tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/smith-commission-13054/articlesSmith Commission – The Conversation2016-12-08T13:49:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701562016-12-08T13:49:27Z2016-12-08T13:49:27ZLabour has just blown a big chance to seize initiative on Scotland’s future<p>The Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38223719">has made</a> what she hopes is a major speech to win back <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland">lost voters</a> and make her party relevant in the constitutional debate that has followed the Brexit vote in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results">EU referendum</a>. </p>
<p>In an address to the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank in London, she called for a federal UK founded on a “new Act of Union” that included repatriating to Scotland the EU’s powers in areas like fisheries, farming and employment rights. This would come on the back of a constitutional convention for the UK to determine what form a new settlement should take, modelled on the <a href="http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.1996.0017?journalCode=scot">deliberations in Scotland</a> that culminated in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQE3xu0hFA">opening</a> of the Scottish parliament in 1999. </p>
<p>Dugdale’s proposal aims to save the union from what she sees as a UK Tory government and Scottish SNP government both intent on pulling it apart – albeit even some notable Labour figures such as former first minister <a href="http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14894334.Former_First_Minister_Henry_McLeish__I___m_ready_to_back_Scottish_independence_following_Brexit_vote/">Henry McLeish</a> have said they would back a Yes vote in a second Scottish independence referendum. Dugdale said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are now faced with a Tory government in Westminster which looks set to force hard Brexit on the whole of the UK. And an SNP government at Holyrood which wants to exploit the divisions to win independence.</p>
<p>This is the position that the majority of Scots – the moderate, pro-union Scots and also many former Yes voters – find themselves in.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/utSGRdWMvwI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Echoes and errors</h2>
<p>Dugdale’s speech does not break very new ground. It echoes <a href="http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2016/11/gordon-brown-proposes-uk-peoples-constitutional-convention/">recent calls</a> by Gordon Brown, the former UK prime minister, for a federal UK devised through a constitutional convention with an elected senate and greater powers for Scotland. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the idea of a new Act of Union to replace the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/contents">1707 original</a> has been floated in the past by Dennis Canavan, the then maverick Labour MP who later became chair of Yes Scotland for the 2014 independence referendum; and <a href="http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/only-a-new-act-of-union-can-save-the-uk-from-break-up/">more recently</a> by the likes of former Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell and former Labour Welsh Secretary Peter Hain. </p>
<p>That aside, Dugdale has made the mistake of trying to deal with the UK constitution and Scotland’s future/Holyrood powers at the same time. That is not to say there is not an opportunity for Labour on the constitution. The SNP is currently the party of independence but by default also the party of Home Rule. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149270/original/image-20161208-31364-13q033o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘That your best shot?’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/search-results/fluid/?q=sturgeon&amber_border=1&category=A,S,E&fields_0=all&fields_1=all&green_border=1&imagesonly=1&orientation=both&red_border=1&words_0=all&words_1=all">Andew Milligan/PA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The SNP has the problem that <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-support-for-second-referendum-plummets-a7447196.html">support for independence</a> is strong enough to keep the party in office but too low to make it confident of securing its ultimate goal. This explains why the party has not taken a hard line against a settlement short of independence. Former first minister Alex Salmond <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13063679.Salmond__Scots_have_a_right_to_second_question_on_devo_max/">attempted</a> to get devo max on the 2014 ballot, for example, while his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-smith-commission-fails-deliver-scotland-powerhouse-parliament">accepted</a> the Smith Commission devolution proposals while demanding more autonomy at the same time. </p>
<p>Some in Labour recognise that they cannot out-unionist the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and need to carve out a role for themselves as a Home Rule party. Alex Rowley, Dugdale’s deputy, has sought to do this, arguing, <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-rowley-labour-should-have-campaigned-for-home-rule-1-4123109">for example</a>, that Labour should have campaigned for Home Rule in the run-up to the Holyrood elections in May. </p>
<p>Dugdale is coming late to the party and calling for something that would not go as far as Home Rule, and still seems trapped in a Labour unionist mindset that sees Westminster as being the only possible driver of change. Calling for new powers is all very well, but her proposal is still subject to winning the backing of the UK Labour party and then waiting for a Labour government at Westminster that can implement it. </p>
<p>The rather obvious question for Labour is, why not seek these repatriated EU powers through gaining a mandate at Holyrood? Westminster <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/06/snp-election-victory-scottish-independence">recognised</a> the SNP 2011 victory as a mandate to negotiate an independence referendum. If Labour and any other parties won a Holyrood mandate for Home Rule, would that not mean that Westminster would have to negotiate a further extension of powers?</p>
<p>By focusing on federalism, on the other hand, Dugdale is calling for something that requires a UK-wide mandate and for which it has to be debatable whether support exists in England. There <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm">has not</a> been enough support for English regional parliaments to get them off the ground in the past, for example. </p>
<p>At the same time, I question whether repatriating powers from the EU to Scotland would really require a UK-wide convention. In what sense does the UK’s relationship with its constituent parts need to be resolved before Scottish Labour could, for instance, argue for EU employment powers to be repatriated to Holyrood?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149268/original/image-20161208-31379-fxg40c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In with the bricks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-439980358/stock-photo-great-britain-united-kingdom-flag-on-a-brick-wall-great-britain-united-kingdom-flag-great-britain-united-kingdom-flag-great-britain-united-kingdom-flag.html?src=va7EwoInFqWGwil3MxHPRg-1-10">Andril-spyk</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How to live dangerously</h2>
<p>Had Dugdale effectively started a campaign for a Scottish Home Rule mandate and repatriating EU powers to Scotland, she could have carved out a distinct position on the constitution while still supporting a final federal destination. It would at least have allowed Labour to appear relevant on the constitution in future Scottish elections. </p>
<p>If the SNP government is able to gain new powers from Brexit, it would mean Scottish Labour could more legitimately take some credit. On the other hand, if the Scottish government fails to achieve this or gain enough support for a second independence referendum, Labour could claim to have a credible alternative that voters can support in a Scottish election. </p>
<p>Instead, Dugdale has allowed the SNP to maintain its constitutional coalition of independence voters and those who want more powers but would settle for less. The former will undoubtedly stay with the SNP while the latter have not been offered an alternative. </p>
<p>When the former Labour first minister Donald Dewar signed up for a Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3727308.stm">he said</a> it had become necessary for Scots to live a little dangerously. Scottish Labour would do well to heed the advice of their most successful leader since the founding of Holyrood and take a similarly bold approach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William McDougall is a member of the UCU. However, his academic work is totally independent from any outside organisation. </span></em></p>Why Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale’s federalist ploy is not the right way forward.William McDougall, Lecturer in Politics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/655132016-09-16T12:25:14Z2016-09-16T12:25:14ZTwo years after Scotland’s vote, support for independence is stuck in the mud<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137985/original/image-20160915-30614-1r5z7p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-54427720/stock-photo-four-wheel-truck-stuck-in-mud.html?src=lsthVYbcnznqCBQAE41zLA-1-8">James Edwards</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>September 18 marks the second anniversary of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">Scottish independence referendum</a>, perhaps the most intense, exciting and fascinating period in the country’s political history. And despite the No vote, it’s certainly not business as usual in Scotland. So what has changed in the past two years, and where next?</p>
<p>The political divide north and south of the border has been steadily growing since the referendum. Most important is arguably the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/pdfs/ukpga_20160011_en.pdf">extra powers</a> on their way to Scotland. From next April, all Scottish income tax revenue will go to the Scottish government, along with the power to create and alter bands. </p>
<p>The Left sees the possibility of generating extra revenues to tackle austerity and social justice. For all sides, it’s an added incentive to grow the economy to increase the tax take. </p>
<p>Yet the economy looks weak compared to the rest of the UK – <a href="https://www.sbs.strath.ac.uk/economics/fraser/20160913/ScotlandsBudget-2016.pdf">with probably</a> the worst fiscal picture since 2007. With some social security powers devolving too, the Scottish government faces challenging spending decisions that probably mean cuts. </p>
<h2>X marks the spot</h2>
<p>The constitutional divide has been just as clear at the ballot box. The message from the Scottish public at the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland">2015 UK election</a> was that the SNP were best placed to keep up the pressure on the Cameron government to deliver on devolution. When the party won nearly 50% of the Scottish vote, winning a remarkable 56 of 59 Scottish seats, unionist Scottish Labour were the main losers. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Conservatives won at UK level by playing up the threat from an SNP-backed minority Labour government to stability, security and territorial integrity. Critics of the Conservatives said the real threat to territorial integrity was campaign posters like the one of Labour leader Ed Miliband dancing like a puppet as the SNP’s Alex Salmond played the flute. </p>
<p>In the same vein has been the Conservatives’ introduction of English votes for English laws. This system of excluding non-English MPs from purely English matters <a href="https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/westminster-passes-english-votes-english-laws-0">became law</a> last autumn, and critics <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-12/english-votes-for-english-laws-is-driving-scotland-out-of-the-uk-snp-mp-claims/">have said</a> it effectively makes non-English MPs second class. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137989/original/image-20160915-30575-13yb33t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Take your partners …</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And yet the Scottish Conservatives unexpectedly ousted Labour to become Holyrood’s second largest party at this year’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland">Scottish election</a>. Under Ruth Davidson, whose personal ratings have <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14747283.Ruth_Davidson_overtakes_Nicola_Sturgeon_in_new_opinion_poll/">just overtaken</a> first minister Nicola Sturgeon’s, the Conservatives arguably succeeded through positioning themselves as best placed to defend the union. </p>
<p>One look at the electoral map gives a good indication of what happened: the Conservatives appealed to middle class No voters in places like Aberdeenshire, East Renfrewshire and Edinburgh. It was another sign that most Scottish politics has been viewed through the constitutional prism since the indyref. Scottish Labour has failed to adapt, tending to insist that policy issues not be treated as constitutional issues. </p>
<p>These trends seem likely to continue at the local elections next year. All eyes will be on whether Labour can cling to control of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17953270">Glasgow City Council</a>. </p>
<h2>Post-Brexit</h2>
<p>When 62% of Scots voted Remain in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results">EU referendum</a> as the UK voted Brexit, it undoubtedly shifted the political goalposts. The Better Together campaign’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21293490">assurances</a> in 2014 that voting No would secure EU membership for Scotland now look hollow. So too the assertion that the UK represented the most stable choice for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/12/uk-economy-near-standstill-brexit-vote-hits-investment-bcc">Scotland’s economy</a>. The Brexit vote <a href="http://www.snp.org/five_times_westminster_ignored_scotland_s_democratic_decisions">also revived</a> old complaints about a democratic deficit in Scotland. These factors could all make a second referendum a rather different affair.</p>
<p>The pro-independence movement looks more prepared than in 2014, too: recent launches include activist platform <a href="https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9049/commonsocial-has-landed-scotlands-new-social-network-launches">Common Social</a> and the <a href="http://nationalyesregistry.scot">National Yes Registry</a>, a tool to help dormant pro-independence groups organise. <a href="http://www.womenforindependence.org">Women For Independence</a> and the socialist <a href="http://www.allofusfirst.org">Common Weal</a> are <a href="https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9304/common-weal-launches-drive-new-independence-white-paper">thriving</a>, while online news outlet <a href="https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9304/common-weal-launches-drive-new-independence-white-paper">CommonSpace</a> has shown you can be both pro-independence and critical of the SNP. </p>
<p>The only problem is public sentiment. The SNP <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432723.Second_referendum_only_if_MOST_Scots_want_it__Sturgeon_confirms/">long talked</a> about Brexit being the “material change in circumstances” to justify another referendum, and Nicola Sturgeon <a href="https://theconversation.com/scottish-independence-back-in-play-after-brexit-shock-with-a-note-of-caution-61457">signalled</a> as much immediately after the EU referendum. Yet the SNP’s <a href="http://www.snp.org/manifesto">2016 manifesto</a> first also wanted evidence of clear, sustained support for independence – generally <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-60-support-needed-before-next-independence-referendum-1-3920508">seen as</a> the 60% bracket. </p>
<p><a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls">After the Brexit vote</a>, polling showed a slim majority for independence. <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls">Since then</a>, Scotland has reverted to narrowly leaning towards the union – not what the SNP might have hoped for at this stage. There are probably a number of reasons. EU membership is <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/">likely</a> of minor importance to most Scots and, at this stage, unlikely to be a massive gamechanger. A sizeable proportion of SNP/independence voters <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/">also voted</a> to leave the EU, <a href="http://www.snp.org/pb_what_is_the_snp_s_position_on_the_eu">contrary</a> to party policy. </p>
<p>Perhaps most importantly, <a href="https://theconversation.com/independent-scotland-might-get-away-with-a-high-deficit-if-its-feeling-lucky-64409">recent figures</a> suggest an independent Scotland’s fiscal deficit would exceed 9% of GDP compared to the UK’s circa 4% – considerably worse than in 2014. The North Sea oil decline is hitting Scotland hard. Many “soft” No voters are <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/09/has-brexit-not-had-much-impact-on/">more worried</a> about deeper spending cuts and higher taxes to meet spending commitments than EU membership. </p>
<h2>Sturgeon’s dilemma</h2>
<p>The conundrum is how to turn this sentiment around. To that end, the SNP recently launched a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/02/nicola-sturgeon-snp-listening-exercise-europe-brexit-scottish-independence">listening exercise</a> around independence. The party faces a dilemma, however. To call a referendum, it needs to maintain a pro-independence majority in Holyrood. But if a majority continue to favour the union, it risks alienating the very voters it wishes to attract to independence. So it needs to walk a middle ground. </p>
<p>One possible route to independence might be the UK economy taking a significant nosedive post-Brexit. Many chose No in 2014 believing an independent Scottish economy would perform less well. A tanking UK economy might make independence look the safer option. </p>
<p>Alternatively, the prospect of an increased Tory majority at the next UK election could galvanise a Yes vote from Scottish antipathy to the party dating back to Margaret Thatcher. But given the Conservatives’ recent electoral performance in Scotland, you wouldn’t bank on it. </p>
<p>So if the SNP thought Brexit had given them an open goal for independence, it certainly doesn’t look that way. Winning a majority at a future referendum looks tough, perhaps even unlikely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig McAngus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How to shift those stubborn opinion polls?Craig McAngus, Lecturer in Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435692015-06-23T10:06:29Z2015-06-23T10:06:29ZScottish income tax control threatens big trouble across UK<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85761/original/image-20150619-3386-b9k3zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Oil workers are among those whose tax bills could get complicated</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thulobaba/8757951101/in/photolist-ekUMJV-pwk7uw-5kVLKz-6JmyY-9XVyzc-btBwXL-oRVKLp-5jdWjy-5kVyL8-6v1WD8-6tYDpr-8m1U5M-6bL1gX-97NoaP-h4Q23d-bYETdh-btBxZj-2Ubc5g-34nJCz-oa3Du4-fAvxEi-dVwTC5-nYjM56-yvKn5-9VPR5A-9UPu2A-b2ZN7M-uWruY-azbNo1-bvJw1B-GtFmc-cE76Ss-qHjZRm-pqgoia-5hxKKm-rqwxVu-9wsb5x-pNF3ZV-8etypQ-kqxQDt-9Nz3As-kqxacp-aD1CsL-9NBBMn-9NAsCc-9NJybd-9NFVNX-9M2DZZ-9NGKrb-9NEtYQ">Mike Paskin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK tax system is about to experience one of its biggest ever upheavals. From April 2016, there could be two tax jurisdictions for income tax for the first time.</p>
<p>We can’t definitively say what will happen yet, because the current <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland.html">Scotland Bill</a> is still subject to negotiation – and is due to head back to the House of Commons in the coming days. But the Scottish government will probably have powers to set thresholds and rates for income tax and keep all income tax revenues raised in Scotland. </p>
<p>You would be wrong to think of this as purely a Scottish matter, however. It will affect people, companies and organisations across the UK, not to mention the two governments. If we don’t get the legislation right, it could open up a world of trouble and complexity. </p>
<h2>Residency problems</h2>
<p>The first big issue will be to determine who is taxable in Scotland and who is taxable in the rest of the UK. While tax residency will be easy to determine for most people, it will be more difficult for others. Difficult examples might include North Sea oil workers; travelling sales representatives; people working in the trades, particularly in the border regions; financial services people based in Edinburgh and London; and staff seconded to long-term projects, such as computer systems development. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/contents/enacted">Scotland Act (2012)</a>, a Scottish taxpayer is an individual who is resident in the UK for income tax with a “close connection” with Scotland. The act defines a “close connection” as having a place of residence in Scotland and living there for part of the tax year in question, or having two or more main places of residence in different parts of the UK and spending an equal or greater time at the residence in Scotland. </p>
<p>It appears that a taxpayer with a “close connection” with one tax jurisdiction would not be taxed in the other jurisdiction. For instance, suppose an IT consultant lives on Skye but has a flat in London, where the consultant is based for four months of the year, spending the rest of the time in Scotland earning nothing. That person would be deemed to be a Scottish taxpayer. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85763/original/image-20150619-3359-1t6f6pf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Part-time crofters take note.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephee/3587847504/in/photolist-4mMg7o-9ZStni-rLLVti-6t3E4J-kr5Lm-bUFKtL-f55JDB-f5jYHm-8HdJYa-9jH2SP-h35ndr-dZAbTY-5Mh8d-8MKMw9-djcPja-cEYjBU-aFRvWX-2L9qw-8HKG58-8esiby-bPAWBr-bPBxti-bPAX1v-bPAXwB-bPByQe-rd8nJH-bAGW5y-bAGViG-bPBzGr-6QMLay-6QMKv7-6QHFHg-6QHMX8-6QMK3o-6QHMxx-6QMTdm-6QHNqg-6QP9yy-6QK4VR-6QP7To-6QP7xw-6QK4eK-6QP8Cj-6QK5dr-46KWkD-dcGDyd-2xheJs-c85VHw-8C2uP6">Stephanie Lamphere</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The “close connection” rule also opens up a lot of scope for uncertainty Could an oil platform, temporary shared accommodation, short-term let, hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation constitute a “main place of residence”? Assuming an oil platform was not deemed to be such a residence, for example, UK residents working in the North Sea in Scottish waters who have a “close connection” with the rest of the UK would not be treated as Scottish taxpayers.</p>
<p>And even if an oil platform could be a main place of residence, it would become a question of where the person spent more days, which is open to abuse. How accurate would people’s records be of the time they spend in each tax jurisdiction? Would people be tempted to falsify their records – this is tax evasion – to gain a tax advantage? </p>
<p>No wonder the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32731463">recently said</a> “there were significant issues still to be resolved regarding the implementation of the new powers, such as an appropriate definition of residency for a Scottish taxpayer”. (Speaking of parliament, the position is ironically clear for one group of people: MSPs, Scottish MPs and Scottish MEPs. <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/contents/enacted">They will be</a> Scottish taxpayers no matter where their main place of residence is.) More thought based on real-life examples is required to produce a practical, politically acceptable definition. And it must be done as soon as possible.</p>
<p>All companies and organisations on both sides of the border will also have to maintain payroll systems capable of meeting the current and future requirements of both tax jurisdictions – like different thresholds, more thresholds and different tax rates – and ensure that tax revenues are directed to the right government. Hopefully software engineers will make the necessary modifications to payroll systems in the next few months, since the two UK systems could diverge as soon as next year. </p>
<h2>To raise taxes or not?</h2>
<p>When it comes to the two governments deciding what income tax levels should be, having different tax jurisdictions creates an extra policy dilemma. Despite what they think, the governments don’t have freedom of action. They have to think about the wider implications of their policies, particularly because of the integrated nature of the UK economy. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/FinancialScrutiny/How_income_tax_revenue_will_change_in_Scotland.pdf">fact-sheet</a> published in 2014 by the Scottish parliament expected some taxpayers to relocate to the more favourable UK tax jurisdiction if the two tax regimes diverge, acknowledging that “additional rate taxpayers react the most to changes in tax rates”. Some may even be tempted to do a paper relocation, which is tax evasion, but may be difficult to prove in practice. </p>
<p>This raises the potential for significant chunks of tax revenue to switch jurisdictions, as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429163/Table_2.4.pdf">HMRC</a> income-tax figures for 2014/15 in the following table show:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85753/original/image-20150619-3374-1olrli.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HMRC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And in the UK this issue is probably of even greater concern since it is not just the very high earners who are in a position to take action in relation to their tax affairs, due to the prevalence of cross-border working by lower earners. </p>
<p>Income tax has long been considered a toxic way of increasing taxes at UK level, so the policy dilemma will initially rest with Scotland, whose SNP government’s <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">general election manifesto</a> contained a commitment for a 50% tax rate. Will it be implemented when the new tax powers become law in view of the potential economic consequences? Time will tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grahame Steven does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Devolving income tax north might seem like an issue for Scots only. Far from it, as it turns out.Grahame Steven, Lecturer in Accounting, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/419152015-05-15T15:53:45Z2015-05-15T15:53:45ZFive reasons Scottish devolution plans are doomed to failure<p>When David Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/15/cameron-and-sturgeon-in-showdown-talks-over-devolution-politics-live-blog">met with</a> Nicola Sturgeon to consider further devolution for Scotland, it became obvious that the Conservative party’s plans to implement the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-westminster-delivers-scotland-will-have-one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-devolved-parliaments-34778">Smith Commission report</a> would cut no ice. </p>
<p>Indeed, with the benefit of hindsight, you can see that the Smith report was doomed to failure. It represented a quick fix, which contributed to the success of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the recent UK election. But even I was surprised that it proved so inadequate, so quickly. If you look back at the history of Scottish devolution, it’s easy to see where plans for the Smith report went wrong. </p>
<h2>1. Devolution didn’t kill nationalism</h2>
<p>The idea behind devolution was that it would satisfy most people in Scotland. At the time of the 1997 referendum, <a href="https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/national-identity-table-12-1.jpg">most people felt</a> primarily Scottish but also British. Devolution represented the “best of both worlds” – a chance to remain part of the UK, while being able to elect a Scottish government responsible for key decisions in areas such as health, education, housing and justice. Further, George Robertson’s <a href="http://scottishreview.net/GeorgeRobertson231.shtml">famous suggestion</a> that devolution would “kill nationalism stone dead” symbolised the hope that it would expose supporters of independence as a small minority. </p>
<p>In fact, Scottish devolution actually gave the SNP a platform; the chance to develop an image as a non-extreme and competent party, trusted in government and impossible to side-line.</p>
<h2>2. Previous attempts proved inadequate</h2>
<p>The 2007 Scottish parliament elections saw a narrow SNP victory, and the party went on to form a minority government. The response of the UK parties was to block a referendum on Scottish independence, and help establish the <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04744">Calman Commission</a> to “secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”. </p>
<p>Calman proposed a modest amount of devolved powers, including the ability to vary income taxes by 10 pence in the pound. These proposals were established, eventually, in the Scotland Act 2012. This allowed the UK parties to guarantee further powers to Scotland during the referendum debate, given that much of the Act would be implemented after the referendum. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81857/original/image-20150515-25417-1li4k8n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">Daily Record</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And yet, those same parties seemed to recognise that the 2012 Act was inadequate. Indeed, as soon as <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-takes-lead-in-bombshell-indyref-poll.25254394">one published poll</a> (and perhaps several private polls) suggested that a majority of people might vote Yes to independence, they reacted with <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">the now famous “Vow”</a>, on the front of the Daily Record, which promised “extensive new powers” while maintaining Scotland’s financial settlement. The parties also seemed to defer to Gordon Brown’s suggestion that the Vow would be delivered remarkably quickly. And so, the Smith Commission was set up almost immediately, and its report translated into draft legislation before the UK general election.</p>
<h2>3. They did it the wrong way</h2>
<p>Although the Smith Commission could have delivered the new devolved settlement, it was produced too quickly to give any sense that the proposals were well thought-out, or based on meaningful negotiations between the Yes/No parties. It was also produced with too little “civil society” input to give anyone the sense that it was supported by key parts of the Scottish population.</p>
<p>Although Calman made some effort to include a large number and wide range of people in its deliberations, the Smith process was laughably short. To all intents and purposes, it served as a vehicle for the UK parties to agree among themselves. This further-devolution line only held when the SNP was not in the position to secure something more.</p>
<h2>4. UK parties were wiped out in Scotland</h2>
<p>The Smith report became damaged goods as soon as those UK parties were almost wiped out in Scotland, where the SNP won 56 of 59 seats while Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats won one each. The UK parties had promised in their manifestos to implement Smith (or perhaps go further), while the SNP argued that the Smith Commission’s proposals were inadequate, and not in keeping with the promise of “extensive new powers”. </p>
<p>In turn, a huge win for the SNP in 2015 gave it a mandate of sorts to push for further devolution (rather than a second vote on independence, <a href="https://theconversation.com/indyref2-on-the-back-of-a-big-snp-win-is-not-going-to-happen-heres-why-41008">which is not what this election was about</a>). </p>
<h2>5. They may not get it right this time, either</h2>
<p>Consequently, Nicola Sturgeon has a reasonable “hand” in the further devolution talks, albeit in the context of a No vote in September 2014 and a commitment not to push for a second referendum unless there is some radical change in political circumstances. And I don’t think the implementation of Smith plus a few more powers would produce such a change. Indeed, David Cameron is correct to keep open the possibility that more devolution may be yet to come.</p>
<p>Yet, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32750461">Cameron’s initial interview</a> suggests that this is a vague promise, and that more devolution beyond the margins of Smith is not on offer. Nor is there an offer for a more fundamental review of Scottish devolution, in the form of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-bring-scotland-back-into-the-fold-of-the-union-theres-only-one-answer-41283">constitutional convention</a>. To me, this seems like a mistake, but it is not one that will prove costly to Cameron in the short term. Instead, it may help produce a far longer term opportunity for the SNP, if the party negotiates in good faith, reports that the settlement was inadequate, and waits long enough for the majority of the public to agree.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Cairney receives funding from the ESRC, and is a member of the Centre on Constitutional Change, but these are his views.</span></em></p>It’s obvious why the Smith Commission would never work.Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/414022015-05-07T05:54:38Z2015-05-07T05:54:38ZNext UK government’s legitimacy crisis in Scotland will be a weapon for the SNP<p>In British politics there is a crucial distinction between political legitimacy and governmental authority. Essentially any UK government has the constitutional authority to govern as long as it can command the confidence of the House of Commons. </p>
<p>Political legitimacy, on the other hand, stems from a somewhat slippier judgement. This is based on a combination of parliamentary arithmetic, being perceived to be the “winner”, and your ability to form a government with adequate support throughout Britain (I’m deliberately ignoring Northern Ireland since the three main parties do not compete there). In Scotland between 1979 and 1997, for example, the Conservative governments always had governmental authority but they increasingly lacked political legitimacy. </p>
<p>One of the less discussed effects of coalition politics <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm">post-2010</a> was perceptions of UK government legitimacy. Whereas the Conservatives held just one of Scotland’s 59 seats during the life of the parliament (albeit 16.7% of the vote), combined with the Liberal Democrats the government had 12 seats and 35.6% of votes. The legitimacy that this gave the coalition in Scotland is perhaps the key under-stated Lib Dem effect on the politics of the past five years.</p>
<h2>The new Scottish establishment</h2>
<p>This time it may be quite different, of course. While the 55%-45% <a href="https://www.scotreferendum.com">referendum vote</a> preserved the territorial integrity of the UK, David Cameron’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote">linkage of</a> English Votes for English Laws to plans for further devolution to Scotland, just minutes after the announcement of the result, undoubtedly played into Scottish nationalist hands. It was nakedly party political – over 97% of Conservative MPs were drawn from English seats. Since then unionism has been in retreat in Scotland, with the Scottish National Party (SNP) increasing its membership four-fold and looking set to emerge as Scotland’s dominant party at Westminster, and potentially holding the balance of power.</p>
<p>Consequently there are numerous minority, majority and formal or informal coalition post-election scenarios, many of which raise questions of legitimacy north of the border. If the polls are <a href="http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-will-half-of-scotland-vote-for-the-snp-their-poll-lead-has-only-strengthened/">to be believed</a>, a Tory/Lib Dem group looks highly problematic. The Lib Dems look set to lose many of their Scottish seats and the Tories will not improve (indeed may lose) on the one seat they have. </p>
<p>Nor do the prospects look much better for Labour, which has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32542765">ruled out</a> any deal with the SNP. Scottish Labour is presently only polling in the 27%-29% region, not unlike the Scottish Conservatives vote share back in 1979 and 1983. If polls are to be believed, Labour could end up with fewer seats (ten) than the Conservatives had after the “doomsday scenario” election of 1987.</p>
<h2>Project Demonise</h2>
<p>This coming legitimacy problem has been foreshadowed by the tone of the UK campaign towards the SNP. Cameron’s soothing post-2010 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638">unionist rhetoric</a> ahead of the <a href="http://www.gov.scot/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence">Edinburgh Agreement</a>, where he and Alex Salmond agreed the terms of the referendum, stands in marked contrast to the UK general election campaigning language of unionism in 2015. The tribalism of Scottish politics has meant that the Labour Party has willingly played along with what social psychologists have termed the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-conservatives-mocked-online-over-boris-johnsons-claim-of-snp-jockalypse-10228433.html?fb_action_ids=10152957281327987&fb_action_types=og.shares">“othering”</a> of the SNP. This <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ff5a5a3e-e834-11e4-9960-00144feab7de.html">demonisation</a> of the SNP, Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon is unlikely to feature in the historical highlights of British unionism.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80704/original/image-20150506-10916-14phqfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Conservative Party</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The context is an acceptance across the political spectrum today that the UK is an ever-looser union. Flexibility and pragmatism in UK territorial management have now been firmly established as the post-devolution operating code of UK political elites. The strident unitary unionism of the Conservatives 1979-1997 is the constitutional politics of a bygone era. Yet to date, the unionist parties’ approach to devolution has been grudging, incremental adjustment. The <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a>, which was set up to transfer more powers to Scotland after the referendum, was just the latest chapter in this story. </p>
<h2>The dog-fight to come</h2>
<p>So what happens when legitimacy comes back to haunt us? The old questions of the democratic deficit and doomsday scenarios raised in Scottish politics in the 1980s and 1990s are likely to be seen as a pale preview of the post-2015 political and constitutional dog-fight. The campaign was merely the sparring phase. The SNP is likely to make a weapon of the issue. Post-election the gloves could be off and the very continuance of the union is likely to come under great strain. It will be very much the watch “what happens” of UK politics post-2015. </p>
<p>Constitutional reform will be firmly on the agenda. The roadblock has always been the two main parties. It can only happy if one of them chooses the exit road of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-bring-scotland-back-into-the-fold-of-the-union-theres-only-one-answer-41283">constitutional convention</a>, as Scottish Labour did in the 1980s. It is true that existing arrangements have proved more durable than has often been predicted. The issue of English Votes for English Laws has endured since it <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/west-lothian-question/">first cropped up</a> as the West Lothian Question in the 1970s. </p>
<p>So has the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/1580787/How-the-Barnett-formula-works.html">Barnett formula</a>, from which redistribution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are calculated. But this period now looks to be ending. The recent series of constitutional commissions – <a href="http://gov.wales/funding/financereform/reports/?lang=en">Holtham</a> in Wales, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mckay-commission">McKay</a> for all the outlying nations, and most importantly Smith in Scotland – are likely to be seen in history as the precursors of significant constitutional change beyond Westminster.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80708/original/image-20150506-10940-w3gb7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A change is gonna come.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://images.pressassociation.com/meta/2.22876058.html">Steve Allen</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem is that legitimacy issues in Scotland will only be the tip of the iceberg. The prospect of further devolution in Scotland has had the very obvious “what about us?” effect in Northern Ireland and Wales. The UK government appears to be caught up in a logic of events over which it has little control. In short, the old elitist British conception of statecraft based on strong, centralised government looks set to come under increasing strain. The challenge for whoever next takes the reins is to try and find a new settlement. </p>
<p><em>This piece draws on Neil’s chapter The Coalition Effect 2010-2015, which was published in March.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41402/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil McGarvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the consequences of the SNP’s rise is that the new UK government will have very few seats in Scotland. This looks set to become a hot potato after the election.Neil McGarvey, Politics Lecturer, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405912015-04-23T09:10:49Z2015-04-23T09:10:49ZManifesto Check: SNP fiscal plans could unite the UK – against Scotland<p>The publication of the SNP’s 2015 general election manifesto marked a huge change for the party. <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">This manifesto</a> – unlike its predecessors – sets its sights beyond the Scottish border. It seeks to promote “positive change for the benefit of ordinary people, not just in Scotland, but across the UK”. It makes the case for more “progressive politics”, and positions the SNP to the left of the Labour Party.</p>
<p>Specifically, the manifesto argues for an end to austerity: the SNP proposal is for a 0.5% annual increase in public spending over the course of the next parliament, rather than the reductions in spending which George Osborne laid out in his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2015-documents">March 2015 budget</a>. </p>
<h2>Ending austerity</h2>
<p>The SNP claims that increased spending would still lead to a reduction in the deficit as a share of GDP, based on a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410051/Opposition_costing_-_SNP_Departmental_spending.pdf">Treasury costing</a> of the policy, which was proposed by the <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472778.pdf">Scottish government</a> in March 2015. Under the SNP strategy, the deficit would be 2% of GDP by 2019-20. This stands in contrast to the latest UK government forecast, which predicts of a surplus of 0.3% of GDP by the same time based on the current approach.</p>
<p>Some economists, among them <a href="http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/">Simon Wren Lewis</a>, <a href="http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/self-defeating-austerity#.VTYpryFVhBc">Jonathan Portes</a> and <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=UK">Paul Krugman</a>, argue that the coalition government’s focus on deficit reduction is unhealthy in the long term for the UK economy. So the SNP can reasonably claim that its proposal to end austerity has significant intellectual support.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the SNP case is based on forecasts made by the <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2015/">Office of Budget Responsibility</a> (OBR), whose record has been, at best, mixed. The <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2015/01/pdf/fmstatapp.pdf">International Monetary Fund</a> suggests that the OBR’s deficit forecast for the end of the next parliament is too optimistic. And the UK is in the middle of a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9563647/Record-numbers-reach-retirement-age-as-baby-boomers-turn-65.html">retirement boom</a>, which will undoubtedly add to the pressures on public finances.</p>
<p>In light of these circumstances, there is now a spectrum of proposals for how quickly different parties will deal with the deficit. The Conservatives are at one extreme, favouring a rapid reduction in the deficit, while the SNP are at the other, suggesting a very muted response. </p>
<h2>Scotland’s deficit problem</h2>
<p>But the SNP has another economic issue on its plate: Scotland’s deficit. <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422">The Scottish government estimated</a> that there was a difference of £12.4 billion (or 8.1% of GDP) between the amount of taxes raised and public spending in Scotland in 2013/14. In comparison, the deficit for the UK as a whole was £97.3 billion (or 5.6% of GDP) in the same period. </p>
<p>During the recession, Scotland’s deficit broadly tracked that of the UK as a whole. The increase in 2013/14 was principally caused by the collapse in the price of oil and the consequent downturn in North Sea oil revenues. The <a href="http://scotgov.publishingthefuture.info/publication/scotlands-future">economic case for independence</a>, published before the referendum, relied heavily on North Sea oil revenues. The Scottish Government estimated that these would be £7.3 billion in 2015/16: the latest OBR forecast is that North Sea corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax will only raise £0.7 billion in 2015/16.</p>
<p>Until recently, the SNP was arguing for “full fiscal autonomy”, which would mean the Scottish Government becoming responsible for all taxes and public spending in Scotland. It would also involve making a payment to the UK government for those public services shared with the rest of the UK such as defence, foreign affairs, development aid and debt interest. </p>
<p>But with such a large deficit to deal with, full fiscal autonomy (and indeed independence) becomes much less attractive. The <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7652">IFS</a> estimates that the Scottish Government would have to find £7.6 billion to continue funding its public services at their current rate, while reducing the Scottish deficit to the same level as the rest of the UK. Over time, while Scotland’s deficit would fall as a share of GDP, the <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7722">IFS</a> prediction is that the difference between the Scottish and UK deficits will continue to grow.</p>
<h2>A change in rhetoric</h2>
<p>It is therefore not surprising that full fiscal autonomy is no longer a “red line” issue for the SNP, which must be delivered quickly. Instead, the phrase has been replaced by the somewhat more opaque “full fiscal responsibility”, which appears to be a more long-term objective. And for the short-term, the manifesto supports using the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29477233">Barnett Formula</a> as the main mechanism for determining Scotland’s finances. This is not surprising, given <a href="http://www.assembly.wales/NAfW%20Documents/09-012.pdf%20-%2026032009/09-012-English.pdf">claims</a> that this mechanism has provided Scotland with a relatively generous share of UK public finances since it was introduced in the 1970s.</p>
<p>And although SNP support for the Smith Commission proposals on increased tax powers for Scotland was lukewarm at best, the manifesto is clear: “We will demand that the proposals of the Smith Commission are delivered quickly and in full.” If enacted, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf">proposals</a> will leave Scotland with an extremely complex set of fiscal arrangements, incorporating new taxes, welfare powers and an adjusted Barnett Formula. </p>
<p>But there is a chance that the legislation itself could destabilise the next administration. In the present climate, a continuation of Barnett while giving Scotland new tax powers is likely to encounter significant opposition outside Scotland, some of which may cut across party lines.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40591/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC, but this article does not represent the views of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>From autonomy to responsibility: the SNP’s manifesto goes beyond the Scottish border.David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405002015-04-20T15:24:58Z2015-04-20T15:24:58ZManifesto Check: SNP uses welfare to trump Labour<p>The SNP’s <a href="votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">2015 manifesto</a> devotes significant space to welfare. The future of the welfare state was a very important issue in the Scottish referendum campaign, with the Yes campaign arguing the only solution to fixing it was for an independent Scotland to taking full control over social security and the wider welfare state. </p>
<p>Continuing that theme, the 2015 manifesto’s welfare pledges revolve around explaining how the SNP would exert its influence on this policy area if involved in supporting a minority Labour government.</p>
<p>The manifesto outlines changes to a number of aspects of the current social security system, largely centred around changes put in place by Iain Duncan-Smith’s welfare reforms, that the party would want to see scrapped or reformed. It argues that welfare payments ought to be increased at least in line with the cost of living, that the replacement of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/pip/overview">Disability Living Allowance</a> should be reversed, the roll out of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31476172">Universal Credit</a> halted, and the <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/welfare-sanctions-and-conditionality-uk">conditionality and sanctions schemes</a> reviewed. </p>
<p>It also argues that contrary to the recommendations of the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/">Smith Commission</a>, welfare should be devolved to Scotland in its entirety:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The proposals in the Smith Commission should be delivered in their entirety as soon as possible, which would then create a platform for the transition to Full Fiscal Responsibility where Scotland would, in effect, raise almost all of its own taxes and therefore become solely responsible for its social security system.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By talking about welfare in this way, the SNP is trying to position itself as a natural parliamentary ally to Labour should the opportunity arise without giving up its growing political advantage. Attacking the Conservatives’ welfare reforms and proposing a shift to the left on matters of social security will be welcomed in principle by many within Labour and the wider left across the UK. </p>
<p>But Labour’s support in Scotland is under <a href="http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-stunning-ashcroft-polls-show-the-snp-could-win-every-seat-in-scotland/">highly effective assault</a> from the SNP, which is eagerly claiming the mantle of “social justice party” for itself. So even though much of what is in the SNP’s manifesto may be quite palatable to them, we should expect Labour’s candidates and spokespeople to, nevertheless, be on the offensive.</p>
<p>In any case, the clear demarcation between the UK dimension of welfare and the role it could play in further devolution is not as clear cut as it may appear. </p>
<p>For example, the Smith Commission report did state that social security payments for disabled people should be devolved. This means that, theoretically at least, the changes to Disability Living Allowance may well not be a UK-wide issue sometime between now and 2020. </p>
<p>The SNP’s manifesto is also quite vague on exactly how full fiscal responsibility would be reached. With the fall in oil price significantly and negatively <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7652">impacting upon revenues generated in Scotland</a>, the question over how full devolution of welfare would be funded remains an important question. </p>
<p>By keeping this pledge vague and open, the party can both assure its natural support that it remains resolute in collecting more and more powers for Scotland and moving ever closer to independence, and guarantee to other, more sceptical voters that Scotland would not find itself having to cut current levels of public spending.</p>
<p>Overall, the manifesto has been carefully framed to make negotiations with Labour, should they arise, easier. Indeed, the welfare proposals are both a mechanism through which the SNP can <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/nicola-sturgeon-uses-her-lse-speech-to-attempt-to-connect-with-the-reformist-left/">endear itself to left-leaning voters in the rest of the UK </a> while maintaining the perception amongst its supporters in Scotland that it is the most effective party at championing social justice in Westminster.</p>
<p>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40500/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig McAngus does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>Welfare policy was a political hot potato in the referendum campaign, and it’s a big weapon for the SNP in 2015 too.Craig McAngus, Research Fellow, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/377382015-02-18T06:17:48Z2015-02-18T06:17:48ZWhy Scotland is unlikely to become a welfare paradise<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72280/original/image-20150217-19496-1mc25um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's no wall of welfare cash heading north of the border</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=Cjpo1nVLaZgH1nAbk2heCw&searchterm=poverty&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=186498596">Kukhmar</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">The “vow”</a> that the main UK party leaders made to boost the powers of the Scottish parliament in the days before the independence referendum started a sequence of events <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/smith-commission-more-powers-vow-delivered-pm-1-3669009">that will see</a> welfare benefits vary across different parts of the UK. This is an outcome that would have horrified the fathers of the post-war welfare consensus, but is perhaps an inevitable consequence of its gradual erosion since the late 1970s. </p>
<p>The founders of the welfare state had a clear vision that the state would insure British citizens against a variety of adverse events such as poverty, unemployment, bereavement and disability. The legislative support for this policy was provided by the <a href="http://spartacus-educational.com/Linsurance1946.htm">National Insurance Act of 1946</a>, which was also responsible for the universal coverage of the state pension, which had <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7532601.stm">first been</a> introduced in 1908. </p>
<p>These benefits came at a cost, however: as the range of coverage extended, the cost of the welfare budget <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN156.pdf">increased from</a> 4% of UK GDP in 1948-49 to 13.6% of UK GDP in 2012-13. The growth in the cost of the welfare state has substantially exceeded the rate of growth of the economy. The additional pressure that this growth has put on the rest of public spending has inevitably led some people to question its affordability.</p>
<p><strong>Benefit spending as a % of GDP</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72272/original/image-20150217-19483-161pjqt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6817/economics/the-growing-size-of-the-welfare-state-in-the-uk/">www.economicshelp.org</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Implicit in its original design was the notion that state benefits would be available to all citizens and therefore would not vary geographically. However, this original vision now seems to have given way to electoral pragmatism. Immediately after the Scottish referendum, the <a href="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1014489.aspx">prime minister asked</a> Lord Smith of Kelvin to bring forward a set of proposals, jointly agreed by the political parties, for new fiscal powers to be devolved to Scotland. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a> reported in November 2014 and in January 2015 the UK government published draft proposals for legislation based on his report. The proposals included the transfer of control of £2.6bn-worth of welfare benefits to the Scottish parliament. The explanation of this measure was that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Under the Smith Commission Agreement, for the first time, substantial elements of the United Kingdom’s welfare system are to be devolved to Scotland. This will give the Scottish parliament the levers it needs to make and create changes to suit Scottish circumstances, while retaining the strength, stability and economies of scale found in the UK-wide system. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet in the rush to provide additional powers, the UK government has been silent on how exactly these new “levers” could be used to promote better outcomes for Scottish citizens. </p>
<p>Any explanation would not only cause resentment about interference from the Scottish government but would also open up the criticism that improved outcomes should be available to all UK citizens, not just Scots. But the absence of any explanation makes it difficult to understand why some benefits have been selected for devolution while others have not. </p>
<h2>What’s moving north</h2>
<p>The benefits being transferred are shown on the infographic below. The size of each rectangle is proportional to the amount spent on the main Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits and HMRC tax credits in Scotland in 2012-13. </p>
<p><strong>Proposals for transfer of welfare expenditure to Scotland</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72276/original/image-20150217-19478-1o9loj1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Stirling/Centre on Constitutional Change</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of the benefits proposed for Holyrood, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/attendance-allowance/overview">Attendance Allowance</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/dla-disability-living-allowance-benefit/what-youll-get">Disability Living Allowance</a> are the most significant, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/benefit-expenditure-tables">together accounting for</a> around £2bn of its new spending responsibilities. All of Attendance Allowance (£489m) and more than one third of DLA (£515m) are claimed by pensioners. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/overview">Winter Fuel Payments</a> and <a href="http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/media-centre/news/free-tv-licence-for-over75s-NEWS58">over-75s TV licences</a> are also targeted exclusively on pensioners. This means that more than half of the spending on the proposed welfare powers for Holyrood will be directed towards pensioners.</p>
<p>The key benefit that will be retained at Westminster is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">Universal Credit</a>, which is replacing many existing DWP benefits for struggling working-age families that are referred to on the infographic. Scotland will get the power to vary the frequency of Universal Credit payments, the split between members of a couple and whether housing costs will be paid direct to landlords. All other aspects will be common across Great Britain (the situation in <a href="http://theconversation.com/trouble-ahead-as-uk-carves-up-welfare-budget-31995">Northern Ireland</a> is different).</p>
<p>The case for not devolving Universal Credit might be based on the argument that supporting labour markets in areas that have been hit by adverse economic events underpins both political and macroeconomic stability and therefore must be controlled from the centre. </p>
<p>Other risks, such as ill-health and disability, which interact with local political responsibilities, may be insured against at a more local level. Hence, for example, the logic for devolving Attendance Allowance could be based on the close relationship between this benefit and Scotland’s distinctive policies for social care. Neither of these arguments are contained in the draft legislation.</p>
<h2>New welfare powers</h2>
<p>In addition to those welfare benefits specifically allocated, Scotland will also have new powers to create benefits in areas of devolved responsibility. This possibility should be treated with some caution. There is perhaps a widespread misunderstanding in Scotland that transfer of welfare powers will necessarily lead to more welfare spending. </p>
<p>In the first year after the benefits are devolved, the Scottish government’s budget will be increased by an amount equal to existing spending on these benefits. In subsequent years, the amount that its budget will increase will be closely linked to changes in spending on these benefits in the rest of Great Britain. </p>
<p>This would imply that Scotland could continue to service existing and new commitments to those benefits that have been transferred at existing rates: it does not mean that there will necessarily be a sufficient uplift in its budget to extend existing benefits to new client groups, to increase levels of support or to introduce new benefits. </p>
<p>The Scottish government would only be able to do so at some cost to its other spending priorities. If there are cuts in support at Great Britain level, these would likely be reflected in Scotland’s budget uplift. If Scotland tries to maintain or expand support for those benefits for which it has responsibility, there will be losers as well as winner and consequently a political price to pay.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC for research on fiscal developments in the UK in the Centre on Constitutional Change </span></em></p>The “vow” that the main UK party leaders made to boost the powers of the Scottish parliament in the days before the independence referendum started a sequence of events that will see welfare benefits vary…David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/368602015-01-29T06:19:52Z2015-01-29T06:19:52ZScotland can help the UK fix its disastrous system of benefits for disabled people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70331/original/image-20150128-22311-17mxbyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">By giving powers away to Scotland, the UK could yet gain</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/disabled/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=53185147">Mangostock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf">new powers</a> that look set to be devolved to Scotland include major changes for disability policy. Until now, Holyrood’s involvement in this area has been restricted to the NHS and social care – and the latter only indirectly through local government funding, since Scotland’s 32 local authorities make their own decisions about exactly what social care they will offer to disabled people. </p>
<p>Under Westminster’s new plan, Holyrood will also have substantial control over disability and carers’ benefits. In line with what was proposed by last autumn’s <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a>, Scotland will be given control over the likes of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/dla-disability-living-allowance-benefit/overview">Disability Living Allowance</a>, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/attendance-allowance/overview">Attendance Allowance</a>, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/carers-allowance/overview">Carer’s Allowance</a>, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/pip/overview">Personal Independence Payments</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/industrial-injuries-disablement-benefit/overview">Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit</a>. These represent the group of benefits that are related to personal care. </p>
<p>Also devolved will be a significant amount of the work currently done by the Department of Work and Pensions to support disabled jobseekers – such as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49884/the-work-programme.pdf">Work Programme</a>, which outsources the task of getting long-term unemployed people into work to various agencies and charities. </p>
<p>The ability to vary the operation of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">Universal Credit</a> (currently being rolled out to replace out-of-work benefits such as Employment and Support Allowance) will also be devolved. But over two-thirds of disabled people are over working age, so the failure to devolve pensions leaves significant gaps in Scotland’s ability to create universal joined-up benefits. </p>
<p>This partial devolution of welfare reflects the fact that no overarching principles underpinned either the Smith Commission proposals or the draft settlement. Instead, powers have been devolved piecemeal based on the existing system.</p>
<h2>The state of the UK policy</h2>
<p>All the same, the changes do represent a big opportunity for Scotland – and could make it a testbed for the rest of the UK. The UK system has become more heavily focused on making benefits conditional on need, thanks to the coalition government’s focus on austerity. </p>
<p>Universal Credit has been criticised for introducing new and punitive levels of sanctions – <a href="https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/telling-truth-about-universal-credit-would-be-mental-admits-dwp-chief/">for example</a> over 100 claimants a day with mental-health problems are sanctioned for failing to attend appointment, which means they lose access to income without their prospects of accessing work improving in any way. <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/welfare-sanctions-and-conditionality-uk">This</a> stigmatises disabled people, damages their health and undermines social cohesion. It can also end up costing the government more. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70332/original/image-20150128-22322-itqegt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The UK system is a mess.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/disabled/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=83243212">Robert Kneshke</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Successive reforms to the UK system under the Conservatives then Labour and now the coalition mean that it has become a complex array of benefits and tax allowances that disabled people have to claim for separately. It takes qualified welfare professionals years of training to understand how it all works. Complex targeted welfare systems which rely on means-testing and sanctions require specialist advisors, social workers and welfare professionals to run them and act as gatekeepers. This diverts funding away from directly providing services.</p>
<p>The fact that only part of disability benefit has been devolved north is a major drawback, but there is still plenty of scope for Scotland to simplify the system and remove the existing conditions and sanctions. It is an opportunity to break with the UK and create something more universal and fair. </p>
<h2>What could happen</h2>
<p>So what will Scotland do with these powers? Given that social care and the NHS are already devolved, it would be possible to deal with the problem of financing and delivering long-term care along the lines of Germany’s system of <a href="http://cges.umn.edu/docs/Schoelkopf_LTCinGermany.pdf">long-term care insurance</a>. </p>
<p>Germany pays stepped benefits to all disabled individuals based on needs, with no means-testing and none of the array of different benefits that the UK pays. It is funded by contributions from employers, individuals and the state, which spreads the burden as widely as possible. When the UK’s Dilnott Commission called for something similar to be introduced here in 2011, it <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_summary/social-care-funding-paper-may13.pdf">was widely rejected</a> as unworkable – with strong objections from the Right that it would undermine businesses. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70333/original/image-20150128-22308-hl4bdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">German engineering.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=ir8SE7p52_MR1JwiG5POmg&searchterm=disabled%20germany&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=202749703">Jenny Sturm</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whether Scotland went down the German insurance route or not, it could still remove means-testing and simplify the benefits package, which is broadly how disability welfare looks in the Nordic states. Given the evidence about social cohesion, well-being and so forth, this ought to be very tempting for the Scottish government. </p>
<p>Holyrood also retains the option to take control of social care from local authorities. This would end the current postcode lottery where the level and range of care services available to a disabled person vary depending on whether you live in Dundee, Dunfermline or Dumbarton. Then again, the Scottish government has been in a position to do this since it was set up in 1999. Whether it will want to maximise its power over this policy area and potentially jeopardise its relationship with local authorities will be interesting. </p>
<h2>What will happen</h2>
<p>There are several reasons to be cautious about a fairer welfare state developing in Scotland, in the short term at least. In the first place, the Scottish government has not been given a blank sheet to redesign welfare. Instead of developing a set of overarching principles and devolving all the powers and budget necessary to deliver them, Westminster has acted in the interests of speed over efficiency. Welfare has been devolved in a piecemeal way, based on the existing tax and benefits system. </p>
<p>Much will be contingent on the results of the 2015 general election and the 2016 elections to the Scottish parliament. If <a href="http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/">as predicted</a> the SNP wins a significant number of seats at Westminster and Holyrood, it faces a policy dilemma. On the one hand, it wants to see maximum power devolved to Scotland to support its ultimate aim of independence. It may therefore develop different fairer policies in areas where it has the power to do so to demonstrate to the electorate its maturity as a party of government.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it may feel it politically astute to demonstrate that the further powers it has been offered are not sufficient to secure the fairer Scotland it envisages, and that only full independence will do that. In other words, there is a perverse political incentive to fail to deliver a fairer welfare state in Scotland. </p>
<p>It is also worth bearing in mind that the Scottish government has been very cautious about using the full extent of its devolved powers to diverge from UK policy. But whatever happens, social policy in Scotland might just get a lot more interesting than anyone expected.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36860/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirstein receives funding from the ESRC and is a Fellow of the ESRC-funded Centre on Constitutional Change</span></em></p>The new powers that look set to be devolved to Scotland include major changes for disability policy. Until now, Holyrood’s involvement in this area has been restricted to the NHS and social care – and…Kirstein Rummery, Professor of Social Policy, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366262015-01-22T16:30:51Z2015-01-22T16:30:51ZA bill for more Scottish powers is one thing, making it law is quite another<p>And so it has arrived: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-in-the-united-kingdom-an-enduring-settlement">draft legislation</a> on further powers for the Scottish parliament, published before <a href="http://www.robertburns.org/suppers/">Burns Night</a> (January 25), in accordance with the timetable set out in the wake of <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">“The Vow”</a>. </p>
<p>As David Cameron, the prime minister, <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-01-22/the-vow-to-scotlands-been-kept-claims-cameron/">said</a> in Edinburgh at the announcement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We said we’d get cross-party agreement by St Andrew’s Day – and we did. We said draft legislation would be published by Burns Night – and here we are, three days before the celebrations start, with those clauses before us.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The welfare row</h2>
<p>There appear to be two clear fault lines emerging since the announcement. The first, which has the most resonance in Scotland, is over the issue of whether powers devolved over welfare are to be fully within the remit of the Scottish government or whether the UK government will retain some influence in this sphere.</p>
<p>First Minister Nicola Sturgeon <a href="http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Smith-clauses-give-Westminster-veto-in-key-areas-14d4.aspx">has been</a> arguing that the draft clauses do not provide “a general power to create new benefits in devolved areas as was promised by the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a> and gives the UK government effective veto over changes to universal credit, including bedroom tax.” The Scottish National Party (SNP) appear to be making this the theme of their response, with Pete Wishart MP <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-30924865">calling the</a> legislation a “veto-ridden document”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69779/original/image-20150122-12091-16uf1pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nicola on the warpath.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishgovernment/15964606986/in/photolist-pQm789-qjJMsA-q5GBYB-pqobgH-qkiwwh-q6aFkF-qnzzdV-q5Atty-pqofPa-q5J6WM-q5t4VW-q5surj-q14yK8-qn8fkg-qn9sjp-qjSQrA-q5GXfT-pqovDk-6N7USn-pQeJ1L-qn8DA4-pqnR8c-q5HngM-qjSuub-q5HdSK-qn64os-q5HECa-pqo4er-q5FXPF-q5Gsat-q5Hnae-pqo1qk-q5A2sd-pZUVDb-pqoEC2-q5AEFo-pqoGtX-qn5YSd-pZUV1h-pQKmJp-q7WER2-q7XUmM-q8guu3-9M6174-9M5QKp-gUgWfX-q6Zvk2-aBrT7M-9w6TrK-9w6ToT">Scottish Government</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Secretary of State for Scotland Alastair Carmichael, in response to this question from journalists, <a href="http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/row-as-nicola-sturgeon-claims-uk-government-has-bedroom-tax-veto-1.800279">simply said</a> that the first minister was “wrong”, and that there was nothing in the draft legislation which would prevent the Scottish government from pursuing its own priorities with regards to welfare benefits.</p>
<p>The relevant section of the draft legislation is this:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=291&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=291&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69769/original/image-20150122-12085-2ge4et.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=291&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This says the secretary of state must be consulted about Scottish government intentions with regard to changes to welfare benefits, and that they must subsequently provide their “agreement” that the Scottish government can proceed to make such changes. David Mundell, under-secretary of state for Scotland, <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/mundell-scotland-will-have-one-of-the-most-powerful-devolved-parliaments-.1421929787">argued it meant that</a> the UK government “will need to understand what the Scottish government intends to do with the new powers.”</p>
<h2>What Wales tell us</h2>
<p>In several respects, this clause is reminiscent of the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/32/contents">Government of Wales Act 2006</a> and the process through which further powers could be delivered to the national assembly for Wales through a complex system of <a href="http://www.assembly.wales/en/bus-home/bus-third-assembly/bus-legislation-third-assembly/bus-legislation-guidance-third-assembly/Pages/bus-legislation-guidance-lco.aspx#lcodiagram">legislative competence orders (LCOs)</a>. In this system, an LCO committee was formed with members of the House of Commons and House of Lords to consider whether the power should be devolved, before being presented to the secretary of state for Wales for agreement or veto (and subsequently voted upon, both in the Commons and the Lords). </p>
<p><a href="https://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/wales-the-housing-lco-and-the-tories/">Amid delays</a> that were based, in part, on political point-scoring, the system lasted only five years before the Welsh Assembly Government moved forward with a referendum to get rid of the LCO system and devolve further powers in one go – evidence, perhaps, that a system which requires the agreement of both devolved and central governments on policy changes might prove detrimental to effective governance.</p>
<h2>The EVEL that men want</h2>
<p>The second fault line is, rather predictably, the wider constitutional ramifications of further devolution to Scotland. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11361201/Scotland-Bill-published-live.html">During</a> David Mundell’s statement in the House of Commons, Conservative MPs lined up to point out that now Scotland had been dealt with, England should be next. </p>
<p>The matter of English votes for English laws was raised by several speakers keen to make sure the issue of how England is governed remains on the UK political agenda – <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/20/scottish-votes-income-tax-george-osborne-devolution">further to</a> Chancellor George Osborne’s comments earlier in the week that Scottish MPs shouldn’t be allowed to vote on aspects of income tax that don’t pertain to Scotland. No doubt they were given added impetus by Nicola Sturgeon’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11360260/Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-MPs-will-vote-on-English-only-matters.html">announcement</a> of a change in SNP policy, which would see their MPs vote on English health matters that affected the NHS in Scotland. </p>
<p>Bear in mind too, that at this stage, this is just draft legislation. While each of the three “large” UK parties (quite how large they will be after May’s election remains to be seen) have committed to delivering upon the legislation within a reasonable timeframe, the final details of legislation will <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-new-powers-for-scotland-really-be-delivered-within-promised-timescale-33960">still require substantial consideration</a>. And with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-really-does-face-a-tough-battle-in-scotland-35929">likelihood of</a> substantially greater numbers of SNP MPs taking seats in the House of Commons after May, this is unlikely to be the end of the story.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36626/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for his position as a researcher for the Centre on Constitutional Change.</span></em></p>And so it has arrived: draft legislation on further powers for the Scottish parliament, published before Burns Night (January 25), in accordance with the timetable set out in the wake of “The Vow”. As…Malcolm Harvey, Research Fellow of the Centre on Constitutional Change, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347752014-11-29T07:34:07Z2014-11-29T07:34:07ZLessons from Quebec on avoiding another Scottish referendum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65731/original/image-20141127-21951-1i53hh2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Montreal 1980: ring any bells?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/caribb/8399208541/in/photolist-dNd95n-8Wxp9-5y95xY-mPybUd-2jfBWf-3yNVby-dgHN3E-dgHLj6-dgHGpg-dgHGQX-dgHMHb-dgHMBv-dgHMgk-M119b-5UXcUx-5EzPxS-8tJinF">Doug</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Will the Scots be satisfied with the package of new powers that has been put before them? The <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a>, which was tasked with coming up with a new settlement following the September referendum, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/scotland-scottish-parliament-power-14bn-income-tax-welfare-cross-party-deal-lord-smith">is proposing</a> a set of measures including the devolution of income tax and control over some aspects of welfare. </p>
<p>These go further than the three <a href="http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Strathclyde_Commission_14.pdf">main UK</a> parties’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/labours-proposals-for-scotland-after-the-referendum-betray-divisions-within-the-party-24596">proposals</a> for reform that were published earlier in the year, but not as far as the moves towards a full federal structure that <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/gordon-brown-backs-federalism-in-event-of-no-vote-1-3511291">appeared to be</a> on the table at the time of the <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">parties’ “vow”</a> in the final days before the vote. </p>
<h2>Quebec 1980 – the aftermath</h2>
<p>In this context, it is worth looking at the <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1980/">1980 referendum</a> in Quebec and its aftermath. Just like in Scotland, the No campaign in Quebec used negative arguments against separation, predicting dire economic consequences if the province were to become a country. </p>
<p>And like in Scotland, promises of constitutional renewal were also made. They were vague but effective. Many people voted No with the conviction that change was on the way and it would result in more autonomy. The No side achieved 60% of the vote in Quebec, compared to Scotland’s 55%. </p>
<p>Constitutional reform started in Canada the day after the referendum. But with the agenda controlled by Ottawa, the promise of change that had been made solely to Quebec became a pledge to make several ambitious constitutional modifications for the entire country. Sound familiar?</p>
<p>Finding an acceptable constitutional status for Quebec that would get support from both French and English Canadians was not going to be easy. But Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau refused to focus on that. He wanted to entrench a controversial bill of rights, get new economic powers for the federal government and a new amending formula for the constitution. </p>
<p>The Quebec dimension disappeared totally in this broader scheme. As a result, both federalists and nationalists rallied against Ottawa. In a surprising turn of events, seven of the nine other provinces also decided to oppose the federal government. The reform process became even more difficult, passionate and controversial than it was already – driving Quebec even further down the agenda. </p>
<h2>Don’t make same mistakes with Scotland</h2>
<p>That is certainly a first lesson for the UK. As Westminster now decides what to do with the Smith Commission proposals, it needs to keep the focus on Scotland. Conservative attempts to meld reform with the question of English votes for English laws would risk undermining the process – David Cameron’s latest comments on the subject following the Smith proposals <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/tax-voting-ban-proposal-by-cameron-prompts-row.25987072">attracted fresh ire</a> from his Westminster opponents this week. So would proposals of taking advantage of the current circumstances to give Britain a written constitution, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21620194-scotlands-place-united-kingdom-settled-time-deal-its-much-larger-neighbour-now">advocated by</a> The Economist and the UK’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution-says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html">leading judge</a>. </p>
<p>That said, let’s go back to the events of 1980-82 in Canada, a debate that also concerned the UK. Until that point in time, the Canadian constitution was still a British statute that only Westminster could amend. Trudeau needed the British parliament support to enact his constitutional reforms. </p>
<p>The dissenting provinces, collectively known as the gang of eight, decided to mount a public relations campaign in the UK aimed at convincing MPs and Lords to vote against Trudeau’s proposals. This was not an easy task but provincial agent-generals in London were eventually able to plant seeds of doubt in the mind of several parliamentarians. </p>
<p>Their job was made easier by the fact that some lawmakers, especially on the Labour side, were becoming attracted to the idea of devolution for Scotland – which they could see parallels with in Canada. Michael Foot, leader of the Labour opposition, was among them. For him, decentralisation was the way of the future and the constitutional reforms proposed by Trudeau were incompatible with Canadian federalism. </p>
<p>Others, especially in the Tory camp, thought that enacting a charter of rights was something to be done by Canadians once the process of decoupling the country from the UK was completed. Britain was not to be used by Trudeau to do something he could not do in Canada in the face of strong provincial opposition. </p>
<p>Margaret Thatcher eventually warned Pierre Trudeau that it would be much better if he could get more provincial support, otherwise his constitutional bill would be rejected by Westminster. He listened to this advice and made some concessions. Nine provinces rallied behind a new proposal. Westminster enacted it but Quebec has refused to endorse it ever since.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65733/original/image-20141127-13289-9vxl88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II sign the new constitutional settlement for Canada in 1982.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lac-bac/7195947898/in/photolist-8fwJhJ-86sim-bXT7Bd-9H86N3-86sis-86sir-8FgPe-8VLMo-nC3kN8-86siq-daEeJ2-51C5vz-cdKfSY-8dSzNK-5UAaGX-dYzdeT-89fkXa-8Fkvs-7XpGpW-gRhMrF-8FgPi-8VLMn-8GpK4-8GpK3-z3BVZ-nUs4zC-8FgPg-3jZwDC-nSuzvj-z4w">Library and Archives Canada</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Quebec fall-out</h2>
<p>This non-endorsement makes no difference, legally speaking. The new constitution applies to Quebec anyway. Politically speaking, however, it has had some dramatic consequences. It led to two failed attempts to include Quebec in the constitutional family, the <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/meech-lake-accord/">Meech Lake Accord</a> of 1990 and the <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-charlottetown-accord/">Charlottetown Accord</a> in 1992. </p>
<p>This means that Canada is in a state of constitutional paralysis. Opening constitutional talks on any topic seems impossible, from senate reform to changing the line of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/22/last-vestiges-of-the-british-empire-complicate-royal-babys-succession-to-the-throne/">succession to the throne</a> to recognise female royal heirs (while the UK would now allow a female heir to ascend to the throne, it remains constitutionally prohibited in Canada). It would mean that before agreeing to anything else, Quebec would ask for some kind of special constitutional status that took into account its unique culture within Canada. The trauma is such that few politicians are willing to take this risk. </p>
<p>Ottawa’s failure to make good on its promises to Quebec also paved the way to a <a href="http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1995/">second referendum</a> on independence in 1995. It ended with a very narrow victory for the federalists, with just 50.6% of the vote, which could very easily have gone the other way. New promises of change were made but again Ottawa failed to deliver.</p>
<p>There lies the other lesson for the UK. Just as Trudeau’s actions were virtually the opposite of what most Quebecois wanted in 1980, there are parallels with Scotland. If the issue of Scotland is not addressed in a way that will satisfy a majority of Scots, the issue is bound to bounce back. And next time around, the consequences might be very dramatic indeed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34775/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frédéric Bastien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Will the Scots be satisfied with the package of new powers that has been put before them? The Smith Commission, which was tasked with coming up with a new settlement following the September referendum…Frédéric Bastien, Professor of History, Dawson CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/348212014-11-28T14:43:46Z2014-11-28T14:43:46ZWas the Gordon Brown government really that bad?<p>In the week Gordon Brown <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30167158">announced</a> he will stand down from his Westminster constituency at the May 2015 general election, two central observations come to mind. From the Brown government to its Cameron-Clegg coalition successor, there has been more continuity than change. And the failings of the Brown government were very much those of all UK governments since 1970. </p>
<p>Since the Heath government’s <a href="http://winton.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/PastSeminars/Hilary%202011/needham.pdf">1971 Competition and Credit Control Act</a> started liberalising the credit supply to the UK economy, every subsequent prime minister and chancellor, including Gordon Brown in both roles, has resorted to a British growth model based upon consumption, property and accumulating private household debt. For example, during Brown’s tenure as chancellor, over £800bn <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/fromshowcolumns.asp?Travel=NIxSSxSCx&ShadowPage=1&SearchText=monthly+amounts+outstanding+of+total+excluding&SearchExclude=&SearchTextFields=TC&Thes=&SearchType=&Cats=&ActualResNumPerPage=21X41X61X&TotalNumResults=67&FNotes=Y&XNotes=Y&C=NZR&XNotes2=Y&ShowData.x=26&ShowData.y=4">was added</a> to UK household private debt.</p>
<h2>Trade continuity</h2>
<p>Every government <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_382315.pdf">has delivered</a> annual deficits on the UK’s <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currentaccountdeficit.asp">current account</a> since 1984, and on the <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade_deficit.asp">trade account</a> since 1982. In the final full year of the Brown government in 2009, the UK’s current account deficit was £41.4bn or 2.8% of GDP (compared to £72.4bn or 4.2% of GDP in 2013), and the UK’s trade deficit £28.1bn (compared to £32.1bn in 2013). The Cameron-Clegg coalition has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11206819/Does-the-UK-have-a-70bn-deficit-problem.html">simply delivered</a> bigger deficits.</p>
<p>No UK government since 1970 has succeeded in re-balancing the economy towards an alternative growth model based upon exports, private business investment and manufacturing. In 2009 the Brown government presided over an annual deficit on the UK’s trade in goods of £83.6bn, compared to an annual deficit of £110.2bn in 2013. George Osborne’s failure to re-balance the economy has simply been greater than Brown’s, both as chancellor and prime minister.</p>
<h2>City slackening</h2>
<p>The signature event of the Brown government, the financial crisis of 2007-2008, was a direct consequence of the light-touch, risk-based approach to financial regulation adopted by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls during their decade at the treasury. </p>
<p>They followed this approach despite the fact that in December 1998, Brown <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/imf/184918.stm">had identified</a> the need for wholesale reform of financial markets and to rediscover public purpose in the global economy. He had <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/NEW0711A.htm">also chaired</a> one of the key committees at the International Monetary Fund for nearly eight years, but never used this position to challenge the neo-liberal orthodoxy during his tenure as chancellor or prime minister. </p>
<p>He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground <a href="http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/sir-keith-joseph-and-the-market-economy">first laid down</a> by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.</p>
<p>Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/12/beyond-the-crash-gordon-brown-robert-skidelsky">Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation</a>, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgement and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.</p>
<p>Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout">total value</a> reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but <a href="http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Departmental-Overview-the-performance-of-HM-Treasury-2013-14.pdf">still amounted to</a> £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789">giving £375bn</a> of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.</p>
<p>No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945. </p>
<h2>Foreign fidelity</h2>
<p>In its foreign policy choices, the Brown government displayed the same unshakeable Atlanticism, pronounced Eurosceptism, and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/12/mps-back-law-foreign-aid-percentage-national-income">commitment to</a> increasing international aid to 0.7% of gross national income, as its coalition successor. </p>
<p>It also had to deal with the toxic legacy of the Blair government’s ill-advised interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7787103.stm">Brown announced</a> in December 2008 the end of UK combat operations in Iraq by the May 31 2009, in July 2011 Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/06/afghanistan-troop-withdrawal-david-cameron">announced</a> the reduction of UK troops in Afghanistan, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29476244">subsequently</a> the end of combat operations by November 28 2014.</p>
<p>Tony Blair as prime minister aspired and failed to put the UK at the heart of Europe, not least because of Brown’s implacable opposition to UK participation in European political and monetary integration. Once prime minister himself, Brown found himself isolated in Europe, as symbolised by <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572414/Brown-absent-as-Miliband-signs-EU-treaty.html">his absence</a> from the official signing of the Lisbon Treaty. David Cameron has subsequently found himself equally isolated at European summits.</p>
<h2>Domestiv policy</h2>
<p>In domestic policy terms, the impact of devolution meant that the Brown government’s capacity to reform public services was confined to England, where Brown had no personal democratic mandate to intervene.</p>
<p>In both health and education, Brown continued the Blair governments’ pattern of top-down reorganisation of hospitals and schools, and the increasing use of private sector finance and organisations to deliver services. This pattern of provision has continued under the Cameron-Clegg government through <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9034884/Andrew-Lansley-criticism-of-NHS-reforms-is-out-of-date-and-unfair.html">Andrew Lansley’s</a> top-down further reorganisation of the NHS in England, and <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/goves-academies-programme-epitomises-his-incompetence-and-failure">Michael Gove’s</a> expansion of New Labour’s academy schools programme.</p>
<h2>Judgement day</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/uk-general-elections/2010-uk-general-election-results">electorate’s verdict</a> on the Brown government was clear but harsh. The Labour Party won only 29% of the vote, its worst performance at a general election since 1983, when both Brown and Blair had first been elected at Westminster. But what is often forgotten (at least south of the border) is that Scotland and England delivered a very different verdict. In England Labour won only 191 seats and 28.1% of the vote, losing 87 seats and 7.4% of the vote, whereas in Scotland it actually increased its share of the vote by 3.1% to 42.0% and won an extra seat to take its total to 42. </p>
<p>This says a great deal both about Gordon Brown the politician, and the priorities, performance and legacy of his government. A product of the highly distinctive internal political culture of the Labour Party in Scotland, as Brown’s impassioned <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/gordon-brown-final-scottish-referendum-speech-forces-of-hell-alex-salmond-snp">eve-of-referendum speech</a> in Glasgow attested, he was almost most comfortable and effective speaking to a Scots audience and when affirming his commitment to Scotland’s national interests, the importance of Britishness, and Scotland’s place within the British union. </p>
<p>It was always built on a view of the UK in terms of nations and regions, where Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be the nations, and England would be divided into regions. For a thousand years of its history, political and cultural identity in England has been to nation, county and locality. It has never been built on regions. </p>
<p>Like the title of his recent book, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/my-scotland-our-britain-by-gordon-brown-book-review-homage-to-home-country-reveals-more-of-the-man-than-the-manifesto-9549050.html">My Scotland, Our Britain</a>, and his post-referendum agenda for further devolution to Scotland and broader constitutional reform, Brown’s vision has offered no place for or political recognition for England as a nation. For the future of the union, it is a fatal flaw. Gordon Brown has never understood or accepted that the people of England will never accept a constitutional settlement which divides England against itself.</p>
<p>Brown will be remembered as the most successful peacetime Labour chancellor who also kept the UK out of the fatally flawed single European currency. As prime minister, he will be remembered for having rescued several major UK banks, but at vast cost to UK taxpayers. He is also likely to be assured a place in British political history as the last prime minister of the UK to have represented a Scottish constituency.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the week Gordon Brown announced he will stand down from his Westminster constituency at the May 2015 general election, two central observations come to mind. From the Brown government to its Cameron-Clegg…Simon Lee, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of HullLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347822014-11-27T20:43:40Z2014-11-27T20:43:40ZUK faces big changes if it is to survive new Scottish shake-up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65730/original/image-20141127-13289-7jzx7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UK in tatters?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=122500567&src=e1UHmxPgerDIMNSJDJkVQg-1-83">Gian Filippo Cantarini</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/scotland-scottish-parliament-power-14bn-income-tax-welfare-cross-party-deal-lord-smith">new proposals</a> for extending more powers to Scotland by the Smith Commission are radical: devolving extensive tax and welfare powers will make Scotland one of the most autonomous regions in western Europe. </p>
<p>Here are four changes which may well flow from Smith: </p>
<h2>1. English regionalism</h2>
<p>Regionalism has hitherto been unpopular in England but a demand for change could be sparked by the sense that a Scottish parliament with wide tax powers might use these to gain competitive advantage. This is not mentioned in Smith but it is on the agenda.</p>
<h2>2. Changes to how Westminster works</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/english-votes-for-english-laws-is-much-less-sensible-than-it-first-appears-34552">West Lothian question</a> – non-English MPs voting on issues that only affect England – cannot now be avoided. Apart from anything else, it will be an issue at the general election next year. </p>
<p>This need not mean an English parliament but it will require a revision of the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster, ensuring that important legislation concerning England alone will require majority support among English MPs – David Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/english-mps-veto-english-laws-david-cameron">has already indicated</a> that his party will bring this about if it wins next year’s general election. </p>
<p>Another proposal, which would go some way to deal with the representation deficit, is reform of the House of Lords along the lines of a chamber of the nations and regions of the UK <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/labour-proposal-for-senate-to-replace-house-of-lords.24550242">as proposed by</a> Gordon Brown. Again this is not mentioned by Smith but it could offer a genuinely “union-focused” institution at the centre of the state. </p>
<h2>3. A new status for the Scottish parliament</h2>
<p>Technically the Westminster parliament is still sovereign. In theory it could take away the powers of the Scottish parliament or even abolish it altogether. Smith proposes that the Scottish parliament be made permanent. This would presumably also extend to protecting its powers. This is a more radical proposal than it may seem. It will in effect change the absolute power of parliament, the cornerstone of our constitution for over 300 years.</p>
<h2>4. A stronger Scottish government role</h2>
<p>Until now the Scottish government has interacted with the UK government through very informal arrangements. If the Scottish parliament is empowered to set radically different fiscal and welfare priorities, this could put great strain on the system and some kind of formalisation may well be needed. This is recognised firmly by Smith. </p>
<p>This could also mean Scotland, and the other nations/regions, having a formal say in how certain central government decisions are made, possibly with certain veto powers exercised through a reformed House of Lords. Powers of this kind may be needed to give the union a real sense of meaning to those on the periphery.</p>
<p>Indeed, it seems that only a federal system can manage these changes while also giving Scotland a continuing stake in the union. Federalism is about striking a balance between “self-rule” and “shared rule”. UK devolution has been all about self-rule, with very little focus on involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland closely in decision-making in London on issues that affect the whole union. This representation deficit needs to be addressed, particularly as Scotland becomes ever more devolved. </p>
<p>Otherwise, as the Scottish parliament gets stronger and stronger, the UK will appear more and more irrelevant to many Scots. Whether all of this will create a stronger sense of partnership and a renewed sense of belonging to a common union we simply don’t know, but without such a broader set of reforms, the Smith process may well further unsettle the union it was intended to save. It is not too dramatic to say that federalism may well be the last throw of the dice for the Anglo-Scottish union.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Tierney receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>The new proposals for extending more powers to Scotland by the Smith Commission are radical: devolving extensive tax and welfare powers will make Scotland one of the most autonomous regions in western…Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347782014-11-27T18:08:47Z2014-11-27T18:08:47ZIf Westminster delivers, Scotland will have one of the world’s most powerful devolved parliaments<p>It seemed like a poisoned chalice when Lord Smith of Kelvin was handed the task of chairing a cross-party commission to advise on devolving further powers to Scotland after <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides">September’s referendum</a>. There was <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-powers-for-scotland-rushed-timetable-does-the-whole-of-the-uk-a-disservice-33756">widespread concern</a> that the tight timetable would mitigate heavily against citizens being meaningfully involved, leading to a wholly political process that did not reflect the values and aspirations of the Scottish electorate. </p>
<p>The risk was that those who felt excluded would not accept its legitimacy, and those who were included would be attempting to represent the interests of disparate and sometimes conflicting political perspectives and interest groups. </p>
<h2>Mission: almost impossible</h2>
<p>All the same, Lord Smith attempted the impossible. As well as aiming to reach a consensus with the five main political parties in Scotland, he also initiated a consultation with the wider population that must have left everyone involved exhausted. As many as 407 organisations and more than 18,000 individuals sent in written submissions, and Lord Smith visited Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee and <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/what-new-powers-does-scotland-need-achieve-fairer-society">Stirling</a> to talk to different interest groups. </p>
<p>Of course an exercise designed to gather opinion from the public and civic society is bound to be problematic for several reasons. There were no clear principles agreed: what was the purpose of the consultation, what weight did the public voices have, how were their opinions going to be taken into account, what feedback were they going to get? There was also a danger of raising hopes and expectations on all sides, when in reality the commission’s role was only advisory. There was always a danger that the Smith Commission’s report would, by attempting to please all of the people, end up pleasing none of them.</p>
<p>The fact that Lord Smith managed to get a consensus from ten politicians from five different parties with very different devolution agendas to <a href="http://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf">publish a report</a> ahead of deadline was no mean feat in itself. Lord Smith also claimed at the launch on November 27 that his report reflected the issues put to him by the wider electorate. </p>
<p><strong>The main Smith proposals</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65714/original/image-20141127-10179-1xhxa3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These proposals do not equate to devo max, but they do go way further than the three main UK <a href="http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Strathclyde_Commission_14.pdf">parties</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/labours-proposals-for-scotland-after-the-referendum-betray-divisions-within-the-party-24596">proposed</a> earlier in the year. If Westminster agrees to enact them, it would make the Scottish parliament more autonomous and accountable than ever before. In fact, with such substantial powers to raise and spend revenue, it would be one of the most federally devolved legislative bodies in the world – with far more powers than US states, for example. </p>
<h2>Money and mouths time</h2>
<p>What happens next depends on whether Westminster delivers the additional powers that the commission is recommending, and how the Scottish parliament then uses them. There would be clear incentives to raise tax revenues by growing the economy, to create a fairer welfare and benefits system, and significant policy levers to achieve change. </p>
<p>At the same time, these powers will not give the Scottish parliament the power to defend itself against Westminster austerity measures, and certainly not the full control over macroeconomic policy it would need to tackle poverty, inequality and other significant social policy challenges.</p>
<p>But the ball is in Westminster’s court. If it does not keep to the timetable and deliver by January 25 next year the general election is going to look very difficult for some parties, particularly Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats. And it’s quite possible that the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Greens will take their bat and ball home, and walk away from the Smith agreement. Even on the day that the commission proposals were announced, SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-smith-commission-fails-deliver-scotland-powerhouse-parliament">said at Holyrood</a> that the new powers were less than what was promised. </p>
<p>Whether Westminster could fail to meet the timetable is difficult to say at this stage. Certainly we were given a heavy dose of realism after the vote when David Cameron <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/cameron-promises-english-votes-english-laws-what-does-labour-do-now">immediately announced</a> that the No victory gave him a mandate to develop the principle of English votes for English MPs. </p>
<p>If Westminster does deliver, the Scottish parliament will have more control over its own revenue raising, spending and social policy than it has ever had. Would it then use those powers creatively and responsibly for the people of Scotland? Or if pro-independence parties remain in power, will it baulk and insist on full independence before enacting radical change? Watch this space.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirstein Rummery receives funding from the ESRC and is a Fellow of the ESRC-funded Centre on Constitutional Change </span></em></p>It seemed like a poisoned chalice when Lord Smith of Kelvin was handed the task of chairing a cross-party commission to advise on devolving further powers to Scotland after September’s referendum. There…Kirstein Rummery, Professor of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347242014-11-26T16:15:48Z2014-11-26T16:15:48ZScottish income tax control needn’t raise UK borrowing costs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65604/original/image-20141126-4244-qjozsy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is former Better Together leader right about consequences of income tax devolution?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.chrisboland.com">Chris Boland</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alistair Darling, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ab4f226c-7197-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fab4f226c-7197-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3K3mPJqKK">writing in</a> the Financial Times, warned this week that the full devolution of income tax to Scotland would increase UK borrowing costs and expose Scotland to the destabilising ups and downs of tax revenues during changing economic times. With the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/">Smith Commission</a> expected to <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-set-for-full-control-of-income-tax-1-3613434">announce such a plan</a> on November 26, are these concerns justified?</p>
<p>As ever, the answer is maybe. When the international markets lend money to the UK government, the rates are based on how much tax revenues they think the UK will generate in order to pay it back. A poorly designed system of income-tax devolution would change this calculus and lead them to expect a smaller tax base that is less under the UK government’s control. If so, they would then demand a higher premium for their finance. </p>
<p>But income tax raised from Scotland (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888/5">estimated at</a> £11bn in 2012-13) does not even come close to funding Scottish government and Scottish local authority expenditures (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888/7">estimated at</a> £39bn in 2012-13). So if the Scottish government were funded by a combination of Scottish income taxes and a grant to make up the difference that was fully under UK government control (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/what-is-barnett-formula-how-work-scotland-wales-northern-ireland">the Barnett formula</a>), then the security held by international markets over UK government tax revenues could be unaffected. The UK government could simply reduce Scotland’s funding to ensure that it still paid its share.</p>
<h2>The fix</h2>
<p>A sensible system would bring the equivalent tax revenues in the rest of the UK into line with the Scottish system. If Scottish income tax is levied explicitly to pay for Scottish public services, then the income tax raised in England should be for English public services even if this is to be administered by the UK government rather than an English parliament. It should not be the case that Scottish income taxes are used to fund Scottish public services while English income taxes are used by the UK government to repay UK public debt.</p>
<p>And international investors are not daft. They will be aware that the security of their lending depends on the overall size of the UK government’s tax resources and spending commitments. So as the UK government loses Scottish income taxes, it also loses responsibility for funding some Scottish public services. This means that the claims of international markets can be left unaffected. </p>
<p>Scotland will meanwhile continue to contribute to non-devolved tax revenues including VAT and corporation tax. If the UK government uses these revenues to fund UK expenditures such as defence, foreign affairs and national debt repayments – but not public services in England – then Scotland will be continuing to play its part.</p>
<h2>The economy factor</h2>
<p>What about the claim that full devolution of income tax exposes Scotland to the destabilising peaks and troughs of the economy? It is true that negative economic shocks in Scotland will lower income tax revenues and put pressure on public sector finances – especially if welfare is partially devolved. </p>
<p>This is what currently happens in the UK as a whole, and it is dealt with by borrowing. The solution for Scotland is for the Scottish government to have access to its share of what the UK government borrows in leaner economic periods (“countercyclical borrowing,” as economists call it). </p>
<p>This would mean that the UK government would borrow in response to negative shocks and distribute to Scotland, the other devolved administrations, and to itself (wearing its “English government” hat). This would take place according to some pre-specified formula that should compensate for the automatic fall in devolved tax revenues and the automatic rise in devolved expenditures that has been caused by the downturn in question. </p>
<p>This borrowing would be repaid with the taxes that are reserved for the UK government, to which Scotland will have fully contributed. Scotland could also borrow on its own account for public investment in Scotland, but borrowing for recessions should be done at the UK level (the fact that the equivalent is not done in the eurozone is the source of many of that area’s problems). </p>
<p>So Alastair Darling is correct to highlight concerns with rushed devolution proposals, but it’s not correct to say that income tax cannot be devolved in full without leading to the problems that he outlined. A sensibly designed proposal could achieve the full devolution of income tax and welfare.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Comerford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Alistair Darling, writing in the Financial Times, warned this week that the full devolution of income tax to Scotland would increase UK borrowing costs and expose Scotland to the destabilising ups and…David Comerford, Research Fellow in Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345522014-11-21T15:20:26Z2014-11-21T15:20:26ZEnglish votes for English laws is much less sensible than it first appears<p>Ever since David Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote">wrong-footed his opponents</a> on the morning after the independence referendum by meshing it to the question of extending more powers to Scotland, the question of English votes for English laws has never been far away. </p>
<p>William Hague is leading a cabinet committee that is due to produce proposals about how to proceed with the so-called West Lothian question (it is being boycotted by Labour, who see the issue as a trap designed to make it harder for them to govern). David Cameron has now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/english-mps-veto-english-laws-david-cameron">given us</a> a sense of where these deliberations are heading, saying that re-electing a Conservative government would ensure that English MPs were given a veto over legislative matters affected only them. </p>
<p>“There is a way of comprehensively answering this question in a way that maintains the integrity of our parliament and of our system,” he insisted during committee questions in the Commons. </p>
<p>But this is not a question for which we need to seek an answer. It makes more sense to think of it as a paradox of the sort that is quite common in political systems. There is no need to try to eradicate them. They are not a cause for alarm or concern. </p>
<h2>More paradoxes than grains of sand</h2>
<p>A paradox is a surprising combination of ideas such as a clash, or apparent clash, of principles. For instance it is paradoxical that nurses wake up their patients to give them sleeping pills. It is paradoxical to say, <a href="http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/good-night-good-night-parting-such-sweet-sorrow">as Shakespeare did</a>, that parting can be such sweet sorrow. It is paradoxical to note, as <a href="http://people.umass.edu/klement/imp/imp.html">Bertrand Russell suggested</a>, that the set of all numbers is no larger than the set of all odd numbers or the set of all even numbers since all three are infinite. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paradoxes as far as the eye can see.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-117037576/stock-photo-rippled-sand.html?src=OECJhnnsskFpXsOQjTJDpw-1-22">Natalie Davidovich</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The steps required to eradicate paradoxes in our political system are often impractical or would cause more problems than they solve – even sometimes creating new paradoxes. </p>
<p>We do not allow everyone to vote. In order to vote, you must be an adult citizen. The presumption would seem to be that younger people lack intelligence, knowledge, experience or some such feature that is relevant to voting wisely and responsibly. Yet paradoxically, the votes of all adults count equally. Through ageing and injury, people can come to lose the faculties of memory, reasoning and so forth. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, they do not automatically lose their right to vote when they have lost the capacity to exercise that right meaningfully. On this logic, you could equally argue that some people should have more votes than others. The philosopher John Stuart Mill <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3e5L58BRAp8C&pg=PT193&lpg=PT193&dq=mill+some+people+should+get+more+votes&source=bl&ots=hiYnMM-Rmb&sig=P01d5vYq1ju0VYjW7k4OhUFIjdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0idvVIuXDI7taMOegFA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false">thought so</a>.</p>
<p>There is another strand here. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23074572">On the grounds that</a> young people have the prospect of a long-term stake and interest in the country, the voting age was reduced to 16 years for the referendum. Yet we did not choose to remove the right to vote from those who did not have a long-term future in Scotland, such as the terminally ill, the very old or those who were about to emigrate. As with many paradoxes of course, these are ones that we are wise to ignore. </p>
<h2>Endless grounds for disqualification</h2>
<p>MPs who have urban constituencies that do not hold fox hunts voted on the bills which <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day--fox-hunting-banned-in-england-and-wales-182326439.html#CfQwG6S">made fox-hunting illegal</a>. MPs who do not have wind turbines, oil fields, nuclear power stations or coal mines in their constituencies vote on all matters pertaining to fuel policy. MPs who are deaf vote can vote on matters relating to noise abatement. MPs who are confirmed bachelors and childless vote on such matters as divorce legislation and childcare payments. </p>
<p>Creating a devolved legislative body at Holyrood in the absence of an equivalent body for England increased and compounded the paradoxes around Scottish special treatment in our political system. It certainly wasn’t the beginning of them, however. Ever since the inception of the union in 1707, the separate nature of Scots law, Scottish education and the role of the Church of Scotland created paradoxes. </p>
<h2>Murderers more welcome over the border</h2>
<p>Suppose a man is tried for murder in Carlisle in the north of England. If eight out of the 12 members of the jury are convinced he is guilty while four decide he was innocent, he cannot be found guilty of the crime. At least ten out of the jury of 12 members must agree for a guilty verdict to hold.</p>
<p>Now suppose the very same crime with the same people, evidence and so forth were committed just over the Scottish border. This might mean it were tried 85 miles away at the nearest high court in Glasgow, where there are 15 members on a jury and, even in a murder trial, a straight majority verdict can secure a verdict of guilty. This means that if there are again eight jurors that are convinced of the man’s guilt, he will be convicted. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t let a Scottish jury get hold of you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-175655786/stock-photo-wooden-mallet-and-scottish-flag-clipping-path-included.html?src=x-JvFdJ9QZPuoqqhVMuWrw-1-0">corund</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We have chosen to live with paradoxes of this sort. Most people are not at all discomforted by them, and rightly so. Yet this is arguably a much more alarming paradox than the fact that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that only apply to English constituencies. </p>
<p>The reality is this: parliament has an interest in what happens throughout the UK and MPs can comment and vote on it in their capacity as MPs. All MPs are equal as MPs. Like equal votes for all citizens is a principle of our particular political system, whether or not it is unfair or rationally defensible as an abstract principle. </p>
<p>We should be wary of calls to eradicate the West Lothian paradox unless we are ready to accept that we might thereby create other paradoxes and alter our particular democracy in unintended, unwanted ways. Scottish MPs voting on English matters is just one of a great many constitutional matters that look hard to defend on strict rational principles, but the key is always to look at the broader principle that lies behind them. It is time for David Cameron to stop seeking political advantage and embrace the paradoxical system over which he presides.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ever since David Cameron wrong-footed his opponents on the morning after the independence referendum by meshing it to the question of extending more powers to Scotland, the question of English votes for…Hugh McLachlan, Professor of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345042014-11-21T06:01:49Z2014-11-21T06:01:49ZWhy Greenland is a better template for Scotland than any of its neighbours<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65102/original/image-20141120-4461-1jrpwcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Any talk of a Scottish federation should be put on ice</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=greenland&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=153967604">ausnewsde</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>First the No victory in the Scottish referendum, now the debate about how much extra power should be extended north of the border. While <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/">the commission</a> tasked with coming up with proposals prepares to publish them at the end of the month, it raises the question of whether any federal states around the world might provide a useful template. </p>
<p>After all, Gordon Brown <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/gordon-brown-backs-federalism-in-event-of-no-vote-1-3511291">talked about</a> a modern form of Scottish home rule, “as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85% of the population”. And the SNP’s new deputy leader Stewart Hosie <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/stewart-hosie-elected-deputy-leader-of-snp-1-3605062">has said that</a> the Scottish people were promised the “closest thing to a federal state within one to two years”.</p>
<p>There is a difficulty here, however. Aiming towards a federal state structure makes it necessary to also look at reforming the UK’s central institutions. As recently suggested by Labour leader Ed Miliband, there is the question of whether the House of Lords should be reformed into a chamber able to represent UK regions. There are also questions about the status of Wales and Northern Ireland as well as of England. </p>
<h2>No länder is grander</h2>
<p>When you look at other federal structures, they are less helpful than you might think. Take Germany for example. Composed of 16 subunits (or länder) with the same competences, the German federal system is underpinned by a commitment to create equal living conditions. The German second parliamentary chamber, the Bundesrat, ensures that all the Länder are effectively represented. It has the power to veto all significant national laws, with the Länder exercising autonomy mostly through how they choose to implement national policies. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65103/original/image-20141120-4496-evxwge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Der Bundesrat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=Bundesrat&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=201131537">Kiev.Victor</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Contrast this with the UK, where Scotland has more powers than Wales and Northern Ireland and England is not devolved at all. This is completely different from a federal scenario in which there is devolution across the whole country, giving each unit about the same powers. And demands <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29606220">from certain quarters</a> that Scottish MPs be prevented from voting on English issues directly contradicts the model of a country like Germany, where all the federal regions vote on all national issues and sometimes have a veto over them. </p>
<h2>The federal reality</h2>
<p>Spain or Canada, with their strong regional identities and the presence of a weaker second house, appear to bear more comparison. Spain has traditionally given far greater powers to historical nation regions like Catalonia and the Basque Country, even if inequalities in competences between different regions were reduced in the 1980s and 1990s in consecutive rounds of federal reform. In Canada meanwhile, Quebec still has a special status in the federal system. </p>
<p>Yet the huge variation in regional powers in the UK still makes it quite different from these examples. And if the UK gives even more autonomy to Scotland, it makes the federal analogy even more problematic. </p>
<p>If the UK was really going to shift towards a federal state structure, it would mean empowering the other regions to bring them into line with Scottish autonomy. Most federal systems also put provisions in their constitutions that stipulate how much power stays in the centre and how much is devolved to regions around the country. This is then commonly policed by a supreme court to help define the limits of the central parliament’s supremacy. </p>
<h2>Nuuk before you leap</h2>
<p>A more suitable starting point for comparison would be the so-called “federacy arrangements” that exist between the likes of Denmark and Greenland or Finland and the Åland Islands (which lie off the south-west Finnish coast, halfway to Sweden). Such agreements are commonly directly negotiated between the specific region and the central state. In the case of both the Finnish and Danish examples, the arrangement for the autonomous region has been embedded within the structure of the unitary state, with other regions not enjoying similar autonomy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65104/original/image-20141120-4493-1hf3095.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Åland Islands: Baltic Caledonia?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bushman_k/4756761857/in/photolist-9zXAnv-9zXBZv-9zXBta-9zXAXH-2nbgbx-8fkDzt-Ki217-d3EkHS-d3Eub9-d3Ewxu-d3Eohq-d3Esgj-d3EFof-d3ErBm-d3EsYm-d3EqbE-d3EEgs-d3EAwu-d3EGFs-d3Ex8s-6DdziV-6S2FEM-94xiiR-pus6yw-d3ExK1-d3EoVS-d3EG3f-d3Epyq-d3Evcs-d3EHo9-d3Eyph-d3Emmj-d3EnCG-d3ECHu-d3EuGf-d3Etz5-d3Ez7s-d3En1u-d3EzW3-d3EEQf-d3EBWf-d3EDu9-d3EBjo-3JmpCU-fzN5bX-bPV6kz-fEotDm-5aY9mZ-5b3pLf-5b3ofo">Kirill Ignatyev</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Federacy arrangements tend to exist for small remote areas of land. They tend to enjoy extensive regional autonomy over domestic matters, leaving the state in charge only of defence, foreign relations and currency. This echoes the SNP’s “devo max” model. </p>
<p>That said, such autonomy comes at a price: the devolved unit in a federacy has minimal input on state decision-making overall. This would require a radical reduction of Scottish representation and influence on UK politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34504/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Bolleyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>First the No victory in the Scottish referendum, now the debate about how much extra power should be extended north of the border. While the commission tasked with coming up with proposals prepares to…Nicole Bolleyer, Associate Professor, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/339602014-11-10T06:12:18Z2014-11-10T06:12:18ZCan new powers for Scotland really be delivered within promised timescale?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63997/original/qmbh64vc-1415376909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pressure is on Westminster to devolve power swiftly.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=houses%20of%20parliament&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=219049174">merc67</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Lord Smith of Kelvin’s task of steering the commission for more Scottish devolution is set to a timescale that makes <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29935465">his job chairing</a> the organising committee of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games look like child’s play. </p>
<p>It has made quick progress to date. Inside two weeks of the referendum result, the Smith commission was populated with members from each of the five parties represented at Holyrood (the SNP, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens). By the time public proposals to the commission had closed on October 31, some 14,000 submissions had been made.</p>
<p>Now it has until St Andrew’s Day (November 30) to make sense of those submissions and the proposals submitted by the five represented parties to produce a set of workable proposals. Draft legislation is due by Burns’ Night (January 25) prior to the UK general election in May, after which a bill for legislation should be included in the Queen’s Speech. </p>
<h2>Stopwatches and the big sell</h2>
<p>The difficulties break into two strands. The first is the commitment itself – <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-powers-for-scotland-rushed-timetable-does-the-whole-of-the-uk-a-disservice-33756">how to deliver</a> a workable constitutional settlement within the timetable required. The second is the political issue: how to sell the outcome as desirable and in the public interest both inside Scotland and elsewhere. To add to the scale of the challenge, this is happening a time when the public is actively engaged in the political process, watching as the proposals unfold.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64002/original/ych2yqzy-1415377532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clock is ticking…</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=Wvv5egkmvD2dVKl2OLsKAg&searchterm=stopwatch&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&secondary_submit=Search&page=1&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=145219852">bikeriderlondon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Constitutional change in the UK is usually a gradual process, occurring on an ad-hoc basis. It is commonly based on the whim and interest of the government of the day, seldom taking a view of the wider constitutional picture. Devolution is a case in point here: Labour provided devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to London – but when the north-east of England <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm">voted against</a> a regional assembly, the question of how to govern England remained unanswered.</p>
<p>The current process is not much different in that respect. Marrying the requirements for broad constitutional thinking and a workable settlement with a speedy resolution appears to be mission impossible. Allowing short-term political thinking to influence the outcome is simply going to exacerbate the constitutional issue.</p>
<p>So we have a timetable that is entirely political: a promise <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">made in poetry</a> during the tense final week of the referendum campaign requires delivery in prose in the cold light of a parliamentary process. Herein lies the bear-trap. The 45% who voted Yes to Scottish independence – as well as substantial numbers of the 55% who voted No – are eager for further powers to be devolved and for the timetable to be met. They will, as the outgoing first minister Alex Salmond <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-insists-scotland-can-4291189">suggested</a>, “hold Westminster’s feet to the fire” on these promises. </p>
<h2>Options, options …</h2>
<p>Lord Smith has been placed in a bind here. Does he use the available time-frame to deliver a lean package, broadly in line with what the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-do-the-strathclyde-proposals-matter-27657">three main UK parties published</a> in the months before the vote? Does he recommend that more substantial powers be devolved, considerably altering the constitutional make-up of the UK without the due diligence that a longer process would allow? Or does he say he needs more time to come up with a workable form of devolution, letting the timetable slip? Those appear to be the options, and none looks attractive. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63998/original/pmp5bndf-1415376976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can SNP under Nicola Sturgeon save devo max?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishgovernment/6924441790/in/photolist-6N7USn-9M6174-9M5QKp-iZ7tpc-a91xAh-fxpnb6-aBrT7M-gUgWfX-9w6TrK-9w6ToT-9w6TxH-9w9VCs-9w9Vxy-bxTz6j-bLNgAe-bLNgm8-bxTziq-fxpnuz-fxpnKc-fxpo3F-e4R8KP-e4WKy1-e4WE31-4Lw4qK-f26usf-99GMAh-eFfcYE-eFfcTu-iZ8jPW-pasSpe-prEwiM-prV8Uj-pasuu3-eJEgif-9dyWSP-9FqvvW-9Fnynn-bLuQBn-bxA9ij-bxA9af-bLinKa-bLiokv-bxA9ru-bLiog8-4Lw4tZ-iZa41u-aBuy3f-4LAgjm-4LAgnw-4Lw4xH">Scottish Government</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course the SNP would make political hay out of either the timetable slipping or the powers delivered being less than <a href="http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scotland-will-force-westminster-to-deliver-devo-max-promise/">expected</a> or <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/the-powers-struggle-poll-reveals-support-for-devo-max.25509432">desired</a>. The fact that it is involved in the Smith commission might take some of the sting out of this (which explains why former Scottish secretary Michael Moore <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141014/debtext/141014-0002.htm">kept making this point</a> during the House of Commons debate on the issue, for example). </p>
<h2>Outcomes</h2>
<p>So what happens on November 30? A timetable slip has to be a real possibility. Even to read each of the public submissions during the month of November means that the commission must read more than 450 submissions each day – or 700 a day if you rule out weekends. And once they’ve been read, they of course need to be considered and presumably collated in some way. </p>
<p>Still, postponement would look terrible so it’s perhaps not the most likely outcome. More likely there will be proposals but with some kind of acknowledgement that not all the submissions could be considered – thereby undermining the democratic force of the process. Since the three main UK parties are in the majority, the most likely is a package along the lines of what they propose: more income tax devolution, some transfer of welfare powers, but nothing much more drastic. </p>
<p>Selling that to Scotland is probably not particularly difficult. Smith and the parties will be able to present it as being on a continuum of extra powers, following the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/30903.aspx">creation of the parliament</a> in 1999 and the <a href="https://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/category/calman-commissionscotland-bill/">Calman commission</a> in 2012. You indicate to Yes voters that it’s another step to their end goal while telling No voters it strengthens the parliament and represents the will of the Scottish people. You have the advantage that the Yes side know it is not politically wise to call another referendum at this stage. </p>
<p>What looks much more problematic is the rest of the UK. Will Welsh or English MPs vote for the package unless they secure new powers too? Will Scottish MPs vote for it, knowing that it will remove some of their power in Westminster? If Labour wins next year’s general election, will they take the proposals forward as legislation? They know their ability to govern the UK could be badly damaged by the idea of English votes for English laws, so any package that attempted to force through that issue would be unlikely to pass muster. </p>
<p>Where does this leave the Smith commission? With a monumental task on its hands. It could save the union for generations, or we could be looking at another referendum within the next 10 years. We’ll only find out the answer, one suspects, once the ball lands with Westminster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33960/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for his position as a researcher for the Centre on Constitutional Change.</span></em></p>Lord Smith of Kelvin’s task of steering the commission for more Scottish devolution is set to a timescale that makes his job chairing the organising committee of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games look like…Malcolm Harvey, Researcher, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/337562014-11-03T15:54:41Z2014-11-03T15:54:41ZMore powers for Scotland: rushed timetable does the whole of the UK a disservice<p>The group charged with delivering more devolution to Scotland is to draw up the most significant programme of constitutional change for the UK since 1998 this November. Already the period when citizens could submit their views has passed: the Smith Commission’s deadline was 5pm on October 31. Such a rapid process runs counter to both the due diligence needed before deciding to restructure the UK tax (and possibly welfare) systems so radically; and the due process which ought to accompany such a seminal constitutional development. </p>
<p>The referendum campaign was a remarkable period of citizen empowerment, resulting in a turnout of <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-turnout-record-as-84-vote-1-3546826">almost 85%</a>. The Smith Commission process, by contrast, bears all the hallmarks of a return to elite-led constitutional change. It is deeply ironic that the impetus for such a rapid and party-led process should be the independence referendum itself. It was set in motion only as September 18 approached and the polls seemed to tighten, when the main unionist parties issued “<a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">the vow</a>” promising more powers for the Scottish parliament and a firm timetable for change. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63540/original/v695gyms-1415017463.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992">Trinity Mirror</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The timetable is astonishing. The day after the referendum Prime Minister David Cameron <a href="http://icas.org.uk/News/Latest-News/ICAS-Welcomes-Appointment-of-Lord-Smith-to-Oversee-Process-for-Further-Devolution-to-Scotland/">announced that</a> Lord Smith of Kelvin would oversee a process to take forward these commitments. The five main parties (Conservative, Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party) had to submit their views by October 10. The commission will issue recommendations by November 30, with a view to a draft bill in the new year. If <a href="http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=goose/s/38//">Solomon Grundy</a> could do constitutional change, this is what it would look like.</p>
<h2>Getting it right</h2>
<p>My first objections are less of principle and more of prudence. It is not enough to make policy decisions and then complete an assessment of how these can be carried out later. You need to ascertain the operational difficulties in advance before you can make a decision on the best course of action. The devolution of tax and welfare within such a highly integrated state must be tested for its impact both on Scotland and on the rest of the UK. </p>
<p>The Smith timetable is also odd given that we are heading towards a UK general election. Of course the parties feel the need to move fast for political reasons. But the general election provides an entirely credible reason to set deliberation back until next year. By any measure it is better to do things correctly than to do them quickly. </p>
<p>And then there is the issue of due process. As a point of democratic principle fundamental constitutional change should be open, inclusive and deliberative if the people of Scotland, and more pertinently the people of the rest of the UK, are to consider it legitimate. </p>
<h2>Ignoring Britain</h2>
<p>The bigger picture is of course the UK constitution as a whole. The Smith Commission is concerned only with additional powers for the Scottish parliament. But is it feasible to address this issue alone without also considering the knock-on consequences for the entire country? For example one element of The Vow was to make the Scottish parliament “permanent”. But how can such a constitutional guarantee be made without significant changes to parliamentary sovereignty, the very basis of the British constitution?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-scotland-decides-its-future-lie-back-and-think-of-england-30993">West Lothian question</a> has already re-appeared as a counterpoint to more powers for Scotland. Should decisions be taken on radical tax powers for Scotland without advance notice of whether, and if so how, these powers may lead to a significant loss of influence for Scotland at Westminster? We also don’t know if this process might prompt a strong campaign for an English parliament within the UK system, or further devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland. </p>
<p>It might mean a re-worked system of intergovernmental relations, or even some kind of quasi-federal system, possibly involving realigning the House of Lords as a chamber of the nations and regions of the UK – something Ed Miliband first raised at the Labour Party conference in September 2014. Scots should know whether the price of more powers will be a radically new constitutional structure within which the position of Scotland is in some ways marginalised. There are also potential issues of compatibility with EU law (something Smith says the commission will address). </p>
<h2>What chance real deliberation?</h2>
<p>It is not impossible that the Smith Commission will deliberate on a genuinely constructive and non-party basis, but the fact that its membership is open only to political parties and the limited time frame makes this very difficult. </p>
<p>Indeed, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29857267">proposals submitted</a> to Smith are largely the well-established positions of the political parties and not the result of any independent or cross-party review. There will of course be give and take in a process of inter-party bartering, but is this the type of democratic deliberation that post-referendum Scotland aspires to? </p>
<p>All of this suggests the need for restraint. The two governments should set up a much more inclusive and wider ranging review over a much longer period of time. It should be conducted in a more independently, relatively free from party political horse-trading, taking the views of citizens and civil society seriously. </p>
<p>Why not see the referendum as the first step in a new endorsement of popular politics? The post-referendum environment offers the chance to re-engage with a public which is better educated about and enthused by constitutional politics than ever before. To explore such avenues would be no retreat from the democratic will of the people. On the contrary, such an engagement would help fulfil the democratic promise of the referendum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Tierney receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>The group charged with delivering more devolution to Scotland is to draw up the most significant programme of constitutional change for the UK since 1998 this November. Already the period when citizens…Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/332762014-10-22T13:21:24Z2014-10-22T13:21:24ZDevo max in Scotland would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and Wales<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62392/original/vwcg983q-1413904911.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Devo max would fundamentally undermine the UK, says Midwinter</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&utm_source=sstkimages&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=search&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=northern%20ireland%20wales%20flag&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=219567460">Steve Allen</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scottish National Party (SNP) leader-in-waiting Nicola Sturgeon <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/sturgeon-sets-out-snp-stall-with-demand-for-devo-max.25564873">recently confirmed</a> that her party wants to see the Scottish parliament take control over almost all taxation, pensions, the welfare system and a considerable number of other domestic policy areas. </p>
<p>This is not new, of course. The Scottish government’s “Fiscal Autonomy in Scotland” report <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/02/23092643/0">demanded</a> much the same level of devolution five years ago. But this proposal is so far out of line with the principles and practice of the UK model – and so potentially destabilising to the financing of all three devolved administrations – that the SNP will struggle to get support for it. </p>
<p>Yet this is the policy position with which it is going into the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a>, the group set up to fast-track more devolution to Scotland following the No vote in last month’s referendum under the chairmanship of Lord Smith of Kelvin. </p>
<p>The UK is a deeply integrated economic union with a single market in goods, services, labour, capital and knowledge to which all four nations have equal access; as well as an integrated tax system. Responsibility for managing the economy, in common with international practice, is reserved to the central state and exercised through the Treasury and Bank of England. The management of public services is allocated to Whitehall departments and the devolved administrations.</p>
<p>Resource allocation operates on the basis of relative expenditure need, as agreed through political judgement. In Scotland’s case, this has always operated using England as a benchmark with adjustment for Scotland’s higher needs, entrenched since 1978 in the funding model known as the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/what-is-barnett-formula-how-work-scotland-wales-northern-ireland">Barnett Formula</a> which aims to provide a high degree of stability in funding.</p>
<h2>In it together</h2>
<p>This expenditure-based approach to public funding reflects the economic unity of the UK in that the spending needs of the whole UK are considered together. Money is automatically channelled to where it is needed, regardless of where that money was raised. As a result, all three devolved administrations – and most English regions – get more funding than they raise in taxes.</p>
<p>Any changes in fiscal powers under devolution have to be consistent with this model – a point <a href="http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/">well made</a> by the Calman report. You don’t want a wasteful situation where one part of the UK starts competing with other parts by lowering taxes in a way that reduces the government’s income without necessarily making it back through extra economic activity. </p>
<p>It is difficult to see how “devo max” could be workable in the UK system. The aim should be to achieve maximum devolution and accountability while retaining the pooling and sharing of resources. Devo max doesn’t work this way – instead it is based on devolved regions raising their own funds and not relying on transfers from central government. </p>
<h2>It’s not just Scotland</h2>
<p>This is not a matter for Scotland in isolation. The SNP wants to adopt this model so that it can cut corporation tax by 3p in the pound to deliver a competitive tax advantage over other regions of the UK. This is incompatible in a model based on equal access to markets across the UK. Sir Kenneth Calman <a href="http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/">expressed concern</a> that it would lead to tax competition, among other things.</p>
<p>There would also be serious concerns over devolving North Sea revenues. Scotland <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/country-and-regional-analysis-2013">currently receives</a> public expenditure about 16% above the UK average, yet the tax revenues paid by Scottish citizens and business are around the UK average. Professor Gavin McCrone <a href="http://www.birlinn.co.uk/Scottish-Independence-Weighing-up-the-Economics.html">has made the point</a> that if the Scottish government were to receive its geographical share of oil and gas revenues, there would have to be some corresponding cuts in public expenditure to balance out what Scotland is supposed to receive under the Barnett formula. In fact, the consequences for Wales and Northern Ireland of moving to devo max would be disastrous. They have structural deficits, but no North Sea revenues.</p>
<p>Finally, there would also be a problem in devolving VAT under EU rules. Under the rules, the VAT rate must be levied and collected centrally in a state. So the UK government would have to assign revenues from it to Scotland instead, around £8.5bn in 2010–11. </p>
<p>This review shows that the nationalists have thought little about the impracticalities and the politics of full fiscal autonomy. There would not be much of a union left. </p>
<p>Devo max shares several of the dubious assumptions of independence. It assumes Scottish control of tax revenues would improve economic performance and that cuts in corporation tax in particular would drive growth. This is highly questionable when you look at the numbers. Being in the UK system has not held Scotland back – its economic performance <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236579/scotland_analysis_macroeconomic_and_fiscal_performance.pdf">has been broadly in line</a> with the rest of the UK. </p>
<h2>What more powers should look like</h2>
<p>What is appropriate is to develop a maximum devolution model in which further fiscal powers consistent with the Treasury model are devolved. These would increase fiscal responsibility, autonomy and accountability while maintaining the principles of the UK system. </p>
<p>There is no need to see this as an exercise to devolve the most powers to close the so-called fiscal gap between what the nations pay in and what they get out, which is not a problem in practice. This means that the Barnett Formula should remain in use to determine the needs in total, albeit with a reduced block grant. Allocations do not require a needs-based formula, which in the final analysis requires political judgement.</p>
<p>Devolved systems should be as simple as possible. The comprehensive research carried out for Calman shows clearly that in most systems the majority of tax income is raised and controlled by the central state for efficiency and equity reasons. Most sub-central government systems rely upon a combination of assigned revenues or central grants as their autonomous revenues are insufficient to cover their spending responsibilities. Autonomy can be achieved irrespective of the proportion of tax raised.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62396/original/x5dvn6f8-1413905981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The big challenge: inside the UK system but outside the box.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&utm_source=sstkimages&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=search&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=vGvw6lDRucfT97g2CY5GxQ&searchterm=road%20to%20separation&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=218479873">Lightspring</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To be compatible with the Treasury model, devolved taxes should allow the devolved administration to vary its spending levels above or below the spending levels on which the block grant is based. And no tax which would encourage wasteful fiscal competition should be devolved.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with proposals by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats that income tax powers should be 100% devolved. This is not necessary for autonomy and accountability purposes, it would increase costs for business, (which have not been estimated) and reduce the scope for pooling resources across the UK. </p>
<p>On proposals by the Liberals and Conservatives to devolve smaller taxes such as capital gains tax and air passenger duty, we do not know the cost of fragmenting the UK collection system to Scotland. This should be estimated before the commission makes any recommendations. </p>
<p>Finally the Liberal Democrats also propose to assign corporation tax revenues. This would not in any way promote accountability as the yield would not reflect Scottish decisions. It would blur accountability and would result in greater volatility and require further adjustment to compensate for errors of estimation. It would be simpler and more stable to transfer funding through block grant. The case for assigned revenues simply reflects the Liberal Democrats’ ideological argument that the Scottish parliament should raise more than 50% of its revenues. Why this is more accountable than Labour’s 40% is never made clear. </p>
<p><em>This is an edited version of Professor Midwinter’s submission to the Smith Commission</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As an adviser to Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, Arthur was appointed chair of the party's Welfare Commission, which is putting together a series of proposals for the future of Scotland.</span></em></p>Scottish National Party (SNP) leader-in-waiting Nicola Sturgeon recently confirmed that her party wants to see the Scottish parliament take control over almost all taxation, pensions, the welfare system…Arthur Midwinter, Associate Professor, Institute of Public Sector Accounting Research, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.