THE not-so-long awaited Scotland Bill was published on Thursday. If you were expecting a serious and potentially enlightening debate about the merits of the Smith Commission proposals for further devolution versus the SNP's plan for full fiscal autonomy, you will have been disappointed. Instead we had a blazing row over Part 3, Clause 24, Section 4, points (a) and (b).

In the view of the Scottish Government, the offending words amounted to a veto over Holyrood's new power to vary the housing element of Universal Credit, the mechanism by which MSPs will be able to abolish the so-called bedroom tax.

This and half a dozen similar clauses, covering plans to devolve powers to help people with their heating bills, oblige energy companies to reduce charges for vulnerable customers and allow voters to add their names to the electoral register online, bore the brunt of a furious attack from John Swinney, who accused the UK Government of breaking its promises and producing a Bill "which sells Scotland short".

These "significant shortfalls," he claimed, would stop Scottish ministers using powers newly devolved to them.

Nonsense, retorted Scottish Secretary David Mundell. "It is factually wrong to claim there are vetoes in the Bill," he insisted.

So who is right? As ever, it's necessary to delve into the detail.

Here is Part 3, Clause 24, Section 4 in full: "The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to

which this section applies unless - (a) they have consulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of

implementing the regulations, and - (b) the Secretary of State has given his or her agreement as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect, such

agreement not to be unreasonably withheld."

Despite what Mr Mundell says, point (b) certainly looks like a veto. However, it also appears to be extremely limited in scope. The 'veto' is over the timing of any changes to Universal Credit and the provision stating it may not be used unreasonably suggests the UK Government could not stall the Scottish Government for long without expecting a politically damaging court challenge that it would be wise to avoid.

Given the intertwined relationship between reserved and devolved welfare functions, Mr Mundell's side of the story ("sensible, practical arrangements to ensure the transfer of new powers smoothly," he said of the clauses in question) is more persuasive than Mr Swinney's. Perhaps especially so when you consider Nicola Sturgeon's recent demand for the Scottish Government to be given a veto over UK energy policy.

The thrust of that, she said, was to take "a much more collegiate approach to policy-making". As the devolution jigsaw puzzle becomes ever more complex, so calls grow for consultation, consensus and generally joined-up working across a range of areas.

People will disagree on whether the new Scotland Bill reflects this or really does "sell Scotland short".

It's notable, however, that debate about such a significant piece of legislation has, initially at least, been focused so narrowly. Even allowing for the SNP's reluctance to mount a full-blooded campaign for full fiscal autonomy, it would be interesting to hear more about "priority devolution," the Nationalists' call for corporation tax and National Insurance Contributions to be devolved along with more powers over welfare and employment law. The Scottish Government supports targeted cuts in corporation tax and in employers' NI contributions but, so far, has provided neither detailed plans nor estimates of how many jobs it believes would be created. That, we must assume, is for another day.

In the meantime, we know rather more about Labour's proposals to amend the Scotland Bill. Among other things, Edinburgh South MP Ian Murray wants to widen plans to let Holyrood top-up UK benefits, a power which he believes could be limited to providing only short term help under the wording of the Bill.

In a recent blog Professor Adam Tomkins, the Scotland Office's new adviser on the Bill, offered the strongest support possible for the top-up power, describing it as "critical to the success of the Smith package" and criticising the UK Government for omitting from draft legislation produced in January. If Mr Murray has spotted a loophole the government may not be averse to closing it and that could put Labour's sole Scottish MP in the gleeful position of securing more powers for the Scottish Parliament while the SNP's 56 win not a sausage.

The second reading of the Bill is on June 8. Expect a lively House of Commons.