THE package of new powers for Holyrood set out by the Smith Commission are incoherent and unsustainable, leading academics have warned.
Giving evidence to Holyrood's devolution committee, the cross-party process was also criticised for being rushed, leaving too little time for public consultation.
The new powers, revealed last month, have been hailed by pro-union parties as delivering on 'the vow' of further devolution for Scotland, made in the run-up to the independence referendum. However, the SNP and the Greens have criticised the package for not going far enough.
The experts raised concerns over how the devolution settlement, including control of income tax and some responsibility for welfare, would work in practice.
Michael Keating, professor of politics at the University of Aberdeen, said: "I don't think they amount to a coherent package and the fundamental problem is the circumstances in which the Smith Commission was set up and the timetable that it was given.
"This has not allowed the kind of material consideration, public debate, civil society input or research that would be required to put together a coherent set of proposals.
"We know the political circumstances in which the vow was made and the timetable was set, but it doesn't make for good policy-making."
Concern was also raised that the Scottish Parliament could become less independent as a result of the deal.
Professor Nicola McEwen, a politics and devolution expert based at the University of Edinburgh, said: "This increases the powers of the Parliament but at the same time makes the Parliament more dependent in a way, because of the direct interdependencies in tax policy and welfare policy, and that will create some challenges."
She said she believed the agreement was implementable but added: "I don't think it's sustainable."
The UK Government has said that that legislation on devolution is on course to pass by early 2016. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, has said he favours transferring the powers in one batch, with the exception of votes for 16 to 17-year-olds.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has called for the powers which do not require primary legislation to be transferred sooner.
David Bell, professor of economics at the University of Stirling, raised concerns about the transparency of the Barnett Formula, used to distribute central funds between the nations of the UK, and the potential for "gaming" within it.
He said: "There is a need to make the way that the whole system works much more transparent because we're still going to be relatively exposed to decisions made at Treasury level about how the formula works in practice."
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