Analysis: With just three words the Calman Commission yesterday killed the constitutional elephant in the room stone dead.
With just three words the Calman Commission yesterday killed the constitutional elephant in the room stone dead.
Given that Sir Kenneth and his fellow commissioners began their journey from the viewpoint that the Union is a good and worthy institution, it is not surprising that they ruled out of hand any notion of Scotland raising and spending the vast bulk of the money it needs.
Referring to the independent group of experts which examined tax and spend matters, the commission noted how it had concluded that "to the extent a region with full fiscal autonomy is to all intents and purposes independent, full fiscal autonomy is not consistent with the maintenance of the Union".
Sir Kenneth and his team added tersely: "The commission agrees".
The main political parties responded in predictable ways. The SNP, which has shunned the commission, likened Sir Kenneth's report to a mouse that offered up nothing more than a "constitutional squeak".
Labour and the Conservatives were broadly favourable, the former saying how it was a "very substantial and serious body of work" while the latter said that it was "undoubtedly a positive development" regarding the debate on Scotland's future.
The Liberal Democrats meantime, as federalists, said the report was about the present and not the future and what was needed was a "real home rule settlement".
The commission's admiration for the 300-year-old Union jumps out of several pages of its report. The political union between Scotland and England had created a "common UK citizenship that embodies shared fundamental freedoms", it said.
The commission noted how, in considering whether any changes needed to be made to Holyrood's powers and functions, it would be "careful to avoid anything that might erode the political union".
There was also the economic union, beneficial to the whole of the UK and "critical for the future prosperity of Scotland", and the cultural union with its "bonds of sympathy" represented in "many elements of shared identity" across the border.
The report noted how devolution had been a "remarkable success" with its incremental and almost organic development.
Its main focus was looking at whether it was worth recalibrating devolution and which powers might be transferred to or enhanced in Edinburgh.
To begin with, the commission made clear it was "vital" to the interests of Scots and Britons that Westminster and the UK Government were responsible for such matters as defence, security, foreign affairs and the constitution.
Certain policy areas were picked out for "further consideration" on whether there should be more powers for Holyrood. These included: broadcasting; energy; animal health; firearms; drugs misuse and marine planning. But no decision was made.
Energy could be a particular hot potato as the UK Government wants the ability to build more nuclear power stations in Scotland, but the SNP government with a remit over planning laws can veto any such move.
Yesterday, the Nationalists smelled a rat - that the commission would do Gordon Brown's work for him. Sir Kenneth, who was intrigued by the rodent metaphor of the Nationalists, insisted he was in no-one's pocket and urged the SNP to read what he regarded as a serious piece of work in progress. Other areas where the commission might make further recommendations include: the civil service; employment law; immigration; and health and safety. But again, no decisions were made.
On the financial side, having ruled out fiscal autonomy, the commission, therefore, looked at the various options - up to independence. Accountability, it said, had to be weighed up against increased bureaucracy.
However, it found, when looking around the world, there was not one ideal template.
Australia, for example, had a system where each state was put on the same fiscal footing, taking account of not just how much tax could be raised but also spending needs. Canada, meantime, placed greater importance on fiscal autonomy and put the emphasis more on the equalisation of tax than spend. Both of course are, unlike the UK, federal states.
Yesterday's report was frustrating as it was simply interim, which means everyone will have to wait until next October for the complete picture.
Given there is still more evidence to take, one wonders whether Sir Kenneth and his colleagues would not have been better waiting a few more months to publish their whole findings in one go as there are still many more questions than answers.
However, one thing is for sure: whatever the commission's final recommendations turn out to be, they will provide the backdrop to and much of the battleground for who runs Westminster in 2010 and Holyrood in 2011.
Main points of the report
- Having ruled out fiscal autonomy, it considered three options - maintaining the current block grant, assigning tax revenues to Scotland and more "tax devolution", but came to no conclusion and will seek more evidence.
- Having taken the maintenance of the Union as it starting point, it suggested certain functions - defence, security, foreign affairs and the constitution - should remain at Westminster.
- There is a "plausible case" for looking at handing Scotland more powers over broadcasting, energy, animal health, firearms, misuse of drugs and marine planning.
- There might be a case for looking at other areas, including the civil service, immigration, employment law, and health and safety.
- More consideration to be given to the "revitalisation" of intergovernmental relations between Edinburgh and London and of a closer relationship between Holyrood and Westminster.
- The idea of a second chamber for the Scottish Parliament is ruled out.
