Scottish independence question dates back to the 2014 referendum, when Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, but the SNP and other pro-independence parties have continued to push for another vote. Any suggestion from a senior figure that Scotland's position on this has shifted tends to be seized upon quickly by nationalist politicians, while UK government figures typically move to clarify or correct such statements. Northern Ireland's situation is different again, governed by its own long-standing peace agreement arrangements around referendums on its constitutional future.
The wider debate touches on the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, each led by different parties, and raises questions about whether Westminster should set out a clearer, legally defined process for handling any future independence votes across the UK's nations.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who back a clear, legally fixed threshold argue that constitutional stability matters: the 2014 referendum was billed as a once-in-a-generation decision, and allowing the question to be reopened by every electoral cycle or ministerial slip undermines governance, investment and the settled will of the people. They contend that a codified rule, whether a demanding threshold or a long moratorium, would remove ambiguity, stop nationalist parties exploiting off-the-cuff remarks, and ensure any future vote only happens when there is genuine, sustained public demand rather than political opportunism.
The case against
Those who favour a more open, rights-based approach argue that self-determination is a democratic principle, not a one-off grant, and that a nation's ability to choose its own future should not be permanently foreclosed by a government in London. They point out that Northern Ireland already has a statutory trigger mechanism, so treating Scotland differently looks inconsistent, and argue that strong and sustained electoral mandates for pro-independence parties deserve a fair, predictable route to a further vote rather than indefinite refusal dressed up as legal tidiness.