Tom Griffin (London, OK): The Calman Commission, which is taking evidence on the case for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, has today published a submission from the British Government. As Gareth Young notes, it is thin stuff for the most part, largely consisting of a rehearsal of the status quo and the case for maintaining it by each Whitehall department. The Treasury, for example, notes how "Scotland benefits from the Government’s successful macroeconomic policies set out in successive Budgets," although whether it was wise to mention the Government's two fiscal rules must be debateable at this stage.
If there is a key passage it is this one:
The devolved funding arrangements provide the Scottish Parliament with not only a rising budget but also continuity and a stable, transparent and predictable way of funding public services in Scotland. The Government are keen to consider with the Commission, in accordance with its terms of reference, how the financial accountability of the Parliament may be improved.
STV notes the First Minister's suspicions about what that means:
In a broadcast interview, Mr Salmond said: "They seem to be moving in the direction of assigned revenues".
He added this would be worst than the present system because Scotland would lose "certainty and control" over its revenues.
The reports also picks up Lib Dem reaction, which is significant because they unlike the SNP are represented on the Commission:
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott voiced disappointment at the submission.
"It is barely conceivable that having lost the 2007 general election in Scotland on a platform of no change, Labour has decided that no change is again its position," he said.
The BBC's Brian Taylor highlights the Department of Energy's suggestion that devolved planning powers are already an obstacle to reserved powers:
Don't see this objection going anywhere, frankly. The Department of Energy may find it exasperating - but there is no point whatsoever to devolution if planning isn't included.
How, pray, are you going to implement UK nuclear strategy in Scotland if the Scots object through their devolved government? Send in the Army to build a new power station?
Comments
I thought the key sentence was this:
“Sharing the revenue from taxable resources across the different parts
of the Union according to where they are needed is a very tangible sign
of the solidarity that binds the different nations of the UK together.”
In other words, the Barnett Formula provides the justification for Scots voting on English legislation, and we want to keep it.
Toque can you explain why Whitehall would have an inbuilt biased towards Scotland?
For me the key was in trhe unwinding Lib-lab pact. The Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott voiced disappointment at the submission:
"It is barely conceivable that having lost the 2007 general election in Scotland on a platform
of no change, Labour has decided that no change is again its position," he said.
Labour have decided that on the most recent electoral results in Scotland that the Lib-Dems are flat-lining and if Labour ever get to be the majority party in the Scottish Parliament again they're going to govern as a minority government like the SNP and avoid any Lib-Dem alliance. Labour can now ignore the Lib-Dems.
Brown never wanted this commission in the first place and wanted to call it a review. It was all Wendy Alexander's baby along with the enthusiastic support of the Lib-Dems and the grudging support of the Conservatives who simply wanted to stick one on the SNP and give the embattled Labour Group Leader Wendy some support in the Parliament.
Far from giving the Scottish Parliament more powers Brown's looking to grab back powers such as planning which block his desire to build Nuclear Power Stations in Scotland
On the basis of one by-election Labour hold Brown now thinks that he can abandon the unwanted Calman Commission, give the Lib-Dems a lesson in who holds the whip hand and inadvertently confirms that all consitutional change runs on, as Alex Salmond said, "SNP Petrol".
The Lib-Dems have a touching naivety about constitutional change in Scotland. It's all been a response by Labour to an SNP threat. If Labour thinks the threat has receded then Constitutional change is off the agenda. Tavish Scott should have realised that but it seems to have come as a complete surprise to him.
"Toque can you explain why Whitehall would have an inbuilt biased towards Scotland?"
I wasn't aware that that was my contention. I think the Government treats Scotland as a special case, because it wants to keep Scotland in the Union. They've overlooked Barnett for years because precisely for the reason quoted.
Once the different nations start raising and spending their own money, then it undermines the case for the welfare state, which is the UK state, and it causes nationalist disagreement on priority for central spending: defence, ID cards, nuclear power.
Even if we move to a needs-based formula it will mean that Scotland's spending is no longer a direct function of England's, so it removes the justification that Scottish MPs have to vote on English legislation.
Post new comment