Sir Keir Starmer has ruled out entering into a deal with the SNP if the next general election throws up a hung parliament – pointing to the two parties’ “fundamental difference” over the constitution.
But the UK Labour leader has repeatedly declined to end speculation he could enter into a coalition with the LibDems if Labour fails to win a majority at the next general election.
Sir Keir has said he believes he is on course to win outright after gaining hundreds of councillors and control of 22 local authorities at last week’s English local authority elections.
The LibDems were also resurgent in last week’s council elections south of the Border, and projections have put Labour as not yet being in the position to form a majority government without progress among voters.
Sir Keir equivocated on whether he would form a pact with the LibDems if required to enter Downing Street.
Read more: Analysis: New SNP blueprint lines up Labour as main target
He insisted he is “going for an outright majority” but asked about a deal with the LibDems, the Labour leader told Sky News: “I’m not answering hypotheticals but we’re aiming for a Labour majority and that’s what we’re confident about.”
But he said he was “absolutely clear there are no terms in which we will do a deal with the SNP”.
Sir Keir insisted the reason he would only be definite about the Scottish nationalists was because there is a “fundamental difference” between his party and the SNP over independence.
He added: “I do not believe in the break-up and separation of the United Kingdom, I do not believe that our future will be better if we put a border between Scotland and England, so there’s no basis for an agreement.”
Read more: SNP would ‘undo Brexit as far as possible’ in event of hung parliament
Earlier, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn claimed that Sir Keir would break his word and work with the SNP in a hung parliament if it meant entering Downing Street.
Mr Flynn said the UK Labour leader had a track record of changing his mind, and would change it again if the parliamentary arithmetic made it worthwhile.
He told BBC Radio Scotland: “I’m actually quite excited about where we are at the moment because what we see is a big shift away from the Conservatives in England.
“But it’s a shift that is not going to deliver a majority government for Labour at Westminster and that very much brings us into play because it affords us the opportunity, the very real opportunity, of holding the balance of power at Westminster.”
Mr Flynn added: “We would be very clear in terms of our asks. We would want the cost of living to be put front and centre of the policy prospectus of any UK government.
“We would want to see the damage that has been caused by Brexit rolled back, not just to boost our economy but to boost our public services as well.
Read more: Sarwar predicts 'majority Labour government' as he rubbishes SNP deal
“And of course, we would be very, very keen to see a UK government, particularly a UK Labour government, deliver the powers to Holyrood to hold an independence referendum.”
Mr Flynn said that the UK Labour leader “is a man who has broken many of his pledges, not just to the Labour party but to the wider British public in order to try and become prime minister”.
He added: "He is not going to walk away from becoming prime minister simply to deny many of our asks.”
But Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar insisted his colleagues at Westminster would reject any coalition or deal with the SNP.
He said: “No ifs, no buts, no deals with the SNP.
“We are going all out to get rid of this rotten Tory Government, all out to get a majority Labour government, and if we fall short of that, the SNP have a clear choice, they can either choose to welcome a Labour government, or allow a Tory government.
“And I dare the SNP to usher in a Tory government and see how Scotland reacts.”
The Lib Dems did not rule out the possibility of a deal.
A spokesman said: “We are totally focused on the issues that really matter to people – the cost-of-living crisis, the failure of this Government to manage our NHS and the filthy sewage water companies are being allowed to pump into our rivers.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel