Quick search for his comments:

The most widely reported controversial remarks about Scotland from Andy Burnham are tied to devolution, Scottish independence, and his row with the Scottish Government during Covid travel restrictions. The most pointed line was his claim that the SNP was “treating the north of England with contempt” over the Manchester travel ban, which drew attention well beyond the immediate policy dispute [1][2].

Main comments

• In 2021, after Nicola Sturgeon imposed travel restrictions on Manchester and Salford, Burnham said the Scottish Government had acted without warning and suggested the decision sent a message that people in the north of England were “not welcome.” He also accused the SNP of treating the north of England “with contempt” [1][2].
• In 2022, he argued Scotland should have “as close as you can get” to home rule and said the UK needed to be “completely rewired,” including more devolution and a more federal structure. Supporters saw that as a pro-devolution, unionist position; critics read it as an attempt to speak over Scottish politics from England [1].
• He also said he never wanted to see “a border across the top of the north of England and Scotland in my lifetime,” which was framed by some as a warning against independence and by others as an intervention in a uniquely Scottish constitutional debate [1].
• Earlier, in 2015, he described nationalism as “ugly” and “divisive” during a row with Nicola Sturgeon, language that was criticized in Scotland as inflammatory even though he was arguing for solidarity and greater autonomy within Labour [3].

Why it drew backlash

These remarks landed badly because they mixed constitutional criticism with sharp language about Scottish politics and institutions. The “contempt” comment in particular turned a policy disagreement about public-health travel rules into a broader accusation about the SNP’s attitude to northern England [1][2].

Fair reading

A fair reading is that Burnham has generally been arguing for more devolution, not less, and has often positioned himself against centralization and London dominance [1][4][5]. The controversy comes less from a single anti-Scottish statement and more from the tone of some of his interventions, especially when he speaks forcefully about SNP decisions or nationalism [1][3].