THE SNP will demand that Scotland keeps all its 59 MPs, with full voting rights at Westminster, as part of its plan for full fiscal autonomy.
The party clarified its position yesterday after an academic paper suggested Scotland's representation in Parliament would come to an end under a devo max system.
The paper, co-authored by Jim Gallagher, a former adviser to the pro-UK Better Together campaign, argues it would be "inconceivable" for Scotland to become fiscally autonomous while the country's MPs retained the right to vote on UK budget decisions.
It said the SNP might have to accept "no or purely symbolic representation at Westminster" as the price for securing full fiscal autonomy.
The SNP rejected the analysis last night.
A party spokesman said: "We support keeping the current 59 seats for Scotland with equal voting rights."
Labour and the Conservatives repeated their outright opposition to full fiscal autonomy, claiming it would effectively end the Union.
Under full fiscal autonomy, all domestic policy-making would be devolved to Holyrood.
Defence, the security services, foreign affairs, macroeconomic policy and a handful of other areas, such as passports, would continue to be reserved to Westminster.
The Scottish Government would rely on taxes raised in Scotland to meet spending commitments in Scotland and make an annual contribution to shared costs such as defence.
The plan was set out in the SNP Government's submission to the Smith Commission last year but the document does not directly address the question of Scotland's representation at Westminster.
In their paper for Nuffield College, Oxford's centre for public policy, Professor Gallagher and Iain McLean, of the British Academy, say minimal tax decisions affecting Scotland would be taken at Westminster and only 13 per cent of the spending benefitting Scotland would be determined by the UK Government.
They write: "In these circumstances, it is inconceivable that Scottish MPs could be allowed to vote on all of England's taxes and spending, but none of Scotland's.
"A precedent already exists for this, and shows pretty clearly what would have to happen.
"Under devo-max or full fiscal autonomy, Scotland would be like the Channel Islands
or the Isle of Man."
The crown dependencies - which are not part of the UK - send no MPs to Westminster.
The study adds: "That is the inevitable logic of devo-max and full fiscal autonomy.
"It is a form not of devolution, but of diluted independence. "No principled UK government could support it."
The academics predict the SNP will seek further economic powers short of full fiscal autonomy as the "immediate fiscal consequences
for Scotland would be catastrophic".
But even then, they argue Scotland might have to accept a reduction in its number of MPs.
"It is a price that nationalist politicians might be willing to pay as a step towards having no or purely symbolic representation at Westminster under fiscal autonomy, and then none at all under independence," they write.
Labour and the SNP have hit back angrily at Conservative plans to bar Scots MPs from voting on income tax rates south of the Border.
The Tories say the move - which is strongly supported by the party's backbenchers - is "fair and right" because income tax rates in Scotland will be set at Holyrood under plans for further devolution devised by the Smith Commission.
Labour claimed the move opened the door to a possible deal between the Tories and SNP over full fiscal autonomy. The claim has been dismissed by
both sides.
A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: "We are a Unionist party which believes in the Union.
"We will not even entertain the notion of full fiscal autonomy because it would end the solidarity that binds our nations together."
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