AS revealed in The Herald yesterday, the Constitution Unit's report will give broad backing to the plan produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC) for a Scottish Parliament within the UK.

However, the report opens out the debate about not only what form the Parliament might take, but also some of the more thorny questions surrounding its operation: its backing for the Convention plan, for instance, does not extend to agreeing that the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster should remain the same.

In addition, the report also addresses far more clearly the future role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, an issue which the final Convention plan published last November tended to avoid in detail. While the report does not take issue with the tax raising power proposal, it again looks more closely at the operation of future financial arrangements than the SCC plan.

As a result, three important questions which have still not been fully addressed by the Labour Party return to provoke the debate: the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster; the arrangements for the future funding of a Scottish Parliament; and the role of the Scottish Secretary.

Firstly, the unit's report again raises the possibility of a reduction in the number of MPs that Scotland returns to Westminster. Parity, on a strict population basis would mean a reduction of around 13 MPs in Scotland.

Historically, the over representation has been deemed necessary because of the separate element of parliamentary business required to deal with specifically Scottish legislation and scrutiny of the Scottish Office. With the transferral of powers from the Scottish Office to a future Scottish Parliament this business would disappear from Westminster proceedings and therefore undermine the rationale for this over representation.

However, as Westminster would remain the Union Parliament, so the need for Scotland to be strongly represented there is not diminished.

Some critics of devolution have also attempted to link the number of MPs with the notorious West Lothian Question, and the Constitutional Unit's report acknowledges that it does require consideration.

A reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, however, does not answer the question, it merely makes it more bearable for English MPs.

The second area of concern raised by this new report is over the operation of future funding arrangements. It calls for more transparency in the financial arrangements between the Treasury and a future Scottish Parliament.

This is to be welcomed. The formula approach to the allocation of funds to the Scottish Office is not accompanied with sufficient detail to assess adequately Scotland's financial position. It is widely accepted Scotland has received on average around 120% of the UK average per capita public expenditure over the last few decades. However, this is based on ``identifiable expenditure''.

Currently, the Scottish Block Grant does not correspond exactly to ``identifiable expenditure''.

For example, around 1980 Scotland received about 140% of the average per capita spending on housing. But of course, Scotland had, on average, a higher proportion of council tenants. Conversely, this also meant that with a lower proportion of home owners, Scotland received only 7.4% of UK total mortgage interest tax relief in 1984-86, despite having just over 9% of the UK population.

Such problems have led to the myth that some critics of devolution have put forward in recent years - that of Scotland as a subsidy junkie. It is clear that Scotland received a good public expenditure deal on identifiable expenditure, but in reality it is not clear whether the totality of Government spending leaves Scotland in a preferential position overall.

On the role of the Scottish Secretary, it throws down the gauntlet to Labour. If the Scottish Office responsibilities are taken over by a Scottish Parliament then what can be the role of the Secretary of State? The Constitution Unit makes clear that given that question, the role of the Scottish Secretary as a Cabinet member is unsustainable in the long term.

Overall, the balance of the Constitution unit report adds increasing weight to the proposals put forward by the SCC and the Labour Party. However, it does begin to address operational questions that have yet to be fully debated. If a Labour government is indeed only a matter of months away, then the Labour Party must begin to think now how it might address these questions.

--

MALCOLM DICKSON is a lecturer in politics at Strathclyde University