Who will lead the campaign to save the Union?

Gus O'Donnell is right to warn that the future of the UK is an "enormous challenge".

In a valedictory article for today's Telegraph, Gus O'Donnell, the outgoing head of the civil service, warns that the question of "whether to keep our kingdom united" will be an "enormous challenge". It may seem like an obvious statement but it is also a necessary one. Far too few in Westminster have considered what an independent Scotland would mean for England.

We all know who will lead the Yes campaign - Alex Salmond - but who will lead the No campaign? Not David Cameron, whose party holds just one seat in Scotland (the country has more giant pandas than Tory MPs). Canny as ever, Salmond will wait until the Tories are at their most unpopular before calling a referendum.

One option floated by some in Labour is for Gordon Brown, who retains immense respect in Scotland, to return to lead the charge against independence. Only the former prime minister, they say, would have the gravitas required to take on Salmond. But this discussion is taking place in far too narrow a circle. The threat of Scottish independence, which would deprive Labour of 42 of its 258 Westminster seats in a single stroke, should be near the top of Ed Miliband's in-tray.

At the very least, it is likely that Scotland will win full fiscal autonomy within the next five years. As Salmond has said, the referendum ballot paper will contain two questions: the first on full independence and the second on "devolution max" or fiscal autonomy. While the Scottish public remains divided over independence, there has long been a majority in favour of devo max.

Scotland would win complete control over spending, borrowing and taxation, leaving Westminster in charge of only foreign affairs and defence - a degree of autonomy comparable to that enjoyed in Spain by the Basque Country and Catalonia. The economic relationship between England and Scotland would be profoundly altered. What, for instance, would be the consequences for English business of Scotland adopting an ultra-low rate of corporation tax? If judged successful, would fiscal autonomy be extended to England and Wales?

O'Donnell's article is a salutary reminder that these discussions need to be had now.

Update: Salmond has responded to O'Donnell's comments:

I have always regarded Sir Gus O'Donnell as a model civil servant, who has been extremely fair in recognising and respecting the democratic mandate of the Scottish Government.

Sir Gus is right to recognise the importance of the constitutional issue, and the SNP Government are up for the challenge

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.