As far as Scotland is concerned, the Prime Minister seems well satisfied with the Prime Minister’s performance. Jousting with Angus Robertson of the Scottish National Party in the Commons yesterday, David Cameron declared flatly: “We have delivered on all of the promises that we made.”
The preposition alone invites comment. If by “we” Mr Cameron means the present Government, he is entitled to his opinion. If he means somehow to speak for himself, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, signatories to the famous (or infamous) “vow”, explanations are in order.
Together with the SNP, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have proposed dozens of amendments to the Scotland Bill. Each has been rejected. Mr Cameron might wish to draw a line under constitutional business, but such obduracy is unwise. Almost exactly a year ago, this newspaper argued that independence should be rejected, but with the strict proviso that those promising reform would be held to account. Where do we stand?
Here, for example, is the Labour Party arguing that all VAT revenues should be assigned to Holyrood, thus devolving £5 billion and allowing, so it is claimed, for the design of Scotland’s own social security system. The SNP is not impressed, but Mr Cameron can hardly maintain that no challenge has been made.
The same could be said, obviously, about the Nationalists’ persistent efforts to extract more powers. Among other things, the SNP continue to argue that a veto over welfare reform is implicit in the Bill. Scottish ministers are also unhappy about financial arrangements for the new dispensation.
The Prime Minister might say that Nationalists would complain no matter what. Given the numerous amendments proposed, there are risks, nevertheless, for a government with a single Scottish MP. Why so inflexible? Why maintain that the Smith Commission recommendations are being implemented “in full” when dissent is widespread?
Professor David Bell’s analysis for Sir Tom Hunter’s foundation, with a foreword from its sponsor, attempts cool reason. Has “Smith” been delivered? Yes and no, says Sir Tom. The negative applies to welfare powers. There is the reminder too that “there is no new money” and that Scotland could be worse off once every administrative consequence of the Bill has been felt.
Professor Bell shows, meanwhile, that independence would have been no panacea, thanks principally to collapsing oil prices. Tax increases, spending cuts and haggling over debt – in whatever mixture – would have followed. The currency and pensions could also have left a Scottish government with headaches.
Professor Bell is clear that, where welfare is concerned, the Bill is not “Smith”. He also indicates that tax powers will not give Edinburgh the flexibility in “subtle ways” enjoyed by chancellors. Nevertheless, his analysis inspires Sir Tom to urge us all to “move on, move forward, and use the powers we have”.
There is, as things stand, no alternative. This need not mean that Mr Cameron’s template is the last word. Alun Evans, the former Scotland Office director, argues that this is precisely the time for Westminster to be making a “big, bold offer” of home rule, both to forestall the SNP and to meet the aspirations of a majority of Scots.
The Prime Minister seems in no mood to listen. History suggests that is foolish. If Professor Bell is correct, if independence would have been fraught with difficulties, Mr Cameron should consider the federalist alternative seriously.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel