I'm drawing a distinction between perhaps an ordinary motion that simply states an opinion of the House and is recorded and could be worded in a way that is an enduring statement of a House position, not the opinion of the day. I believe the House can pass an ordinary motion that is meant to have a definitive statement and an enduring kind of quality. The statements about unauthorized prorogation being an obstruction of the House could be in that kind of context.
One could put those statements in the Standing Orders. I prefer to see the Standing Orders limited to more of a procedural matter, but the House can put whatever it wants in the Standing Orders. The Quebec National Assembly last year tried to put a definition of confidence matters in theirs, so you could put whatever you want in the Standing Orders, perhaps as a preamble to a section that lays out when and how consent should be given by the House of Commons.
You could do it either way. The value of putting it in the Standing Orders is that there is no question, then, that this is meant to be an enduring statement. If it's a motion passed in the 40th Parliament, when we come to the 44th Parliament, the government could say, “That was back in the 40th Parliament and we've moved on since then”.