A week on from Scotland's historic referendum, the country stands on the threshold of far-reaching change.
The Herald made clear its position prior to the vote: we believe that the nation's interests are best served, at this stage, by pursuing much greater powers for Holyrood while enjoying the benefits of remaining in the UK.
We have warned from the outset, however, that only a package of measures for substantially enhanced autonomy, within the promised fast-track timetable, will meet the aspirations of Scots. The upsurge in SNP membership in the last week, with the party now ranking as the UK's third largest, shows that the movement for meaningful change remains strong. Voters on both sides of this great debate now expect far-reaching further devolution; the UK parties fail them at their peril.
But what form should greater devolution take? All participants in the national conversation about Scotland's future, including The Herald, must now turn their attention to that question. We do not put forward a prescriptive set of demands. Any debate about constitutional change throws up further questions and every proposal must be subjected to detailed scrutiny; some will stand up better to that process than others. Yet as advocates of imaginative change to make our parliament and government more responsive and accountable, we suggest here how that might be achieved.
There is in the country a broad spectrum of opinion on how far enhanced devolution should go.
In choosing a path, it must be borne in mind that Scots have voted to retain the benefits of remaining in the UK and so any settlement should reflect, and not undermine, that desire.
The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour have all put forward proposals that fit within that framework and those of the Scottish LibDems in particular, being the boldest of the three, make for a substantive starting point. The Scottish Conservatives, once staunch defenders of the status quo, have also shown vision and flexibility, but Scottish Labour has disappointed thus far with the timidity of its recommendations.
Scotland needs much more control over the revenue it spends and more scope to pursue aspirations such as greater equality. With that in mind, we see a case for the following:
l Income tax - the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for raising the majority of money it spends, a move that would in one fell swoop hugely enhance the accountability of the Scottish Parliament and make simplistic attacks by Scottish ministers on the UK Government over budgetary constraints much harder. Income tax should be fully devolved, though there are grounds for maintaining uniformity UK-wide in relation to the tax-free allowance and National Insurance. Income tax would become the greatest single component of a basket of devolved taxes.
l Other taxes - revenues raised in Scotland from corporation tax should be allocated to the Scottish Government to spend. This would allow for Scotland to benefit directly from its own economic success. There is not yet a clear case, however, for the setting of the corporation tax rate to be devolved since it could precipitate a counterproductive race to the bottom among the nations of the UK. There is also a case for remitting back to Scotland a proportion of VAT receipts raised here (EU law currently forbids devolving VAT rates within the UK anyway). Inheritance and capital gains taxes should be devolved, and there is a case for devolving air passenger duty (APD). This need not mean abolishing APD, but would allow the Scottish Government to set it at a different rate to try to attract more direct international flights and boost tourism. Control of Crown Estate assets should be transferred, with proper consideration being given to passing them on to local authority control.
l Welfare - a UK-wide system of pensions and welfare helps ensure the UK's resources can be used to support areas of the greatest economic and social need and guarantees minimum standards for all. Where the Scottish Government wishes to supplement the rate of a UK-wide benefit from its own resources, however, it should face no legislative or administrative barriers to doing so. Benefits that are closely related to fully devolved policy areas, such as housing benefits or attendance allowance, should also be devolved if it is practicable to do so.
l Local autonomy - the council tax freeze, imposed on local authorities by the Scottish Government and now in its seventh year, underlines the constraints on councils when it comes to local autonomy. Not only should the freeze end (there is growing evidence it is having a disproportionately negative effect on the poorest), but the council tax should be replaced with a fairer property-based tax. Enhanced devolution for Scotland should be allied to enhanced devolution within Scotland, with the autonomy of councils being beefed up after years in which there has been a trend for greater centralisation.
l Reform of the Barnett formula - this formula for allocating Treasury funds to the nations of the UK is out of date and must be replaced with a more transparent system based explicitly on need. Scotland, with its levels of deprivation and dispersed population, need not lose out from such a change.
It is clear that Scotland is advancing further and quicker along the path to greater devolution than any other part of the UK, but that should not act as a barrier to progress.
Even so, for a strengthened Scottish Parliament to be sustainable within the UK, and not be the cause of further tension with the other constituent parts, a federal structure for the UK as a whole would be highly desirable. This should include a reformed second chamber at Westminster, one of the roles of which would be to consult with the devolved parliaments and assemblies on any areas of federal government that impact on their areas of jurisdiction. It would also anticipate and mediate disputes.
How to ensure that only English MPs vote on English laws is a matter that must be resolved if Scotland's enhanced devolution is not to foster growing resentment south of the Border.
This must be done while retaining Scottish MPs' rightful influence over any policy area with a bearing on Scotland. It complicates matters that relatively few Westminster bills deal exclusively with English issues.
One solution might be the "double majority" where a bill or part of a bill affecting only England would have to be passed both by a majority of the whole Commons and of English MPs.
Changing Scotland's constitutional relationship with the rest of the UK in such a far-reaching way will have cost implications and could prove complex, but this must be accepted as a price worth paying for a settlement that is robust and sustainable, and which should form the basis for stable government for decades to come.
Above all, a lasting solution must be based on dialogue and mutual respect with the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
Scotland is in the driving seat of change. There must be no diversions or delays on either side of the Border on the road to delivering the settlement Scots demand.
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