I  am surprised at how many businesses have decided to intervene in a highly contentious referendum campaign when they have no need to do so.  These large businesses need to remember that they have many shareholders and customers who disagree with the stance they are taking, as well as many who agree. It may all prove to be counter productive for them and  for the campaign they say they are trying to help.

I have no objection to the banks making clear what they would have to do if Scotland votes to become independent. They need to consider their position and then make a formal statement to the Stock Exchange. They were rightly being asked about the impact on their ability  to borrow and lend if they no longer were regulated by the Bank of England and no longer had access to Bank of England lender of last resort cash. They needed to clarify the new position were Scotland to vote for out. They have decided to move their HQs to London to continue to qualify for the Bank of England umbrella. This will help keep their cost of capital down and allow them to maintain current lending programmes.

Alex Salmond brought this on himself by refusing to support setting up his own currency or applying to join the Euro. With no Central Bank any Scottish commercial bank will be in a weaker position than banks who do have access to a Central Bank. I do not know how these banks handled their individual announcements but of course they need to follow the correct company governance procedures and the correct disclosure procedures to the Stock Exchange where they are quoted businesses.

I find the dash of many retailers to tell us things might be a  bit dearer in Scotland if they vote for independence odd. Why upset  half your customers in Scotland by intervening like this? Why upset many of your existing English customers, who are now told by some shops  they are cross subsidising the Scottish customers under the present Union arrangements? There is no Stock Exchange imperative to make this disclosure now. Retailers regularly cross subsidise some towns and cities out of profits made in other towns and cities without having to give a detailed break down city by city.  It looks as if they simply wanted to play politics, and they may find out there is a cost to them. Customers both sides of the border might wish to switch to a retailer that has not jumped in with such claims. If a future independent Scotland should  emerge the trend of prices will depend on many things, including how much competition remains in the local market and how business friendly policy is generally.

The defence contractors, like the banks, had a duty to warn their shareholders through proper Stock Exchange announcements that their Scottish defence  businesses are at risk in the event of independence. It is very unlikely the rest of the UK will be offering  work to Scottish yards and contractors if Scotland leaves.

The final predictable interventions of doom  are the ones from large overseas investment banks. They clearly are on the side  of the EU. They are against  an independent Scotland  in case such a move led to an independent Catalonia and other knock ons in Euroland. One of them being interviewed on the Today programme hinted at this, by talking about the Euro and German support for southern countries in the zone, when asked questions about Scotland.  It was difficult to follow their logic of a major recession based on Scottish banks not having access to Bank of England money, when the self same banks have already announced they would rearrange themselves to continue to be regulated by the Bank of England and have facilities from the Bank if needed.

I suspect Scottish voters will answer the more fundamental question – do they want to be part of a new Scottish state or do they wish to be part of the long standing UK? For every voter who might be influenced favourably by businesses playing politics there might be at least one who resents their interventions. Both sides are trying to play the business card, so the businesses end up firing at each other.

 

Mr Clegg’s proposal to devolve a bit of power to some English cities is no answer to the pressing need for a fair settlement for England.  Nor has it been popular in the past. In 51 referenda to create more powerful elected mayors, 35 have resulted in a rejection of the proposal. 2 elected mayoralties that were set up have subsequently been abolished following another referendum.

There are three proposals before us to deal with the problem of England in the new devolution settlement we are now contemplating. The first is the proposal for an English Parliament. The second is devolved Assemblies for the European regions of England favoured by some in Labour. The third is this  very loose Nick Clegg  proposal for more devolution to English cities.

The case for an English Parliament is overwhelming. Breaking England up into unloved and in some cases unknown Euro regions would be most unpopular. Labour tried this in office, and got a dreadful result in the North East when they asked the public there –  normally a Labour area – to endorse it. Devolution to anything less than England cannot solve the main reason for an English Parliament – the need to settle taxes and tax rates that will be separately decided for Scotland in the Edinburgh Parliament. We do not want different Income Tax rates for Birmingham and Bradford, or for the rest of the south east.

The idea of devolving more power to cities over their budgets and ambitions may well be a good idea. It is no substitute for an English Parliament and could best be done by an English Parliament. It is all the people of England, whether in cities, in the suburbs or in the countryside, that need better representation and more self government.

The unpopularity of elected mayors shows that the electors of England do not see this way of making local government more powerful and more interesting as a good way forward in most places. Mr Clegg does not seem to have much in mind by way of devolved power. He does not seem to want English cities to set different Income tax rates for example, the main new power Scotland will enjoy.

England this time will not be fobbed off with third class devolution or no devolution at all. The Scottish vote and attitudes changes things fundamentally – for England as well as for Scotland.

If you want England to have its own voice and home rule please write to your own MP asking them to speak for England. You could also copy in BBC News.

 

My question this week in the House is a fundamental one for government to answer in a few days time.

If the Union survives the Scottish vote, we will immediately need the government to produce proposals to honour the three parties’ pledge (and UKIP’s) of more devolution for Scotland. As I have explained, we should not  come up with proposals to strengthen devolved Scottish government, without at the same time tackling the problem of England.

Labour hopes we can just have a “Scotland” bill, giving Scotland new powers of self government. This is unacceptable. It needs to be a UK bill, giving the same powers to England – and probably to the Welsh  and the Northern Irish Assemblies as well assuming their representatives want that.

It appears that one of the powers Scotland will gain is the power to set its own Income Tax rates. There is no way that we can have a situation where Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament can vote through Income tax rates for the rest of the country that do not apply to Scotland. This is a more extreme version of the West Lothian question. Only MPs for people and places paying the tax should be imposing the tax.

So my first request of the government is simple. Who, after next Thursday, in the government will represent England’s needs for devolution? Which Minister is going to be in charge of the devolution bill generally, including devolution to Scotland? England needs to know  both who to lobby, and which Minister or Ministers is looking after our interests.

I and many of my Parliamentary colleagues will help the party leaders honour their promises to Scotland as long as it does so on a basis which is also fair to England.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Assuming there is a no vote in the Scottish referendum, who in the Government will represent England in the new devolution settlement? Who speaks for England, because we need a voice and a new deal?

The Leader of the House (Mr William Hague): Well, there are many of us. Having represented Yorkshire for 25 years, I can claim to speak for England from time to time—Yorkshiremen are always keen to speak for a far bigger area than they represent. All these debates are to be had once the referendum is concluded.

The video is available here.

I thought you might appreciate an update on the Government’s work to respond to migrant pressures in Calais. The current situation is not a new one, nor does it originate in Calais. France – unlike the UK – is a member of the Schengen zone, so people are able to pass freely across its borders from other Schengen countries. The pressure this is putting on French ports is a Europe-wide challenge, demanding joint work with our EU partners and concerted action to tackle the organised crime gangs associated with illegal immigration, in addition to our own work to keep the UK border secure.

Since 2010, we have:

• recruited more Border Force staff and introduced systems to deploy those staff more flexibly and effectively;
• funded and maintained improved scanning equipment in Calais, including a recent £2 million investment to upgrade equipment to the latest technology; and
• increased Border Force seagoing patrol activity in the southern North Sea and eastern English Channel to counter the potential threat of trafficking by sea.

In addition to the ongoing work between the UK and France:

• the Home Secretary met the French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve on 29 August to discuss a series of emerging options to further strengthen our approach to illegal migration, including in Calais;
• a delegation of senior Home Office officials visited Paris yesterday to ensure this work is being taken forward urgently and to discuss our additional offer to France to deploy the fencing from the recent NATO Summit in Newport to strengthen security in Calais.

Three months ago the UK also committed an additional £3 million to help enhance port infrastructure in Calais and ensure that legitimate travellers can pass through border controls more quickly. We are pressing the Calais Chamber of Commerce to allow those measures to be implemented.

But Calais is only one part of the challenge posed by those who seek to flout the law and come to the UK illegally. Since 2010 we have taken strong measures to address illegal immigration, most recently through the Immigration Act 2014. This landmark piece of legislation will:

• ensure illegal migrants are unable to rent homes, open bank accounts or obtain a driving licence (in little over a month we have already revoked over 3,500 licences);
• cut abuse of the immigration system by reducing the number of routes by which people can appeal immigration decisions from 17 to 4; and
• clamp down on those who seek to evade immigration controls through sham marriage.

We have also driven forward further reform of the immigration system so that people with no legal right to benefits are refused them.

 

It was good news that at last the Kiev government and the pro Russia separatists in east Ukraine agreed a ceasefire and decided they needed to talk to each other. Reports suggest at least 2500 people have been killed so far in this civil war, and many more have been cast out of their homes as the two armies fight it out in built up areas.

The Kiev government needs to learn some hard lessons of democracy quickly if it is to win back its citizens and restore its authority and its badly damaged reputation. The first lesson is in a democracy we sort out our differences by arguments and votes, not by shells and bombs.

The second lesson is a government needs to respect minorities within its country and treat them fairly. Achieving a majority of votes or seats in Parliament does not entitle you to ignore or repress the minorities. If people wish to speak Russian in  Ukraine they must be free to do so.

The third lesson is that whilst the majority view on particular policies and actions can prevail, there needs to be general consent to the machinery of government. Minorities need to accept the system for making and changing policy and for making and changing governments. If a significant geographical, or 0ther minority no longer thinks it can work within the constitutional structure of the state, the majority does have to look at the structure.

Instead of trying to convert this civil war into an EU and NATO versus Russia conflict Kiev needs to seek to calm things down and tackle an agenda of how government can be remodelled to restore the faith of most people in the east that a Kiev government can look after them as well, or create a regional government that handles the main issues they are worried about. I have no time for rebels who fire on their own government, nor for rebels who rely on Russian support to fight a civil war. The Kiev government needs to make sure more people in the east see no need to behave in this violent and undemocratic way. Shelling them does not help. They may need to give people in the east a vote on how they wish their future government  to be structured. The Kiev government reluctance to trust the people is serving to undermine consent for the state. The Kiev government above all needs to protect and stand up for the many people in the east of their country who want to live in peace and are neither on the side of Russia nor the EU.

 

If the Yes campaign does succeed in winning the referendum  the following issues amongst others have to be sorted out.

 

The rest of the UK should make clear in the negotiations with Scotland that

1. Scotland cannot remain part of the pound sterling nor have a stake in the Bank of England

2. Scottish banks that have needed UK financial support will in future be the responsibility of Scotland unless they choose to move their headquarters and registration. The rest of the UK will expect its share of the  money back for past rescues.

3, Scotland will be expected to take her share of the collected public debts. The rest of the UK will of course guarantee the whole debt, but Scotland will owe us her share of the interest and repayments.

4. Scotland will no longer be part of the BBC, the NHS, and the other major UK wide public bodies. Her parts of these will be split off and will be for her to manage.

5. It will be for Scotland to negotiate with the EU over a possible membership of that body for the new state.

6. All state property in Scotland will be awarded to Scotland, and all state property in the rest of the UK will be left with the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK will need to buy an Edinburgh property for an Embassy, and Scotland will need to buy a London property for an Embassy.

7. The rest of the UK will sit down immediately and seek to negotiate a new relationship with the EU which better reflects our dissatisfaction with the current relationship. Just as the EU will wish to alter the treaties to reflect the new country, so we will regard this is a good opportunity to renegotiate the whole thing. We want a relationship based on trade and political co-operation, not part of the Euro and centralising state and treaties.

8. Scotland will take financial responsibility for paying all unfunded public sector pensions in Scotland and the state retirement pension promised to her citizens by successive UK Parliaments.

9. The rest of the UK will make alternative arrangements for our nuclear submarines with Scotland allowing our use of the facilities for a transitional period. Scotland will cease to be defended by the rest of the UK., unless they pay for some new arrangement by agreement.

10. Public bodies in Scotland that have benefitted from Private Finance Contracts in the past will take responsiblity for those contracts and borrowings.

 

 

In 1999 I wrote a book called “The Death of Britain?”. It argued that Labour’s devolution policy was likely to split the country up. It also said that Labour’s passion to put us under EU control would destroy our democracy. Boris reminded me of it yesterday in his article which referred to it.

The first of these arguments is coming home to roost this week in the Scottish vote over independence. Whichever way now it turns out, devolution has damaged the union. Devolution has split Scotland in two, with  half the public wanting to leave the UK as soon as possible and the other half wanting to stay in only on more favourable terms with less commitment to common government.

The second argument about the EU destroying our democracy  is still  not fully understood by enough people. It was good yesterday morning to awaken again to voices on the Today programme threatening us with unspecified adverse economic consequences – and the loss of car  manufacturing – if we vote to leave the EU. In the light of what negative campaigning has done in Scotland, can we please have more of these lies and pro EU propaganda BBC? Clearly some see the read across from a vote for Scottish independence to a vote for UK independence from the EU even though the two cases are somewhat different.

Only if enough people understand the damage done to our democracy  will we secure a vote to leave the EU as currently constituted.

In my book I argued:

“The end result of Labour’s constitutional reforms will be a nation in tatters… Will Scotland now seek to shatter the Union by demanding full independence?”

“devolution Labour style will devolve more power not to people but to politicians and administrators. Far from cementing the UK, it will pull it apart”

“Undoubtedly the government’s devolution plans will create more tension and conflict rather than less. ….It is helping to fuel nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales.”

Labour’s approach is to   “offer more devolved power to that part of the country where they are most worried about the strength of separatist as well as devolutionary tendencies. Usually the granting of more and more powers for separate development and separate government within a once unified state leads inexorably to stronger nationalist movements and often to eventual separation”

The crowning irony of Labour’s devolution policy and its failure is its impact 0n Labour. They are the UK political party with far the most to lose, as they often rely on Scottish votes in the Commons to have their way, and on Scottish MPs to act as Ministers. Conservatives won the General Election outright outside Scotland in 2010. It is curious that Labour could not see the obvious in 1999 when I warned them of the consequences of their policy.

 

 

I have always assumed Scotland will stay in  the Union. I have defended Scotland’s right to make this decision and have stayed away from their hustings as Conservatives have been advised to do. I would be happy for them to remain in our country.

I have also said we only want them to remain if they are happy to do so and see the value of our union to them. I do  not think it right to threaten them with bad things if they vote for out, nor would I shower them with new promises about what it means to stay in. They know what being in means. They are exploring what being out might mean in this referendum.

Given the narrowing of the polls and the sense of panic in some senior Labour statements, it is now appropriate to offer advice to the government of the rest of the UK in the event of a Scottish decision to leave.

The first thing the UK Parliament should do is pass a short Act. This would say that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament will no longer vote on any matter  not applying to Scotland, and will take no part in settling the response of the rest of the UK to Scottish withdrawal. It would also cancel the May 2015 General Election in Scotland. Current Scottish MPs would continue for their residual functions until the split of the kingdoms in completed.

There  is no need to delay the General Election in the rest of the UK. The new government for the rest of the UK should be formed from the winners of the election in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  The remaining Scottish MPs would be excluded from calculating the majority and would not be eligible to be Ministers.  On Wednesday I will discuss the negotiating position I wish to see from the rest of the UK should Scotland trigger the split.