AS David Cameron partook in a bit of electoral cross-dressing by seeking to portray the Tories as the party of working people after Ed Miliband had donned the blue mantle of fiscal responsibility, a constitutional hand-grenade was quietly lobbed into the election campaign.
In among the Conservative manifesto plans for more free child-care, extending the right to buy and locking in a tax-free minimum wage, tucked away at the bottom of page 70 was a small paragraph about the proposal to extend the principle of English consent to financial matters such as how spending is distributed within England.
Now this could be argued this was a corollary of the Prime Minister's beloved English Votes for English Laws(Evel). But there was something more. English consent would, explained the policy document, extend to taxation as well, "including an English rate of Income Tax, when the equivalent decisions have been devolved to Scotland".
Within hours of the independence referendum result, Mr Cameron (in)famously stood on the steps of Downing Street and said, I paraphrase, enough about Scotland, what about England. Evel was born.
The Tory leader's comrades in arms in the referendum battle cried foul but Mr Cameron insisted the English voice now had to be heard.
But after an initial outcry, Downing Street sought to calm fears, insisting the vow to Scotland on more powers would be honoured and that addressing the English Question was not a pre-condition to this. The Smith Commission followed and agreement across all of Scotland's five parties was reached.
A key point of agreement was that income tax remained an issue to be decided by all UK MPs. Fears had been raised that any diminution of Scottish MPs' involvement in the main budgetary matters of the day would lead to them becoming second class citizens at Westminster. So the Commission proposals were published and the way forward settled. Or so we thought.
The implication of an English income tax rate is significant because 85 per cent of taxpayers are from England and once you split off England, then you begin to create a very different United Kingdom.
Professor Jim Gallagher, the constitutional expert, noted how the UK Budget had to add up and if you only had UK MPs deciding on how money would be spent but not on how it would be raised, then this would lead to great instability.
Of course, it could be that if English MPs alone did decide on how English taxes were raised, they would no doubt want to decide alone on how they were spent.
Jim Murphy, the Scottish Labour leader, denounced the PM's move as "belligerent", a betrayal of the Smith Commission agreement - echoing Defence Secretary Michael Fallon's personal attack on Ed Miliband by describing it as "a stab in the back" - and a craven attempt to woo Ukip-leaning Tories back to the fold.
The implication of the Conservative move is, indeed, great; that the UK could be on the way to being splintered.
Mr Cameron in his speech to launch the Tory manifesto stressed how above all else he was a patriot, declaring: "I love my country with all my heart." His critics might now suggest he was, of course, talking about England.
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