TODAY'S report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies illustrates one thing above all else: John Swinney secured a great deal for Scotland in negotiating the so-called fiscal framework that lies behind Holyrood's new tax and welfare powers.

The think tank calculates the Scottish Government would have been nearly £1billion a year worse off by the end of the decade had the Finance Secretary accepted the Treasury's first offer.

Even if he had shaken hands on its revised deal, the Scottish Budget would have been lighter by more than £300 million.

The two governments argued for months over how to reduce Scotland's block grant from Westminster to take account of the fact Holyrood will set and retain income tax from next year.

In the end, the Scotland Bill powers were saved only by a last minute and rather convoluted compromise.

The cut will be based on the Treasury's revised mechanism, adjusted to produce the same outcome as Mr Swinney's. As the IFS's report points out, the "compromise" was not really a compromise at all: it was game, set and match to the Finance Secretary; for now, at least.

The deal is due to be reviewed after the next-but-one Holyrood election in 2021.

No changes can be made without a joint agreement between the two governments that will make it hard, if not impossible, for the Treasury to impose its preferred funding mechanism.

But we can expect another battle nonetheless. Despite their agreement earlier this month, the two governments remain at odds over how to interpret the Smith Commission, whose recommendations formed the basis of the Scotland Act.

The Scottish Government says the principle of "no detriment" – that Scotland should not lose out as a result of devolving new powers – is paramount. The Treasury, on the the other hand, has been equally clear it wants "taxpayer fairness" for the rest of the UK. The two principles are incompatible, according to the IFS, so we should expect a fresh round of hard bargaining in five years.