Originally Posted by Telegraph
Some bad news. You hoped that the referendum on Scottish independence would be an end of the matter. Sorry, no chance. Whatever the result, the Scottish political class is determined to carry on doing what it loves doing most, which is talking about itself, constitutional change and more powers for the Scottish parliament.
All of the parties committed to defending the Union are preparing to announce their own proposals for more devolution in the event of a No vote. The idea is that voters who might be tempted to vote Yes to independence will be persuaded to stick with the UK if they are promised more powers for the devolved Scottish parliament. Put to one side the reality that the parliament hasn't done anything particularly remarkable in the last 15 years with the powers that it already has. Has devolution boosted the Scottish economy? Nope. Has it transformed the education system? Nope. While England has had the academy revolution started by Tony Blair and continued by David Cameron, Scotland has clung to the idea that its unreformed system is superior simply because it is Scottish. Has devolution made much difference on healthcare? Again, not really, no.
These are all difficult subjects – which policy makers have been grappling with in England, or the New York schools system, or in Sweden – but rather than tackle the tough stuff, the Scottish political class finds it easier to stick with the familiar, which involves demanding more powers for itself.
So Gordon Brown is making a speech calling for the Scottish parliament to have control over taxes in Scotland and the Scottish Tories are preparing their own proposals.
If you live in England you may have noticed that something is missing when these speeches are made and policy papers presented north of the border. What is overlooked is England, which is the much bigger partner in the Union.
Since the Scottish parliament first met in 1999, Scotland has continued to send MPs to the Westminster Parliament. While there they vote on English education, health, transport and so on, despite there being a parliament in Edinburgh with MSPs who decide on these matters in devolved Scotland. In this way the Scots get a say on policy in England, while the English get no say on Scotland.
For the most part, all this has been tolerated, with a few grumbles, in England. Perhaps this is down to apathy, boredom or the English tendency (outside the ranks of Ukip) to be slow to anger. Labour's hope is that this will continue to be the case after the next wave of devolution. The party needs all those Labour seats in Scotland and has senior figures in its ranks who want to have careers on the UK and international stage. They want to avoid at all costs any restrictions that might create two classes of MP.
In contrast, to deal with the unfairness, the Tories have flirted in the past with proposals for English-only votes, barring Scottish MPs from voting on English only legislation. But so far they have backed off, for fear that it will allow their opponents to claim they are anti-Scottish.
This stand-off cannot survive more Scottish devolution, particularly when the tax system is going to be involved. Money – in the shape of arguments over finance bills and who pays what and how much for the common good – is the root of so much of modern democratic politics.
What is proposed by Labour is in effect the creation of a Scottish tax system, overseen by the Edinburgh parliament. But Scotland will then send MPs to London to vote on the levels of tax in England. Here we are approaching the outer limits of what is right and sustainable. It woul constitute representation for Scotland without taxation, the reverse of the problem which started the American Revolution.
Unlike that conflict, this one can be resolved calmly if the Westminster parties make realistic proposals which extend devolution to England as well as to Scotland. The Tories, I understand, are starting to think again that any change must involve all parts of the UK.
They are right. English-only bills – certainly on finance – are going to be essential for the smooth running of the UK if the tax system is dismembered, which it seems certain to be. If that is to be done why not go for a more comprehensive settlement, creating a federalist set-up with Westminster MPs sitting as UK MPs looking at foreign affairs etc, and the Commons acting as the English chamber on designated days, where MPs for English seats could vote on devolved English matters?
Welfare will need to be considered too. Scottish Labour seems to want to create a new devolved tax system while leaving welfare payments as they are. This is tricky because tax and benefits are to a considerable degree integrated and I wonder if English voters will buy the idea that Scotland should do its own thing on tax but stick with UK welfare payments. Perhaps the Scottish parliament can pay into the UK pot for social security, or some remaining UK taxes can be hypothecated for welfare, a notion which the Treasury has traditionally resisted.
I wouldn't have started any of this. I like the UK and thought it worked well as it was. But on devolution, we are where we are. All the parties are determined that Scotland should have more powers. I hope they realise that the next constitutional settlement cannot ignore the English question.
