The House of Commons is this week debating a wide-reaching motion put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, /u/InfernoPlato, on behalf of the Official Opposition which tackles the issue of a Scottish independence referendum. The motion, which is also supported by the Liberal Democrats, seeks to highlight supposed inconsistencies in the Government’s plan to hold an independence referendum, despite the lack of manifesto commitment from any Broad Left coalition party.

The motion states that RSP, Greens, and Labour did not pledge to hold a referendum on Scotland’s membership of the United Kingdom. This, the motion’s supporters argue, makes the Queen’s Speech promise to grant such a referendum contentious. Contained in the motion are several arguments as to why an independence referendum could be seen as impractical and damaging. One states that as there is no devolved Scottish assembly, an independence vote would leave no government in charge of Scotland immediately. Other arguments put forward in the motion include the supposed financial disadvantages for both the remainder of the UK and Scotland should an independence vote happen, whilst others cite the alleged lack of mandate for a referendum.

We put these arguments to /u/ABlackwelly, the SNP’s sole MP in the House of Commons. I asked him about the financial implications if Scotland were to vote to leave the UK. “The motion mostly mentions economic uncertainty surrounding a referendum, not the damages of independence itself”. ABlackwelly acknowledged the supposed lack of mandate, but noted that “the Commons passed a Queen’s Speech with a promise of a referendum”, an argument which many will perhaps use to counter the critics of the the government’s plans. However, he did warn that “the government’s vague statements about their promise of a referendum” were the cause of economic uncertainty, maintaining his belief that Scottish independence would not be “financially damaging”.

The motion’s author, InfernoPlato, argued that the government’s plans were not what they should be prioritising. “This motion is about ensuring that the government gets down to the business of governing,” he commented earlier today. I asked him whether it was the democratic right of the Scottish people to have their say over independence: “Nobody wants a referendum other than 2 MPs in Scotland”, adding his view that “any referendum proposed this term would be illegitimate”.

The House saw widespread support for the motion: as well as the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats sponsored the bill, and several Labour members seemed to be lending their support in the debate. Prominent Labour supporters included /u/Padanub, former head mod and currently Marquess of Halifax, and /u/BigTrev1998, a National MP who gave his view, saying “the top priority of any government is to introduce devolution to Scotland.” The government will perhaps be concerned by this minor Labour rebellion, which coupled with Liberal Democrat support could make life very difficult for the government.

Given the support shown in the House already for this motion, Scottish independence is an issue which will continue to be debated passionately. The Government may well press on with their plans for an independence referendum regardless: a motion is not binding, and as such could even be totally ignored by the ABL coalition. However, doing so would doubtless give further ammunition to the Opposition, something the Prime Minister will be seeking to avoid. Regardless, the future of Scotland is far from settled. This motion will not finish the debate - this Parliament will likely see groundbreaking legislation for Scotland. For now, the ball is in the Government’s court as to how to respond to the cross-party pressure.

The Times will keep you updated on this story as it develops.