Andy Burnham is facing calls to prevent a fresh bout of constitutional turmoil by making clear that there will be no second Scottish independence referendum while he remains in Number 10, after critics branded his remarks “reckless and naive”.

The Prime Minister was still under pressure yesterday after indicating that “majority public support” could open the door to a repeat of the 2014 vote on Scotland leaving the UK. Opponents claimed the comments had effectively “pulled the pin on a constitutional hand grenade”.

Scottish First Minister John Swinney moved quickly to seize on the intervention, calling for renewed discussions on how a lawful route to another independence vote could be agreed.

However, shadow Scottish secretary Harriet Cross has written to Mr Burnham demanding that he draw a firm line under the issue. She urged him to rule out another independence referendum during his premiership, reject the SNP leader’s appeal for further talks, and “categorically confirm” that he opposes a new vote and will continue to defend the United Kingdom.

Ms Cross said: “Your words have already created unnecessary uncertainty for Scots who remember well the divisive nature of the independence referendum.”

‘You opened the door to more constitutional uncertainty. You now need to shut it – and make it clear that there will be no repeat of 2014.’

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Mr Burnham said the position in Scotland was ‘exactly the same’ as in Northern Ireland, where there is a legal threshold for a poll on Irish reunification.

He implied the only obstacle to another Scottish independence vote was the lack of a ‘clear consensus’ and said that ‘I am not aware that there is a majority of public support for another referendum and until that changes there won’t be one’.

Mr Swinney yesterday attempted to capitalise on the Prime Minister’s comments, which he highlighted were a change in position from previously saying another referendum was off the table.

He said it is ‘important’ he and Mr Burnham discuss ‘how we turn that principle into an agreed legal mechanism, as exists in Northern Ireland’.

Ms Cross argues in her letter that the SNP’s failure to secure the target of an outright majority in May’s Holyrood elections, – which Mr Swinney said would be a clear mandate for another referendum – was a ‘clear message’ from voters that Scots don’t want another referendum.

She said: ‘Andy Burnham’s reckless and naïve comments risk plunging Scotland into yet more constitutional chaos.

MORE STORY: Lukas Gage Reveals Why BFF Madelyn Cline Is His Lavender Wife

‘He has played directly into John Swinney’s hands and gave the SNP the perfect excuse to continue their endless agitation for another independence referendum.

‘The last thing Scotland needs when school standards are falling, drug deaths are the highest in Europe and too many Scots are on an NHS waiting list, is a rerun of 2014.

‘The Prime Minister needs to clean up the mess his has created and make crystal clear that the future of our United Kingdom will not be dictated by an opinion poll.’

Mr Burnham last night attempted to clarify his remarks in the House of Commons in a letter to Mr Swinney.

He said: ‘As we all recognise, Northern Ireland and Scotland have different historical experiences and therefore distinct constitutional arrangements.

‘In my remarks, I was simply highlighting that there is no consensus for an independence referendum in Scotland and nor is there a clear basis to suggest that a majority of people in Northern Ireland presently wish to separate from the United Kingdom.’

He said there was a consensus in 2014 and the people of Scotland backed remaining in the UK, a position Labour backed in its manifesto for the 2024 general election.

Mr Burnham said: ‘As I made clear to you personally when we met recently in Glasgow, independence and a referendum are off limits as it would take our focus away from growing the economy and helping families with the cost of living.

‘I and my Government are keen to work with you and the Scottish Government to ensure Scotland, as part of the UK, is rewired to work for people and I am looking forward to progressing that shared agenda with you at our meeting of the National Economic Council where the focus will be on driving growth, opportunity and prosperity in every part of the UK.’

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said: ‘Andy Burnham has pulled the pin on a constitutional hand grenade – which John Swinney has now thrown back at him.

‘The ex-Manchester mayor is dangerously naïve about the SNP’s relentless agitation to break up the United Kingdom.

‘It was inevitable that John Swinney would pounce on Burnham’s naïve comparison between Scotland and Northern Ireland.

‘Opening the door to another divisive referendum is further evidence that Labour can’t be trusted to defend the Union.’

In his letter, Mr Swinney said: ‘By concluding a clear, understandable mechanism, both sides of the constitutional debate can move forward constructively in the full knowledge of an agreed process by which the Scottish people can exercise their democratic right at a time of their choosing.’

Elections expert Professor Sir John Curtice said that the Prime Minister’s comment ‘does read like something of a misstatement’.

Total: 25/40

8) Drew Brees

Network: FOX Partner: Adam Amin

Drew Brees is destined for the Hall of Fame as a player, but that didn’t initially translate to the broadcast booth. He had a short and ill-fated stint at NBC, but made a shock return with FOX last year when Mark Sanchez was stabbed and subsequently arrested.

He still has work to do, but Brees was much improved. He no doubt brings star power and a wealth of knowledge, but his popularity as a broadcaster is yet to take off, with his delivery sometimes flat compared to other voices. His chemistry with Adam Amin is still developing, with some awkward pauses as Brees gets to grips with his role, but improving all the time and potentially primed to continue rising from his current spot on the third-string FOX team.

Ratings: Star power 8/10, Knowledge 8/10, Popularity 4/10, Chemistry 5/10

Total: 25/40

7) Tony Romo

Network: CBS Partner: Jim Nantz 

Tony Romo was the latest big-name quarterback to be tempted into the booth by a big deal after retirement, and unlike Brady, he hit the ground running. Romo earned rave reviews in his first year alongside Jim Nantz in 2017.

The former Cowboys quarterback was widely praised for his ability to call plays before they happened, often being teed up expertly by Nantz to outline exactly what was about to happen before it actually unfolded.

But as time has passed, the novelty has worn off. Romo has faced criticism for going off on tangents or telling confusing stories during games, or simply talking too much with his chemistry with Nantz seeming to get worse rather than better.

This offseason he’s become embroiled in scandal after his DWI arrest saw him stood down indefinitely by CBS, and while he says he intends to return, his future appears unclear. While his star power and knowledge cannot be questioned, his popularity is at a low point, while he’s also left Nantz to prepare for a new partner just weeks before the season.

Ratings: Star power 8/10, Knowledge 9/10, Popularity 2/10, Chemistry 6/10

Total: 25/40

6) Greg Olsen

Network: FOX Partner: Joe Davis 

Olsen was already preparing for his broadcast career as his playing days wound down, and the tight end slotted right into the picture seamlessly at FOX. But just as he was hitting his stride, he was replaced by the star power of Tom Brady, a demotion he knew was coming while he was earning strong reviews in his final year on the A-team.

Since then, Olsen has continued to impress on the No.2 broadcast. But while Brady continues to improve, the path back to the top job seems blocked at FOX, leading to speculation he could be in-demand elsewhere.

Olsen’s popularity has skyrocketed as a result of fans being sympathetic of his plight, and it will be fascinating to see if he gets another opportunity to take his talents elsewhere as a No.1 analyst at another company.

Ratings: Star power 4/10, Knowledge 7/10, Popularity 9/10, Chemistry 6/10 

Total: 26/40

5) J.J. Watt

Network: CBS Partner: Jim Nantz

MORE STORY: Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Says ‘Killer Mom’ Defense Won’t Spark Copycats Despite Similar Cases

Former Houston Texans defensive end J.J. Watt is being thrown into the deep end as the lead CBS analyst to replace Tony Romo at the start of the season after his arrest. At this stage, we don’t know how his chemistry with Jim Nantz will unfold.

But Watt enters the role as something of a rising star. He had a very impressive debut season on the No.2 team alongside Ian Eagle, knowing when to interject with his thoughts and clearly offering an abundance of research and thoughtfulness to his new role.

Watt is one of the most likeable players in recent NFL history, and he’s now got a big opportunity to stake his claim for his rapid rise to step up a notch with Romo’s future up in the air.

Ratings: Star power 7/10, Knowledge 7/10, Popularity 7/10, Chemistry 5/10 

Total: 26/40

4) Kirk Herbstreit

Network: Amazon Prime Video Partner: Al Michaels

There are not many busier men in the industry than Kirk Herbstreit, as he juggles his ESPN College GameDay role with partnering Al Michaels in the Amazon Prime Video Thursday Night Football booth. And what he lacks in terms of resume as a player – he started a year at Ohio State and never made the grade in the NFL – he makes up for in enthusiasm.

Alongside the ageing Al Michaels, 81, Herbstreit brings much of the energy to the Prime Video broadcast. He’s become excellent at breaking the game down and offering natural insight into what is happening on the field.

He’s a safe pair of hands and an experienced operator on the call known for his calm, measured approach, even if he is possibly more at home in his college football capacity.

Ratings: Star power 4/10, Knowledge 9/10, Popularity 6/10, Chemistry 8/10 

Total: 27/40

3) Cris Collinsworth

Network: NBC Partner: Mike Tirico 

Collinsworth might not have had a playing career to match Brady or Aikman. But these days, he’s known more as a broadcaster and his chemistry with Mike Tirico on the NBC A-team is the reason why.

Yes, he has his fair share of critics for his well-documented love of Patrick Mahomes. But his voice has become synonymous with Sunday Night Football and some of the NFL’s most memorable moments.

What he lacks in star power compared to other play-by-play commentators, he makes up for in his enthusiasm and engaging delivery.

Ratings: Star power 5/10, Knowledge 8/10, Popularity 7/10, Chemistry 9/10 

Total: 29/40

2) Tom Brady

Network: FOX Partner: Kevin Burkhardt 

All eyes were on Tom Brady, the biggest star in the NFL, when he stepped into the broadcast booth in a $375 million FOX deal after taking a year sabbatical after retiring from playing.

It is fair to say he got off to a shaky start, with plenty of critics during his first season in the role. But Brady took a massive leap in 2025, and continues to build up an excellent relationship with his lead announcer, Kevin Burkhardt.

It is hard to look past the knowledge of the seven-time Super Bowl champion, and he continues to be more and more willing to share his insights on the Xs and Os and weave them into his commentary, rather than relying on cliches as he often did in his first year.

He’s not popular with all viewers, yet the ultra-competitive Brady is fast winning people around with his performances in the booth and proving people wrong – just like he did in his NFL career. But, Brady being Brady, only being the very best counts.

Ratings: Star power 10/10, Knowledge 9/10, Popularity 7/10, Chemistry 8/10

Total: 34/40

1) Troy Aikman

Network: ESPN on ABC Partner: Joe Buck

Troy Aikman has made just as much of a name for himself in the broadcast booth as he did on the field – and that is no mean feat. 

The three-time Super Bowl champion quarterback with the Dallas Cowboys jumped straight into his new role after retiring in 2000 and has been there alongside Joe Buck ever since.

The longest tenured play-by-play duo continue to be at the top of their game as the A-list pairing for ESPN on ABC, covering each Monday Night Football. This year, they’ll be back on the Super Bowl call for the first time since 2020.

Aikman and Buck’s chemistry has been honed over years of working together, and it doesn’t get much bigger in terms of star power than the quarterback of ‘America’s team.’ 

While the game has changed somewhat since his days playing quarterback, Aikman remains knowledgeable, engaging and concise when it comes to offering his analysis of what he sees on the field.

Ratings: Star power 9/10, Knowledge 8/10, Popularity 9/10, Chemistry 10/10 

Total: 36/40

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are said to be “happy to be back” on British soil, according to sources offering the first insight into the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s UK return, even as tensions with Buckingham Palace intensify over Uganda’s decision to withdraw from the Invictus Games.

People close to the Sussexes claim Uganda’s exit from the 2027 Invictus Games came as a “direct result” of correspondence from King Charles that reportedly emphasized Harry and Meghan’s status as “private citizens.”

The same insiders argued that the fallout has harmed the wrong people, saying the Ugandan athletes who had been preparing to compete are the “only people suffering” from the situation.

“They made it very clear that the reason they pulled out was a direct result of perceived guidance from the Lord Chamberlain,” a source told People, the US outlet often regarded as a preferred platform for the Sussexes.

“This was an unintended or intended consequence of the letter — and that was always going to happen,” the source added, suggesting that was why there had been a desire not to release it hastily.

Yet despite the swirling row between the Sussexes and Buckingham Palace, sources say getting their children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, settled as they begin a new school year ‘has been, and remains, their focus’.

‘Everything else will fall into place when the time is right,’ the source told People. ‘There is a lot to do. They have just moved halfway across the world, and it’s been really busy getting the kids settled.

‘Their focus has been on that, and will remain on that, for the time being. They are happy to be back.’

It comes after the couple, who left the UK for America in 2020 in a move famously dubbed ‘Megxit’, are understood to have moved to a non-royal home in the UK last month while also keeping their residence in Montecito, California. 

Meanwhile, on Wednesday morning, Ugandan General Muhoozi Kainerugaba said his nation would not participate in any event without approval from Charles, adding that he felt motivated to quash ‘that Harry-Meghan nonsense’.

The move came less than 48 hours after the King outlined that the Duke and Duchess are still not working royals despite the couple relocating to the UK a fortnight ago. 

Meanwhile, PR gurus have claimed Harry and Meghan’s swipes towards the King following his letter threatens the future of the Invictus Games. 

Mark Borkowski said Uganda’s decision to pull out of Birmingham 2027 out of respect for Charles III should serve as a stark warning to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Mr Borkowski said that ‘briefing furiously’ against the King and portraying themselves as victims does not resonate with the public, yet ‘they keep making the same mistake’.

He told the Daily Mail: ‘Uganda is the warning. The Sussex soap opera is now damaging Invictus, the one unimpeachable thing Harry created. The brand is beginning to consume the cause.

‘Harry and Meghan want the freedoms of private citizens but the power of royalty, and they brief furiously whenever anyone points out the contradiction.’

Uganda’s outspoken military chief, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, announced yesterday that the country would not participate in the 2027 Invictus Games because of ‘that Harry-Meghan nonsense’, adding: ‘I support the monarch. Period.’

It came hours after the Sussexes renewed their criticism of the King’s decision to classify them as ‘private citizens’ and make clear they are no longer working royals in a letter released following their return to Britain.

Combative statements and extraordinary claims in briefings by sources close to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have dominated headlines since the King released his letter on Monday.

Mr Borkowski said: ‘They drive the PR. They keep making the same mistake, with their certainty that the narrative should start to unravel. ‘Woe is us’, the poor victims of the mighty establishment machine.

‘They’ve confused briefing with strategy. They want the freedoms of private citizens with the power of royalty and brief furiously whenever anyone points out the contradiction.’ 

On Monday King Charles confirmed Harry and Meghan were still not working royals despite returning to the UK and were not allowed to use their HRH titles.

Just two months ago, Uganda’s defence minister Kiryowa Kiwanuka posed for photographs with a smiling Harry at an Invictus Games gathering in London. 

But General Kainerugaba, the president’s son, said in a post on X yesterday: ‘In order not to be construed as being opposed to His Majesty King Charles III of the United Kingdom, whom we deeply revere, Uganda hereby withdraws from the Invictus Games.

‘We shall not participate in anything that does not have His Majesty’s approval.’

Asked by The Times why he made the announcement, General Kainerugaba said: ‘I have factions in the Ministry of Defence that support that Harry-Meghan nonsense. I had to quash it straight away. I support the monarch. Period.’

RELATED: Republicans Slam Trump’s $5,000 Promise as Costly Bribe

Last night the Sussexes appeared to have blamed Uganda’s decision on the King’s letter.

Today it was revealed that fewer than one in six Britons want Harry and Meghan to return as working members of the Royal Family now they are back in the UK.

This week King Charles made it clear the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain ‘private citizens’. And a major poll reveals a majority of the British public agree it should stay that way. 

YouGov asked 4,506 adults whether the Sussexes should become working members of the Royal Family again ‘at some point’ now they are back in Britain.

Just more than half (51 per cent) said they would rather the couple did not return to official duties.

Less than a sixth (16 per cent) said they should become working royals again, while a third (33 per cent) said they did not know.

The poll was conducted on Wednesday, a day after the Sussexes hit back at Buckingham Palace after it released a letter of ‘guidance’ confirming the couple were not returning as working royals.

Harry and Meghan then hit out at the King’s decision to label them ‘private citizens’ – reportedly because they want to be known as ‘public figures’ instead.

Their spokesman said on Tuesday the couple were ‘surprised’ by its release – and claimed they did not have enough time to respond before it was circulated.

Rather than accept the letter, which said nothing had changed since ‘Megxit’ – briefings by sources close to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a string of extraordinary claims.

Team Sussex has suggested that, despite being given just over an hour’s notice of the impending release, Palace aides did not give Harry enough time to ‘clarify one or two points’ in the letter written by the Lord Chamberlain on His Majesty’s instruction.

In particular, the Sussexes seem to have taken issue with the statement that they should not be treated like royalty. 

‘In short, their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests,’ the letter read.

The Palace also made the point the letter was in full accordance with the Sussexes’ stated wish to remain ‘private citizens while in the UK’ and in keeping with the ‘Sandringham Summit’ agreement of 2020, after which the couple set up a new life in the US.

This prompted a jaw-dropping briefing to the Telegraph, which read: ‘The duke is understood to have taken particular issue with the notion that the couple were to be treated as private citizens. If that were the case, it was claimed, such formal guidance would not be required.

‘The Sussexes prefer the term ‘public figures’, and would have liked an acknowledgement that, on a personal level, they remained members of the Royal Family, despite no longer receiving public funding.’

Buckingham Palace declined to comment, feeling the letter is sufficient.

But insiders suggested this insistence they be classed as ‘public figures’ who want their royal links burnished in public is evidence why the Sussexes’ preferred ‘half-in, half-out’ model would never be sustainable alongside their commercial activities.

A Sussex spokesman also suggested they had been caught ‘off guard’ by the King’s announcement, which was a letter written by Lord Benyon to officials across the country.

Team Sussex claimed the letter’s contents were shared with them at 1.59pm.

They replied at 2.19pm ‘in the hope’ the Sussexes could have ‘the chance to clarify one or two points’.

Unbeknown to the Palace, Harry was visiting Tower Bridge Studios in London and ‘could not be contacted’ until 3.09pm.

At 3.11pm, they received confirmation it had already been sent to the media five minutes earlier.

Sources close to the couple have suggested the letter was timed to come ahead of a meeting yesterday of the Ravec security body.

They believe this may have been an attempt to influence the committee on whether to reinstate Harry’s taxpayer-funded security.

But the Daily Mail understands such claims are incorrect and the letter was sent out to offer clarity ahead of a busy programme for the Sussexes. 

Those close to the King also think the move could make it easier for him to see his son privately.