THERE were times during the deliberations of the Smith Commission that its chairman privately feared it would reach deadlock but, thankfully, it all came good in the end.
Scotland's five main parties, with the input of 402 civic organisations, managed to put aside their mutual animosities to reach a deal; for that they deserve a hearty slap on the back. The proposals, while inevitably not delighting everyone, particularly not those whose goal is independence, go a long way towards addressing demands for far-reaching further devolution around tax, spending and welfare.
They also go a significant way towards matching the proposals of this newspaper, both in many of their particulars and in spirit. This settlement had to achieve a fine balancing act. It had to honour the decision of Scots to remain in the UK and continue to benefit from the pooling and sharing of resources UK-wide, while at the same time satisfying a strong public appetite for a more powerful, accountable Scottish Parliament. It has made a good attempt at that task.
The Commission has recommended the devolution of all income tax rates and bandings, though the tax-free allowance will be reserved, which has been our position. The Labour Party's backing for this plan, which goes well beyond its original position, shows it has heeded the warning that it would not be forgiven by voters if it emerged from this process having acted as a brake on progress.
The Scottish Government is also to be allocated a substantial proportion of VAT raised here, control over Air Passenger Duty and over Crown Estate assets, all of which we support. The allocation of VAT revenues is an added incentive to the Scottish Government to do what it can to grow the economy. We fully back the Commission in its belief that following the transfer of responsibility for Crown Estate assets, it should be further devolved to local authorities. This package of measures will have failed if, while decentralising power within the UK, it adds to the process of centralisation within Scotland.
On pensions and welfare, the UK-wide system must be able to support those in the greatest need while guaranteeing minimum standards for all. We welcome the Smith Commission's recommendation that a range of benefits be fully devolved, including those supporting older people, carers, the sick and disabled. Holyrood's capacity to bring in new benefits in devolved areas and to make discretionary welfare payments in any other area, are also important new powers. Does this go far enough? While some charities understandably wish Holyrood had complete control over benefits such as Universal Credit, instead of powers to vary elements of it, taken together, these measures do give MSPs much more control over policies affecting the poor and vulnerable.
The Scottish Parliament should be responsible for raising the majority of money it spends. Whether the settlement has achieved this depends on which set of figures one uses. Devolved taxes and assigned tax revenues under Smith amount to £20 billion; the SNP says that comes to 48 per cent of Scottish Government spending, while the pro-UK parties say that is more than 60 per cent. The discrepancy arises because the UK parties' figure is calculated as a percentage of the budget ministers directly control, while the SNP adds to that discretionary spending on matters such as public sector pensions that Scottish ministers do not control.
In truth, even the lower figure, at just short of half Scotland's overall spending, goes further than some predicted this settlement ever would. Further common sense measures include devolution of power over the Work Programme, licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction and control over Scottish and local elections.
It was clear these proposals would not meet everyone's aspirations; some are understandably disappointed. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon claims they fall short of the promises made by the three main UK parties. Those parties' use of language that was open to interpretation, such as Home Rule, may have been expedient for them at the time, but has been turned against them by pro-independence campaigners who have naturally placed the most radical definition on the terminology.
However, this settlement cannot justifiably be called a betrayal. While the SNP has criticised it, it also signed up to it. The package contains some radical proposals that would have been unthinkable just 15 years ago when the Scottish Parliament was established.
The aim now must be to ensure the antagonistic relationship that has built up between Scotland and Westminster will be replaced by a more mutually respectful way of working. There will also be knock-on effects for the Scottish civil service, whose workload will greatly increase.
The package also, of course, has major implications for the rest of the UK. It has prompted renewed calls to beef up the English regions, while English MPs have a legitimate gripe over the vexed West Lothian Question. Scottish MPs cannot be allowed to become second class citizens but, at the same time, anomalies exist in the UK constitutional settlement that must be resolved. A UK constitutional convention as proposed by Labour leader Ed Miliband is the best forum in which to hammer out a system that works equitably for all.
It is highly questionable whether the devolution legislation will have been passed by the time of the General Election. That means the parties will make it an election issue; so be it. This is a strong baseline for enhanced devolution that will significantly change Scotland and the UK.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article