The prime minister suggested on Wednesday that another Scottish independence referendum could be held, but only if public opinion shows clear support for a vote.

Addressing Prime Minister’s Questions, Labour leader Andy Burnham said a referendum would not take place unless there was evidence that people in Scotland wanted one. He compared the position to the approach used for a border poll in Northern Ireland, where a vote is considered when there is a clear consensus.

Burnham previously told the Scottish first minister that a second independence referendum was not an option. However, during exchanges in Westminster he indicated the criteria for holding a referendum could be met if majority opinion changed.

Burnham Draws Parallel With Northern Ireland

Burnham told MPs he was basing his thinking on the Good Friday Agreement, which sets out that a border poll would be considered when a consensus emerges in Northern Ireland and when public attitudes have shifted to the point where such a vote should be assessed.

He said he would apply the same standard to Scotland, adding that he was not aware at present of majority support for another referendum and that no vote would happen until that changed.

Swinney said Burnham’s latest comments represented a shift from earlier assurances. He argued that the change showed an acceptance that Scots should determine their own future rather than decisions being taken by the UK government.

Swinney Says UK Should Let Scots Decide

In response, First Minister John Swinney said Burnham’s move marked the first time since 2014 that a UK prime minister had indicated that majority backing for a referendum should lead to one being held.

Swinney said Scotland’s circumstances and the wider political landscape had moved on since the last vote, and that the UK government should now allow the process to proceed.

The comments came after the SNP raised the issue in Westminster in connection with a question from Chris Law, an SNP MP.

Referendum History And UK Legal Limits

Scotland voted against independence in 2014, with 55% choosing to remain in the UK and 45% voting to leave.

Since that referendum, successive UK governments have opposed holding another. In 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that any further referendum would require the agreement of the UK government, reflecting the position that powers for holding such a vote are not fully devolved to Scotland.

Those legal constraints have formed the backdrop to repeated political disputes between the UK and Scottish governments over whether a referendum can be delivered without Westminster’s consent.

During Wednesday’s session, Burnham’s comments were aimed at establishing a conditional framework under which another referendum could be considered.

Downing Street Repeats No Change In Position

Downing Street said there had been no shift in the prime minister’s formal stance despite Burnham’s remarks.

Burnham’s spokesman said the prime minister had already made clear that a second referendum was off limits when he met the first minister in his first week in office. The spokesman added that Labour’s position remains that it does not support independence or another referendum, pointing to the party’s election manifesto.

In Scotland, the government has continued to press for a vote. Last month it published a draft independence referendum bill, calling on the UK government to transfer the necessary powers to allow the referendum to go ahead.

Swinney said the bill reflected changes since 2014 and argued that Scotland is ready to hold a referendum if the UK government provides the required arrangements. The SNP had said it would publish the draft legislation within its first 100 days after the Scottish election in May.

Join the discussion?

10 September 2026

View full article

Is this a real top priority at the moment ?

Everywhere in the world people often think that 'independence' will make things better.

And sometimes it does.

2 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

Is this a real top priority at the moment ?

Obviously not.

But how could he ignore such an opportunity to break up Britain?

Are these referendums going to take place until the vote is for independence? Just give it them and give Northern Ireland back to Ireland at the same time.

The appetite for this seems to have reduced greatly since the opportunist charlatan Nicola Sturgeon who was driving all the division was exposed as a thief and a liar.

What happens to North Sea oil if the Scots win a referendum to separate from the UK?

25 minutes ago, Leopold Bloom said:

What happens to North Sea oil if the Scots win a referendum to separate from the UK?

Trump will nick it?

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Trump will nick it?

After renaming it The North American Sea

It’s got to be up to Scotland not England.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Obviously not.

But how could he ignore such an opportunity to break up Britain?

It started with Brexit. In my opinion it was inevitable that there would eventually be a Scexit and a break up of Britain. Nothing to do with Burnham. The Scots didn't buy in to all the nonsense that you lot did so they voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, but unfortunately that voice counted for nothing. Now they have had their noses cut off to spite someone else's face.

Who can blame them if they now want to go their own way and, no doubt, rejoin the EU?

Cameron initiated the breakup of the UK, Boris and Farage accelerated it.

4 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Who can blame them if they now want to go their own way and, no doubt, rejoin the EU?

Apart from the fact they don't want that. 😄

Scottish independence poll 2026 | Statista

36 minutes ago, AustinRacing said:

It’s got to be up to Scotland not England.

Thanks to the Barnett Formula the English have every right to object to fund that money to Scotland and vote to have Scotland removed from the UK!

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Apart from the fact they don't want that. 😄

Scottish independence poll 2026 | Statista

I said who could blame them if they did. Maybe they'll decide that staying within a Union that is more powerful than the sum of its parts would be more beneficial than leaving for nonsensical faux patriotism - imagine that!