Contingency planning in any future Union vote should prevent UK PM from resigning if defeated, say MPs

It was widely thought that as the independence poll neared David Cameron had prepared a resignation letter in the event of a Yes vote; following last year’s defeat in the EU referendum, he did resign.

In a report on learning the lessons of the June 2016 In-Out vote, the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee suggested the UK and Scottish Governments had to learn from the “mistakes” of the EU poll in any future referendum.

MPs stressed the importance of maintaining the impartiality of the UK civil service and of planning for either possible outcome from a poll result.

They noted that while the UK Government did not support a Leave vote in last year’s referendum, it nonetheless had a “constitutional and public obligation to prepare for both outcomes”.

The committee said that, unfortunately, many of the Government's actions in the run-up to the vote, which were easily avoidable, appeared to have increased public distrust.

It explained that the use of the machinery of Government during the EU referendum contributed to a perception that the civil service was, in some way, biased. In addition, the presentation of Government reports, particularly those from the Treasury, and the decision to spend £9.3m on sending out a leaflet, advocating a Remain vote, to all UK households, were, said the MPs, “inappropriate and counterproductive for the Government”.

The report pointed out how in 1975, when Britain voted on membership of the EEC, Whitehall undertook contingency planning in the event of a vote to leave. It said there was no adequate reason for a refusal to prepare for either eventuality in 2016 but expressed relief that some work had been undertaken by civil servants on the potential implications of a Leave vote,

However, it stressed: “Civil servants should never have been asked to operate in a climate where contingency planning was formally proscribed by the Government. Such preparation would negate the need for the Prime Minister to resign. The UK Government failed to learn the lessons from the Scottish referendum in this respect.”

The committee noted: “We recommend that in the event of future referendums civil servants should be tasked with preparing for both possible outcomes. While we recognise the important distinctions between general elections and referendums, these preparations should include pre-referendum contact between the two designated campaigns and the Civil Service along the lines of pre-General Election contact between opposition parties and the Civil Service.

“It should be reasonable to presume that the sitting Prime Minister and his/her administration will continue in office and take responsibility for the referendum result in either eventuality.”

However, if Mrs May or any of her successors were to become the Prime Minister who lost the 300-year-old Union in a second Scottish independence poll, many would find it difficult to see how they could continue in the role.

Meantime, Allan Sampson, National Officer for Scotland of the FDA, the senior public servants’ union, responded to the MPs’ report, saying: "Impartially serving the Government of the day comes with the territory for civil servants and we have no doubt our members will rise to the challenge of any future referendum. But there’s more the Scottish Government can do to prepare officials for the road ahead.

“The FDA is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure our members are supported and appropriately resourced to deliver in these challenging times.

"What officials are instructed to do is a matter for ministers but politicians on both sides of a referendum debate have a duty to ensure that there are enough properly equipped staff in place to deliver on their promises and they cannot just rely on the goodwill and unpaid overtime of hard-working civil servants,” he added.