Michael Moore (the Secretary of State for Scotland for those who aren't fully up to speed) has a good article in the Scotland on Sunday preparing the populace and pushing the appeal of the Calman recommendations that the coalition will seek to make law later this year.
It is a persuasive piece, not so much fuelling the reader's imagination as tempering it. Michael states, quite correctly, that "detailed analysis, proper consultation and a substantial cross-party agreement" is required before a change can be made to the devolution arrangement and to this end it is only Calman alone that currently passes each three tests.
This is surely inadequate. One can't prove the merit of a particular proposal by urging the audience to disregard all alternatives. Has anyone anywhere yet argued why Calman is the best solution for Scotland? Not that I have seen. An added oddity is the intriguing fact that the Liberal Democrats have a stated preference for 'Calman Plus' which would see Scotland raise 70% of its own taxes, not the standard 'Calman' which would see us raise only 20% of our own taxes. Even Michael Moore's party doesn't believe that the Calman recommendations is all there is.
I am not suggesting that a higher percentage of raising our own taxes is necessarily better. Following such a philosophy through to its natural conclusion would mean the coalition writing a new law resulting in Scotland raising 100% of its own taxes, a result that perhaps some on the Conservative benches (and all on the SNP benches) would be happy to contribute to. Full fiscal autonomy is my personal preference as it removes all imbalances in the relationship between spending and tax-raising and ensures that the Scottish Government has the appropriate responsibility for its decisions.
So it begs the question - when did Scotland decide that Calman was the best option? Yes, there was a review group of 15 members which of course each will have had a significant (if varying) contribution to make but Calman is hardly the "culmination of an extensive programme of engagement all across Scotland" that our Secretary of State claims.
Where is the consideration of Reform Scotland's call for significantly more fiscal powers? Where is the consideration of fiscal autonomy/responsibility as called for by the Chief Executive of MacDonald hotels, the Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, the Policy Institute, Gerry Hassan, The Spectator's Fraser Nelson, Kwik-Fit founder Tom Farmer, Clyde Blowers Chief Executive Jim McColl and so many more. That is not to mention the SNP of course who forms the Government of Scotland.
In falling short of their own preferences by compromising with Calman, the Liberal Democrats are making the exact same mistake as they made over the AV referendum when they prefer a significantly more proportional voting system to what is on offer. How can we know what Nick Clegg and his party really want if they continue to refuse to stand up for it?
Calman may well be the most popular option amongst Scots as well as amongst 'unionist' politicians but we won't know until we ask them. It's certainly not "the only show in town" when Calman Plus, fiscal autonomy and independence are perfectly viable and woefully under-srcutinised options.
On grandiose claims about self-selecting polls
44 minutes ago
3 comments:
Michael Moore said that, "But changing the constitutional settlement requires detailed analysis, proper consultation and a substantial cross-party agreement.", which is true when looking at constitutional change within the Union but since economists have since trashed the finances of the proposed changes and the remit was written to deliberately exclude the SNP and full cross-party participation I don't think that these are descriptions which can be applied to Calman.
I'm not sure what you mean by Scotland raising, "20% of its own taxes", under Calman. All that Calman does is increase the unused 3p in the pound income tax power which was written into devolution with a 10p in the pound limit.
Scotland can raise the rate of income tax and get to keep the extra or it can lower the rate of income tax and lose that amount from its funding just as it can do now. If you look at the amount of money Scotland gets under Calman rather than the convoluted bureaucratic methods by which Calman proposes to gather the funds then Scotland gets the Barnett formula defined amount of money that it gets currently just as with the current 3p in the pound power because the block grant portion of the Scottish Parliament funding is always calculated under Calman to bring the total up or down to the Barnett formula defined funding level if the tax rates are kept to the UK levels.
There are other minor taxes which the Scottish Government gets to keep under Calman but these too are deducted from the block grant total just as is done for the income tax portion in order to ensure that, what do you think, Scotland gets funded to the current block grant Barnett funded level if income tax rates are kept to the UK level under Calman
Before anyone thinks that Calman gives any fiscal autonomy to Scotland they should read the report and its recommendations.
The problem for all fiscal autonomy happy-clappers is that fiscal autonomy simply will not happen. Within the union Scotland can’t get fiscal autonomy even if Westminster was willing to grant it because Europe doesn’t allow variations in VAT and Corporation tax within states and Westminster would also set the duties for customs and excise. I can also never see Westminster relinquishing control of North Sea oil revenues to a Scottish Parliament.
Most people use the word, "full", when they refer to fiscal autonomy because when they use the phrase fiscal autonomy in the context of the Scottish Parliament what they actually mean is partial fiscal autonomy. One of my bugbears about partial fiscal autonomy is that it is very rare to find anyone who will define what they mean by it. It could be anything from Scotland being allowed to reintroduce the dog license to getting as close to fiscal autonomy as possible while Scotland is still a region in a state. Pushing for partial fiscal autonomy without specifying what taxes are going to fall under the Scottish Parliament’s remit is like campaigning for fairness. Unless you define what you mean it is simply vapourware. "Calman plus", falls under this definition wonderfully as the Lib-Dems haven't come up with any detailed scheme of how it would work beyond Scotland raising, "70% of its own taxes", instead of Calmans 20% which as I've pointed out is meaningless anyway.
It is a simple fact that Westminster will only offer powerful partial fiscal autonomy well above the dog license powers to Scotland when Scotland is close to independence. It will be the unionists last throw of the dice or their hail mary pass as the Americans would say to save the union. However at that point independence will probably be unstoppable.
The conundrum for those who want some form of powerful partial fiscal autonomy but want Scotland to remain in the union is that it can only be gained by supporting a campaign for independence and by the time it's offered it will be too late for the union.
The unionist have to be careful because ceading full fiscal autonomy to Scotland will mean they are throwing away their best cards! If a devolved Scotland gets FFA and we can balance the books and we would, then their default arguments that 'we're too wee, poor, stupid, etc' would be seen as the nonsense it is.
And looking at the evidence of the past few years (Iraq, Afghanistan and now the Lockerbie fiasco) do we really need the UK to do defence and foreign affairs!
I don't think any party in Scotland will ever take over 50% of the vote. When you account for the number of people who will always vote for one party, whichever that may be, I just don't believe there are enough swing voters to carry a party over 50%. Neither the SNP in 2007 nor Labour in 2010 came within danger of breaching this mark, so unless there is something like a Labour/LibDem merger in Scotland, I don't see it happening.
For one thing, 50%+ of the vote for the SNP would be taking us into Unilateral Declaration of Independence territory. While it may change in future, the current levels of support for Scottish independence show that there just isn't enough support for that sort of push.
With Labour still fighting over their Westminster defeat, and the SNP open to criticism after their first term in government, I doubt there will be much decisive swing. I predict 2011 to be a 2003-esque election with seats falling to the minor parties, though this time probably at predominantly Lib Dem and partially Conservative support as people react to the effect of the cuts coming from down south.
2019 is too far ahead to predict. Just look at this year's election - when Brown became PM, it seemed like a fourth term was in the bag and just a year ago a Tory landslide seemed certain. I wouldn't take any creedence of this soothsaying at all. :P
Post a Comment