For all that the constitution is one of David Cameron’s top priorities, it is odd that not many Conservative MPs seem overly willing to discuss it. Even John Redwood’s blog post this morning takes a distinctly, not to mention disappointingly, non-opinionated view of the matter. John is really just raising a few points up the flagpole to see in which way commenters salute them and, to be fair, a very decent debate followed in the 90+ comments.

So, in the absence of much else exercising my blogging brain these days, I thought I’d also take up the challenge:

1. Should the people of the rest of the UK have any say in the independence of Scotland?

Definitely not. This argument has flummoxed me for quite some time as it is often raised by otherwise sensible people. If England wishes to be independent from the UK, then it is for England to decide. It is the same for Wales, Northern Ireland and, yes, Scotland. Of course negotiations will have an impact on the rest of the UK and, had there been a need for two referendums (as Michael Moore recently suggested and I, more recently, backed him on), then the whole of the UK could arguably have a referendum on the matter but if, as seems very likely, the referendum comes down to a straight Yes/No before detailed negotiations begin, then it is a matter for Scots only to decide.

2. Should there be any financial consequences from Scotland gaining more independence to make her own decisions within the Union settlement?

Against the waves of vagueness that the good ship Independence battles through with each week that rolls on by, this one really is up and over the sides. What exactly the question is getting at we can but wonder.

I suspect there would be financial consequences to Scotland gaining more independence within the Union but, to second-guess what John is getting at, one would hope they wouldn’t be unnecessarily punitive. One does have to wonder if Scotland becoming more independent has subtle detriments. When Lord Green, the UK’s first Trade Minister, is touting for business across the globe on the country’s behalf, he may well have Gillingham in mind ahead of Glasgow, Aberystwyth ahead of Aberdeen and Southampton ahead of Selkirk. It is understandable that those working under the auspices of the Westminster Government don’t even have Scotland in the back of their mind when it comes to British concerns that, under our constitution, should still be fairly considered in a UK context as a whole.

So to answer John’s question, although there probably will be financial consequences for Scotland pulling away on its own, over and above Calman or fiscal autonomy, there shouldn’t be.

3. Should Scotland have more powers to raise her own taxation?

Absolutely. A Parliament that does not have powers to raise its own taxation will inevitably run into problems in terms of democratic accountability and responsible spending. For a long time I had regarded the Scottish Parliament as just another block of Westminster spending, like the NHS, Defra, welfare or what have you. However, I have slowly, too slowly, realised that this is inapplicable and the Scottish Parliament really is a special case when it comes to raising its own budget. There may end up being elected health chiefs, police chiefs and even headmasters in England and Wales before too long but there is still no direct comparison to be made to the Scottish Parliament.

The expense and investment that goes into the NHS, Defra, welfare etc are as a direct result of decisions and policies taken by a Government that has been democratically voted into place. Holyrood spending is dictated by a different party (or parties) to those that were voted into place in Scotland and this leads to problems as we are seeing now where Westminster policy is university fees and Holyrood policy is free tuition, Westminster policy is increased private sector involvement in the NHS and Holyrood policy is to keep health public. That divergence when spending limits are so inextricably linked between the Parliaments is an ultimately unworkable situation.

If a Conservative Government wants to end the supposed ‘grudge and grievance’ politics, then it needs to sever the link between right-of-centre Westminster decisions and left-of-centre Holyrood spending constraints. Indeed, this would end the regular ‘grudge and grievance’ that heads north, the supposed charge that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK. Let’s put it to the test if both sides of the border feel that strongly about it.

4. Do you support the Union or do you think it is time for break-up as the SNP suggest?

Well, I’m shimmying onto the fence here. I’ll make sure I’m in Scotland for the vote and I am currently minded to vote Yes but, as has been pointed out on this blog before (predominantly by James), the lack of detail and blatant gamesmanship surrounding the SNP’s primary proposal may push me back into a No space as there may ultimately be too much to risk by going for it alone, as fun and as fulfilling an adventure it would be.

So that’s my fourpence worth. I guess these four questions could form some sort of meme, not that I’m going to pick anyone out but feel free to answer John’s questions in the comments (or on your blogs). Maybe I should tag Mr Redwood MP himself since (1) he never answered his own questions and (2) he’s significantly closer to the decision-making than any of us here…!