Is Jackson Carlaw prepared to stand up for Scotland?

Jackson Carlaw (Photo: The National)

There have, understandably, been many vocal responses to Home Secretary Priti Patel's announcement of the UK government's new immigration policy.

I will leave the commenting on the policy itself to others, but for the record I find myself agreeing with Christine Jardine (writing in the New Statesman). 

One of the more interesting reactions comes from an unlikely source: new leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Jackson Carlaw.

Mr Carlaw, who was elected to succeed Ruth Davidson only a week ago, has expressed disappointment in the policy and has indicated that he will - to quote The Guardian - "lobby Boris Johnson over [concerns] that Home Office plans for a points-based immigration system could damage Scotland's economy." 

It's been quite a week for Mr Carlaw who began his tenure as leader with an anti-SNP rant in which he described Scotland's party of government as "an evangelical faith-based cult". To call such an outburst ill-advised would be something of an understatement, but credit should perhaps go to Mr Carlaw for wearing his heart on his sleeve and leaving the public under no false pretences as to the approach he will take.

As a new leader, it's generally a good idea to speak well of everyone - including opponents. It's also generally understood that new leaders should pick their battles carefully, which makes it rather odd that he's opted to make his first significant battle a fight with the Home Secretary.

Carlaw told reporters of various media outlets last week that he is pressuring the Home Secretary to rethink proposals that would reduce low-waged migrants. In referring to the plans as "a work in progress" the Scottish Tory leader was effectively dismissing Ms Patel's plans as not fully considered and requiring further reflection. He also hinted that the proposals - as they stand - may well have broken the Conservatives' manifesto pledge to introduce "an immigration system that works for Scotland and the UK" (page 24, my emphasis added).

“We made a specific promise that we need a migration system appropriate to Scotland’s needs and our demographics and economy, and [we] remain committed to that...I very much hope – and intend – that we will have a migration system in the final analysis and detail which is appropriate to Scotland”, he added. He even went as far as to suggest an alternative proposal for immigration, put forward by the SNP government in Holyrood, contained "sensible suggestions".

No doubt his position has been influenced by reactions from others - especially Scottish business leaders, his constituents and, of course, his party members (who don't always see eye-to-eye with their English counterparts) - but it reveals three things.

The first, and most obvious, of these is that the impossibility of Mr Carlaw's task has been made very clear. I don't suspect for a minute Priti Patel deliberately sought to make life difficult for the new leader of the Scottish party, and I am sure it's simply a failure to factor the Scottish Tory leadership election into her thinking about the timing of her announcements - but that precisely is the point. She didn't think. It didn't feature on her radar. She cares as much for Mr Carlaw or for Scotland as she does the Polish care assistant or the Romanian lorry driver. The contempt in which she holds her Scottish colleagues is clear for everyone to see - including, I suspect, Mr Carlaw.

The second point I would make is that Mr Carlaw recognises that there is a distinction between Scottish interests and British interests, and has opted to emphasise it - and seek to address it - rather than deny it. I imagine that he's on a hiding to nothing here and Ms Patel is as likely to heed his advice as she is attend a meeting of the Howard League for Penal Reform, but it's a commendable stance to take.

The third observation is that these battle lines reveal current thinking within the Conservative party. Specifically, they show concern over the conflict between Scottish and British interests. The General Election of 2019 was supposed to have eradicated this, with a purge of Orwellian proportions "ensuring" blind obedience to the leader and his British nationalist agenda. Of course, what that election could not do was influence the make-up of the parliamentary Conservative Party in Holyrood. That grouping now has the potential to be an influential, if not powerful, critic of the Johnson government.

The Spectator's Stephen Daisley (not someone I reference often) observed that "new Scottish Tory leader Jackson Carlaw’s welcome to the job has been a slap in the face from the Prime Minister". He also asserts that Priti Patel's immigration policies would be "damaging to Scotland’s economic and demographic well-being" and questions why a Prime Minister who "promised to put the Union at the heart of his government" would go about "making Scotland poorer". If Mr Daisley can understand this, and express it so coherently, then surely so too can many other Conservative-leaning individuals.

What happens now? Will Jackson Carlaw be prepared to see through his challenge to the Home Secretary? Will he be prepared to stand by a more liberal immigration policy proposed by the SNP (and potentially others)  in direct opposition to the Westminster government? What does this mean for Scotland? Indeed, what does it mean for the future of the Scottish Conservatives? Are they willing to reinvent themselves as the last bastion of moderate Conservatism?

Renewing the debate between "Scotland's interest" and "Britain's interest" while simultaneously rejecting renewed calls for a further referendum on Scottish independence is, admittedly, a curious tactic. It's also a potentially dangerous one for Jackson Carlaw - but also for the UK cabinet, whose dismissive objections will only fuel further dissatisfaction towards the Union in Scotland.

I would dismiss the idea that this is primarily an issue of Scottish versus British interests: the government's immigration's proposals are in the interests of neither country. But Jackson Carlaw has reinforced this dichotomy, and it is clear that the UK government must act in either Scotland's interests or their own. It cannot do both. 

Is Jackson Carlaw prepared to stand up for Scotland - and against the supposed interests of the rest of the UK as perceived by Johnson, Patel et al? I don't know, and I suspect any attempt to do so will result in tragic failure. But it is more than a little ironic that the first real test of Mr Carlaw's leadership is a battle with his own party in London - and that someone usually so compliant has, in his first week in charge, been forced into the role of unlikely rebel.