Who would have thought that a referendum on independence would be this tricky?
We have Calman going through Westminster, Devo Max still floated by nobody but somehow not disappearing and now Devo Plus, the same but different, being pushed to the fore today by former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purves.
Ardent supporters will no doubt largely scoff at this proposal while ardent unionists will largely support it if it means full independence will fail. I just hope that somewhere between the two that a real consideration of what is being proposed takes place as the original document from Reform Scotland that Devo Plus is based upon is an excellent piece of work and is that rare thing – a unionist solution that is sensible, lasting and sustainable.
Devo Plus, if I am not mistaken, will give Scotland control of all of its income tax and corporation tax and fund its own spending accordingly, including control of borrowing powers. So there would be no problems with raising one tax rate but not raising another, no complaints about a one size fits all UK policy on Corporation tax and there would be no limit to spending tomorrow’s money today if the Government of the day decided this was necessary, perish the thought.
It’s such a shame therefore that this option follows the Cameron-esque strategy of being a potential solution ‘if Scotland votes no in a referendum’, a carrot for Scots to aim for while we are beaten with the stick into the No vote. Aside from not having as full a debate as we could do come 2014, this is a mistake tactically for anyone in favour of the United Kingdom remaining in place.
The more options there are before Scots in the referendum then the less likely it is that independence will be the final decision. All things being equal, there is a 50% chance that Scots will vote Yes to independence but if you were to include the clearly defined Devo Plus on the ballot slip, that chance reduces to 33.3*%. Today is a better day for David Cameron than it will be for Alex Salmond.
Devo Plus won’t kill nationalism stone dead. It won’t provide a seat at the EU or the UN or give Scotland a fairer share of MEPs for example and it won’t remove nuclear weapons from north of the border, and there will always be a sizeable element of Scots campaigning for those things and more besides.
But for this once-in-a-generation referendum and for those Nationalists who will be satisfied with nothing short of full independence, this Devo Plus has the potential to be a game changer.
*recurring
#1 by Gregor on February 28, 2012 - 1:09 pm
But it’s not going to be on the ballot paper, is it?
#2 by Jeff on February 28, 2012 - 1:13 pm
I still think there’s a strong chance that it will be and, even if it isn’t, if Devo Plus more closely matches what Scots want, it would only take a small slice of them to vote No and patiently wait for ‘jam tomorrow’ to move a nominal Yes result into a narrow No result.
Not that we even have a nominal Yes result at this stage.
#3 by Gregor on February 28, 2012 - 1:16 pm
But how? With the UK Govt so against it?
#4 by Jeff on February 28, 2012 - 1:26 pm
How what? How will it end up in the referendum?
I think Salmond, not unreasonably, is keen to have a fall back ‘result’ that he can bank as a legacy and Devo Plus would fit the bill well enough. So the Scottish Government could fold it into the ballot slip and I don’t see how the UK Govt could prevent that from taking place.
I also don’t believe the UK government would be as against it as you make out. Is there much difference between the Treasury having some bizarre funding block for Scotland and Scotland just spending the money it raises? I can’t find it frustratingly but I’m sure there was a poll that showed 90%+ support amongst 2010 Tory candidates for fiscal autonomy for Scotland. So no, I don’t see how Devo Plus is a problem for Cameron.
#5 by Indy on February 28, 2012 - 1:49 pm
No, how would it end up being the fallback position.
No-one in a position of leadership has yet endorsed Devo Plus or Devo Max or Devo Somewhere In the Middle.
The Scottish Government really can’t include it on the ballot paper if there is no commitment to make it happen. If Cameron comes out in favour of it then that is fine but if he doesn’t then we can’t ask people to vote for a pig in a poke.
#6 by Paul Cairney on February 28, 2012 - 2:00 pm
Is there a discussion in the plan about the likelihood of the EU/ UK allowing differences in corporation tax within member states? Northern Ireland still seems to be in the balance – http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/corporation-tax-devolution-for-northern-ireland-does-anyone-care-how-much-corporation-tax-is-generated-there/
#7 by gavin on February 28, 2012 - 2:00 pm
Purvis does NOT want Devo Plus on the ballot so there is still room for Devo Max.
#8 by BaffieBox on February 28, 2012 - 2:01 pm
Im with Jeff in that it has potential to be a game changer… but only if the UK parties take it seriously, and soon. Currently, it only has support from some outriders. Until it’s adopted as policy by the three main parties, it’ll only be an outside chance.
I think the token support from individuals from the three parties is an organised tactic of giving the campaign credibility so that they can call on it if independence campaign is looking strong. Expect this to stay on the back burner until, and if, the UK parties need a get out of jail card.
How else do you interpret the parties of devolution refusing to officially endorse a solid, but modest, upgrade to devolution? Devo Plus might be the fallback of Salmond currently, but it serves exactly the same purpose for the other parties.
The middleground as a compromise or stalemate… who’d have thunk it!
#9 by FormerChampagneSocialist on February 28, 2012 - 2:08 pm
Devo Plus would be a step in the right direction. Rather than trying to get it on the ballot paper, the Unionist parties would be smart to adopt it now and implement DP via the Scotland Bill. I suspect, however, that Labour’s current strain of die-hard ultra-unionism will prevent this from happening. No wonder Eck looks so cheery at the moment.
#10 by Jeff on February 28, 2012 - 2:47 pm
I agree. Carrying on as if the referendum isn’t taking place and being visibly seen to put into practice improved unionism is perhaps the smartest move, from a unionist perspective.
#11 by James on February 28, 2012 - 2:24 pm
I take responsibility for the picture of DEVO, by the way. Don’t blame Jeff.
#12 by Indy on February 28, 2012 - 4:32 pm
That brought back memories. Yes I am that old.
#13 by Allan on February 28, 2012 - 8:45 pm
Apparently “Today” interviewed the singer of Devo about Devo-max a couple of weeks ago…
#14 by Ken on February 28, 2012 - 2:52 pm
Devolution Plus, Reform Scotland Sept 2011 – p9
“Income tax and corporation tax we believe should be devolved in their entirety to avoid confusion and duplication. These taxes can also be altered to achieve economic levers for growth within a region and create a healthy environment of fiscal competition in which Scotland can retain and attract new business”
Since this essentially calls for an overhaul of the UK’s structure into a Federal State where equal sub-states can set their own rate (Germany’s Federal Model also has a variable corporation tax rate with a floor of 15% plus various regional additions on top I believe), this issue goes way beyond the Scottish independence issue and brings the Northern Ireland and Welsh Devolved Governments into play. (I don’t really see how this could work without such an overhaul.)
Can anyone see a Conservative Government having the proactive foresight to take this huge UK wide change?
#15 by ReasonableNat on February 28, 2012 - 5:27 pm
No, absolutely not, and that is the real problem. For Westminster this is, and probably always will be, an annoying distraction that can be largely ignored. They will not make the effort to restructure the UK at the request of Scotland. This would not happen until there was irresistible political pressure, such pressure does not exist. There may be a fair amount of grumbling about unfairness and subsidy down south, but turning the UK into a de facto federation is, I stongly suspect, something that the vast majority of English MPs just (to be frank) couldn’t be bothered getting around to.
In reality the destination is independence, if not at this referendum, then at the one that follows it, and as a result of the promise of ‘consideration’ of more powers having been proven to be a lie.
#16 by Zetland on February 28, 2012 - 3:41 pm
Not entirely the point, but I don’t agree with the statement that Scotland is underrepresented vis a vis the number of MEPs allocated to it.
At present is a valid apportionment on the basis of a proportion of the population of the UK. The suggestion of parity with the situation of comparable EU Member States whilst Scotland remains part of the UK is misguided, given the number of MEPs allocated to the Member State is based on the population of the Member State as a whole (roughly). By extending the logic to the other Parliamentary Regions of the UK, we would quickly run out of seats to allocate.
Obviously following independence and accession there would have to be a recalculation of the seats – and here based on some of the more recent discussions which have taken place in the European Parliament on a possible formula for apportioning seats on the basis of degressive proportionality Scotland would be due somewhere in the region of 11 seats – but until then there isn’t a case for reworking the allocation.
#17 by Jeff on February 28, 2012 - 5:17 pm
Why do you make the comparison only across the UK when the European Parliament covers all of Europe? I’m not arguing for a reallocation of seats within the UK; I’m saying that Devo Plus doesn’t right the perceived wrong of Scotland not having a fair share of MEPs in a continental context.
For me, and I don’t want to sound too much like a pompous git, but that Scotland is underrepresented at the European Parliament is simply unarguable in light of this blog post:
Slovakia has a population of 5.4m people and is represented by 14 MEPs.
Finland has a population of 5.3m and is represented by 14 MEPs.
Ireland has a population of 4.4m people and is represented by 13 MEPs.
Lithuania has a population of 3.3m people and is represented by 13 MEPs.
Latvia has a population of 2.2m people and is represented by 9 MEPs.
Slovenia has a population of 2m people and is represented by 7 MEPs.
Estonia has a population of 1.3m people and is represented by 6 MEPs.
Scotland has a population of 5.2m pople and is represented by a mere 6 MEPs.
Independence clearly comes with clout.
#18 by Zetland on February 28, 2012 - 6:19 pm
Only because that is how the seats are allocated in a practical sense, i.e. Member States are allocated x number of seats, which are then distributed between y regions (if a regional approach is used in the Member State).
The problem with taking the approach used on the blogpost is that it isn’t comparing like with like: when you are distributing the seats between Member States there is a base number, beyond which you are allocated seats on the basis of population (6 under Art. 14(2) TEU). This artificially inflates the seats allocated to smaller Member States, in order to allow them to be represented in a ‘fairer’ manner. When Scotland is allocated seats at present it is done on the basis of an internal distribution of a bloc of seats, which is very different and on purely percentage of population terms, appears appropriate.
Taking the blogpost further, you can make a similar argument, for example, for the South West European Parliament Region which also has 6 MEPs and a population of 4.0m people, or the Massif-Centre in France which has 5 MEPs and 3.3m people.
A more problematic situation perhaps would be something like the Spanish or German set-up, where there are no regions at all!
#19 by Zetland on February 28, 2012 - 6:23 pm
Also sorry on the point about clout, obviously more MEPs is better, but this has to be balanced against the position in the Council, where a strict measure of population holds the key. Not to open up a debate on Council representation though!
#20 by Iain Menzies on February 28, 2012 - 7:47 pm
I think the clout argument might have been better made if you hadnt mentioned Ireland…..
Also, Scotland isn’t under-represented. ‘Scotland’ isnt represented at all….the UK is, but then your a smart man and you know this…..you don’t think that the EU electoral region should have more MEP’s, you think that Scotland should have MEP’s.
Zetland is right because he makes the comparison on the basis of the EU as is, in that Nation states, as opposed to nations are represented.
#21 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 12:54 pm
Ar you suggesting that Scotland has more clout than Ireland in a European context? I would disagree.
#22 by Doug Daniel on February 29, 2012 - 9:51 am
Spot on, Jeff. Although you’ve missed the three smallest nations – Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg – all of whom have populations smaller than Glasgow, yet have the same number of MEPs as we do.
There’s one other power in the EU which everyone forgets (and I only just noticed it myself when checking the MEP numbers): votes in the EU council. An independent Scotland could expect to have a vote weighting in the council of 7, in line with the weighting Lithuania, Finland, Slovakia and Ireland get. Unionists would claim that the UK’s weighting of 29 – the top weighting – is proof of the power we get as a result of being in the UK; but while our 6 MEPs are free to vote differently from the rest of the UK’s MEPs, that weighting of 29 is all or nothing. It’s one vote, not 29, so if something is in the interests of London but not Scotland, tough luck.
Your last sentence pretty much sums up the whole point of gaining independence. People may make disparaging comments about smaller countries that they think are less advanced than the UK, but the fact is people still need to get these smaller countries on board. Not so with Scotland, which is effectively just a bit of the UK.
Even tiny wee Malta has more international clout than us.
#23 by Chris on February 28, 2012 - 4:48 pm
This is much closer to what I actually want than anything else I have seen on the table. Maybe people could vote for what they want rather than regard everything as a tactical battle.
If we had a full STV vote I would go for
1. Devo Plus
2. Status Quo
3. Independence
4. Devo Max
5. No Devo
#24 by Iain Menzies on February 28, 2012 - 7:49 pm
Why in that order?
#25 by Doug Daniel on February 29, 2012 - 9:33 am
Eh? You’d vote for:
1. A little change
2. No change
3. Complete change
4. Lots of change
5. Turn the clock back 15 years
Seems a bit odd…
#26 by Chris on February 29, 2012 - 2:47 pm
Ok
Current set-up is okay but the pocket money set-up is bad, even worse than it is for council’s.
So Devo-plus is definite improvement on current set-up.
What we have just now works, but is blighted by the ‘pocket money’ problem. Devo plus is a definite improvement.
Devo-Max looks (or can look or can look like anything you want it to) to have all the worst aspects of independence (different benefit levels, duplication of institutions and administration) with none of the actual benefits (separate representation, no Trident (mibbees, just mibbees)). It looks like a pretty shite compromise as far as I can see.
Both independence and devo-max would be preferable to direct rule.
Logical no?
#27 by Iain Menzies on February 29, 2012 - 10:34 pm
With the exception of your position on direct rule, i cant disagree with anything you’ve said.
Personally id bump your 4th and 5th up a place each, and stick indy in…..well best not say where.
#28 by Doug Daniel on March 1, 2012 - 9:59 am
Well, apart from the fact that I’m not entirely clear why being able to set our own levels of benefits is a bad aspect of independence (and therefore devo max too), I can certainly see the logic in your ordering. Based on your ideas of what each means, of course.
#29 by Dr William Reynolds on February 28, 2012 - 5:36 pm
Not clear whether DEvo plus has actually been defined and is clearly understood and agreed on by everyone.I am also not sure why Jeff belives that the unionist parties would want it ,or deliver it,in spite of Jeremy Purvis (allegedly) being excited by it.
Personally,I don’t care what Jeremy Purvis wants.I have always believed that independence is a normal and natural way of being.With independence,Scotland can achieve a prosperous economy,a just society,the opportunity to take part in international institutions, and an ability to determine our future.As we are beginning to recognise,devolution means that powers devolved can be taken back.While I am not a devolutionist,I will go along with any change that moves in the direction of independence.However,I will not hold my breath since the only thing that will motivate Westminster to offer more decision making powers to Scotland will be a political challenge to unionist parties.Unfortunately,I have observed that anything given is given reluctently,and is the minimium that the unionist party in power,feels that they can get away with.
#30 by Brian Nicholson on February 28, 2012 - 7:41 pm
I think all this speculation is moot. Salmond and the SNP are offering a third option for political purposes and are waiting for the civic to propose it officially and then for the unionists to reject it out of hand.
That way Salmond can appeal to the soft YES and soft NO voters equally. He can state that he tried to find a way to a third option but the the nasty Westminster lot will never give up their control of Scotland. He will make it a clear vote between an aspirational and independent Scotland or more decades of London Tory control.
It is my view that given that scenario, the YES vote will definitely take the day.
#31 by ReasonableNat on February 29, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Agreed!
#32 by EphemeralDeception on February 28, 2012 - 8:57 pm
Jeff I am surprised you missed the sting in the tail here?
There is no way this has got any legs whatsover and is just the brainchild of the usual unionist cabal in a guise of a ‘think tank’.
However why does it not have legs?
They surely cannot be serious that Scotland will be responsible four our share of the UK debt but only have control over some taxes and spending. Who on Earth would vote for that if they actually realise it is what is proposed?
It like giving part of your income to your neighbour to spend on what they want, they get into debt and then they charge you back for their overspend which you have no control over.
What a great democratic plan that is – not.
#33 by EphemeralDeception on February 28, 2012 - 9:17 pm
This proposal is preposterous on another level.
I think we can agree that there is some friction between Scotland and England based on which revenue is raised where, where and what it is spent on, and accountability of parliament(s) base don their policies.
It is totally feasible that Scotland determines, fully, its puclic finance incomes and expenditure while paying into the UK for shared services. Just like any Company with multiple business units.
Accountability, responsibility, increased devolvement ‘subsiduarity’, reduced tensions and a modern UK emerges.
The problem with this (for the uniionits) is its transparency.
Therefore DEV Plus is just Calman+. And Dev plus is the same game of fiscal obfuscation and steganography.
Not going to happen.
Right now the uk has things backwards and the unionists are fighting to keep it that way and if one way fails (Calman) then another emerges. Calman is on record staying that fiscal autonomy for Scotland will end the union. Why is that? What would it reveal to arrive at this conclusion?
#34 by Craig Gallagher on February 28, 2012 - 10:44 pm
I have been outside Scotland for a little while, admittedly, and in some respects you lot have been my barometer on the mood of the country as the debate progresses (along with the militant strains of Nattery and Yooyunry doing the rounds on the web) but I can’t help but think Devo Plus is going to prove to be too little, too late. I’m absolutely convinced Salmond let the Devo Max genie out of the bottle because he knows the Scots always want to have their cake and eat it too. Being offered the cake as an ornament isn’t going to wash anymore.
#35 by Craig Gallagher on February 28, 2012 - 10:44 pm
Also, apologies for the mixed metaphors. It’s been a long day.
#36 by Barbarian on February 28, 2012 - 11:37 pm
The SNP leadership intend to have Devo Max on the ballot paper. That from an extremely reliable source. (and no I am not naming anyone either, it is reliable and I don’t care if people believe me or not – and the source is an ardent nationalist).
Salmond won’t put it on the table yet, since there is always the chance that support for independence will rocket. That cannot be denied, politics as they are. Likewise, support for the SNP could plummet if there is a major cockup in Governement, plus there is the “Sun” issue to be factored in. Chances are things will sit generally the same as now.
Devo Max gives both nationalists and unionists a lifeline, since neither side at the moment has anything near absolute support.
#37 by Doug Daniel on March 1, 2012 - 10:20 am
Devo max is no lifeline. If it appears on the ballot and wins, it will not be implemented. This will lead to mass outrage at the union, and people who supported devo max will suddenly realise that devolution is not about empowering Scotland, but about Westminster retaining control, like one of those dog leads that extends but can be shortened at the click of a button if the dog is becoming too restless.
So for unionists, it is a death wish. For nationalists, it is just another pawn.
#38 by Jeff on March 1, 2012 - 10:31 am
So cynical for one so young 😉
If Devo Plus, or Devo Max (whatever that actually is), is the clear preference of Scots in a fair and free referendum, it is difficult to realistically imagine the UK Government of the day implementing anything other than that.
“mass outrage”/”dog leads” – I think you’re getting a bit carried away to be honest.
#39 by Doug Daniel on March 1, 2012 - 12:11 pm
They’ll drag their heels, delay as much as possible, decide to set up a commission to decide exactly how it should be implemented and conveniently coming back with barely more than the Scotland Bill, claim it was really a vote for the status quo rather than a vote for devo max, say people were voting for an idea rather than specific policies… I don’t know how they would do it, but they would.
When I say “mass outrage”, I’m not talking poll tax style demonstrations or revolts, just the complete wiping out of unionist MPs in the 2016 UK election, and a clear mandate for the SNP to have another go, but this time with the knowledge that nothing short of independence will give us the powers we seek, along with a huge chunk of “hmmm, independence is a step too far” voters from the referendum realising “devolution isn’t far enough”.
As for dog leads, that’s just because I like strange metaphors 😛
#40 by Iain Menzies on March 1, 2012 - 8:11 pm
I think the problem with your position is that you are coming from a position that seems to treat anyone who doesn’t want Scotland to leave the union as, well, being anti Scottish.
The only way that anything close to what you are suggesting happening actually happening is if the referendum is illegal.
At which point you would see more powers going to Holyrood, rightly or wrongly, even if not the whole Devo Max/Plus/Ultimo….
As for wiping out unionist MP’s. That’s just wishful thinking.
#41 by Doug Daniel on March 2, 2012 - 1:21 am
Sorry, when did I say people who don’t want Scotland to be independent are anti-Scottish, or even hint towards that? I’m simply stating that the UK government will not implement devo max, or anything approaching it. You may be paranoid about how people perceive your reasons for being against independence, but don’t go trying to paint me with that particular brush, thanks.
As for illegality being the only way that we would see the scenario I paint arising, I’m glad you brought that up! There’s your first major piece of heel-dragging right there – demanding that Scots don’t get to vote on devo max, and that if we want further devolution, we need to chuck away our only bargaining chip first.
Let’s face it, if unionists were really in favour of any of the devolution settlements they’re going to come up with over the next couple of years, they wouldn’t have needed Calman to tell them what needs to be devolved, and they certainly wouldn’t be putting through the pitiful Scotland Bill just now. They’d be making these changes now. They’d be leading the debate. They’d have avoided the SNP even getting to power because people would have been satisfied with how Holyrood was progressing. But none of those things happened, because they are not really in favour of the devolution of these powers, they just want to devolve as little power as they can get away with in order to preserve the union. Devolution is not about empowering Scotland – it’s about getting us to shut up about independence, as the Lord of Port Ellen admitted all those years ago.
Why are we not seeing these powers being devolved NOW? If further devolution is really the most popular option in Scotland, then implementing that now – which they can do, because the Scotland Bill is still at the amendments stage – would remove that chunk of potential independence support. There is only one reason – because they are banking on people voting NO, and then not having to make these changes. They don’t want to make the changes, only to realise that independence support really was as low as they say it is, and then wonder if they’d have gotten away with devolving LESS power.
As for my wishful thinking – remember the Tories in 1997 and the Lib Dems in 2011. Remember how many FPTP seats the SNP won in 2011. I would be very careful about blithely assuming Scotland can’t and won’t do the same to both again – and Labour for the first time – in 2016 if those three parties are deemed to have conspired to mislead the country, by encouraging us to vote “no” in 2014 for what turns out to be a pathetic devolution settlement.
#42 by ianbeag on February 29, 2012 - 9:47 am
All those presenting and discussing the Devo+ proposal have neatly avoided any mention of Scotland’s bountiful resource in the North Sea. Can we assume that all proceeds from that quarter will continue to flow uninterrupted into the Treasury and by pass Scotland as happens now? It was noticeable also that in last night’s Newsnight examination of the subject Gordon Brewer maintained the BBC’s compliance of total loyalty to the Union by not raising the question. Would you like to have a go Jeff?
#43 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 12:53 pm
Oil money flowing into the UK Treasury isn’t “bypassing Scotland”, but I agree that allocating oil revenues on a ‘geographical basis’ as the Devo Plus team put it is disappointingly vague.
I’m not convinced that there is strong support out there for Scotland to get to spend the lion’s share of the oil revenues, despite it coming from Scotland’s shores. There’s more of an egalitarian spirit out there than perhaps some Nationalists would like.
I’m pretty ambivalent, but I do think the money in the past decades has been wasted, which is a great shame when you look at Norway, for example.
#44 by Angus McLellan on March 3, 2012 - 1:19 am
How is “geographic” vague? It may mean arguments about the geography – no Scottish government would accept Blair’s “Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order” as being valid if it impacted funding and neither should they since no UK external maritime boundary is drawn in such a way – but the term itself is clear enough: one side of a line is Scotland, the other isn’t (and those things which straddle the line are shared).
#45 by Doug Daniel on February 29, 2012 - 10:25 am
Let’s not get too excited about Devo Plus. Twitter comments from Patrick Harvey (“So in short, #devoplus is just another formula for financing Holyrood; not a jot more actual *political* devolution?”) and Mark Ruskell (“Seems @devoplus would have been an interesting option for the referendum in 1997, but not for 2014”) pretty much sum Devo Plus up for me, and as Patrick said last night on Scotland Tonight, it’s just about the budget and there’s nothing about, for example, business regulation. Are we really so unambitious that we’ll settle for that? I don’t think so.
Devo Plus seems to me to be the settlement we should have started devolution with. It’s less “Devo Plus” and more “Scotland Bill Mark II”, which is a hint as to how this should be followed up if the group behind it are serious. Their “What is Devo Plus?” page (which lists SEVEN possible constitutional arrangements – talk about death by choice) puts Devo Plus ahead of the current situation and the Scotland Bill. Effectively, they are saying that the Scotland Bill is not good enough. So why are we bothering with it? If unionists are truly so convinced that the current devolution settlement is not good enough, why are they not taking the opportunity to improve it? The Scotland Bill is a dead duck, yet we’re persevering with it. I just don’t understand that. It would be like the third little pig building his house with sticks, even though he’s already seen that the big bad wolf can blow a stick house down. He knows he needs to use bricks, but he’s saying “no, I decided I would use sticks, so I’m going to continue.”
One very large problem with Devo Plus is the idea that you can separate out taxation and spending so precisely. They’re saying that ALL the money Holyrood spends comes from income tax, corporation tax and oil revenues (lots of luck getting Westminster to devolve those), and that the spending for reserved issues (defence, foreign affairs, welfare and pensions) are fully funded through national insurance, VAT and “other small taxes”. I’m not convinced. Surely the whole point of having a variety of taxes is that it builds up into a big pot, and it is then the government’s decision how to divvy it up between departments? This looks almost like ring-fencing. I’ve often wondered if itemised tax bills – showing you exactly where money is spent so you can decide for yourself if you think it is appropriate – or even having separate taxes for each area of spending (“defence tax”, “pensions tax”, “education tax” etc) would work, but I don’t think they’ve quite thought this through.
What interested me is the revelation (maybe it’s not for other people) on Newsnicht that the EU does not allow VAT to be varied across a single member state. So it’s official then: VAT will never be devolved. Ever. Hardly a deal breaker, but it does highlight the fact that devolution is very limited.
Oh, and according to the Devo Plus website, you’re not really independent if you have a currency union. So the 17 Eurozone states are not actually independent countries. Someone had better tell them that.
#46 by Doug Daniel on February 29, 2012 - 10:26 am
Oh, and neither are any of the countries which have the Queen as head of state. So Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc: you’re not actually independent. You think you are, but you’re not, because Jeremy Purvis says so.
#47 by Alasdair Stirling on February 29, 2012 - 1:00 pm
Enhanced devolution (Max or Plus) cannot and will not be a referendum question. It is all very well for the Scots to decide to unilaterally unstitch the Union; it is quite another thing for them to unilaterally impose massive constitutional changes on the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, any change to the devolution settlement must have the sanction of the whole UK electorate (either by including the changes in a UK election manifesto or by means of a UK wide referendum). The idea that the Scots can unilaterally decide on the terms of their continued participation in the UK is just fanciful and/or wishful thinking and all of the players in the game know this. Incidentally, this is why the UK government cannot use the current Scotland Bill to substantially increase the scope of devolved powers (as set out in the 2011 SNP manifesto and sanctioned by the Scottish electorate) – only the Calman powers have received the sanction of the UK electorate.
Why then does Alex Salmond make so much of putting a Devo-Max/Plus question to the Scottish people? Precisely because he knows that the UK government cannot agree to such a question being offered to the Scots unilaterally; and faced with a unilateral Scottish vote for enhanced devolution the UK government must either reject the demand or put it as a proposal to the UK electorate as a whole. For Alex Salmond a Devo-Max/Plus question is a cleft stick with which he beat David Cameron around the head – imaging the reaction in Scotland to the UK Government/electorate rejecting a Scottish vote demanding Devo-Max/Plus.
To win an independence referendum, the SNP must ensure that the Scots are offered only a between status-quo/Calman OR independence – Devo-Max/Plus question is a kiss of death for independence. However, it is not enough for the SNP themselves to rule out enhanced devolution. To ensure that the Unionists cannot successfully run their ‘jam tomorrow’ strategy the SNP must force the Unionists themselves to kill off Devo-Max/Plus. By far the best (and perhaps the only) way for the SNP to do this is to pressurize the Unionists into defining and setting out the specifics of enhanced devolution. Who would have thought that Messrs Purvis, Scott, Fergusson and McNeil would lend so much help to the SNP cause?
#48 by Colin Dunn on February 29, 2012 - 1:54 pm
“It is all very well for the Scots to decide to unilaterally unstitch the Union; it is quite another thing for them to unilaterally impose massive constitutional changes on the rest of the people of the United Kingdom.”
Except that no-one seriously believes that voting for Devo Max/+/Lite automatically gives Scotland the right to impose it on the UK, surely? All it would be is a vote giving the Scottish government the authority to negotiate for this constitutional change on behalf of the electorate. Westminster would still be able tell them to b*gger off. At which point there might then be another referendum and a convincing vote for full independence.
#49 by Galen10 on February 29, 2012 - 2:37 pm
Am I the only one who finds the pathology of those who insist that the rest of the UK “MUST have a say” (like our misguided friend Alasdair above) fascinating?
There is a certain mind set amongst some Unionists, both in England and Scotland, which seems to see red at the very thought of Scots deciding things for themselves. If it isn’t calls for expats to be given the vote, they insist we can only have independence if England graciously agrees; we are somehow beholden to take account of the wishes of the English, welsh and NI people..and will of course be responsible for the sky falling down.
You honestly couldn’t make it up!
Devo “X” isn’t the kiss of death for independence, any more than devolution was in 1997… another prediction which is a hostage to history if ever I heard one! Even in the unlikely event that Devo “X” ever gets off the ground, it is simply independence deferred…. the logic of full fiscal autonomy will never sit comfortably within the current structure of the UK, and the current political elites don’t have the finesse, the gumption or the stomach to make it so!
#50 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 3:10 pm
No, you’re not alone. I don’t believe the rest of the UK agreeing on Devo Plus is necessary, particularly if they were content not to have a say in what would replace the Barnett Formula. Also, a referendum is only ever advisory and MPs, all MPs, would be voting on whatever legislation would flow from the result.
Politics is the art of the possible and I don’t see too many south of the border complaining too much at the idea of Scotland spending what it earns.
#51 by Ken on February 29, 2012 - 3:46 pm
“I don’t believe the rest of the UK agreeing on Devo Plus is necessary,”
Surely it’s extremely necessary as Devo Plus is everything to do with the structure of the UK as a whole? (i.e varying corp tax levels throughout its regions)
#52 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 5:42 pm
I really don’t agree. How Scotland is funded does impact on the rest of the UK but I just don’t think that necessarily means that the rest of the UK has to vote for it if the Government judges that the rest of the UK largely doesn’t mind or, indeed, are quite satisfied with the arrangement.
As I said before, the Scotland Act is all set to change how Scotland receives its funding but I don’t see rUK getting a say on the final outcome, other than via their MPs voting on the legislation, which they will/would have to do on Devo Plus anyway.
#53 by Alasdair Stirling on February 29, 2012 - 6:02 pm
Calman reported before the 2010 UK general election (and the previous UK Government published a White Paper based on his recommendations). More importantly, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos put before the UK electorate in 2010 included commitments to implementing the widely published Calman proposals. Accordingly, the changes that will be implemented by current Scotland Bill have the sanction of a UK wide general election majority.
#54 by Alasdair Stirling on February 29, 2012 - 5:49 pm
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not ‘see red at the very thought of Scots deciding things for themselves’ and can see no reason why anyone other than the Scots should have a say on whether Scotland continues within the Union. Nor do I think that if Scotland does decide to leave end the Union that that decision is subject to approval from anyone else.
The point that I was trying make is: that any change in the arrangements for the government of a continuing United Kingdom has to be agreed by all of the people of the United Kingdom. We can see the imperative of this by looking at it the opposite way round. Imagine the anger that the Scots would feel were the voters of England to decide by a vote amongst themselves to abolish Scots law or the Scottish parliament.
I am all for the Scots making their own decisions, but if we decide to remain within the Union we must understand that we are a minority within the UK and have to respect the rights of its other citizens. Accordingly, we can decide unilaterally to leave the UK, but we cannot decide to remain in the UK and also unilaterally set the terms and conditions upon which we will remain part of the UK.
#55 by Galen10 on March 1, 2012 - 12:28 pm
Your example is flawed. Let’s assume for the moment that the Scottish people people vote “No” in 2014 in a str8 yes/no referendum. The appetite for “more” devolution is unlikely to evaporate, and given the majority clearly want more devolution, even if they reject independence, the issue will have to be addressed somehow.
Are you suggesting that the population of the rUK have a direct say. i.e. that further devolution (or indeed for that matter independence) could be vetoed by English voters?
Isn’t that akin to the Spanish government saying that as Spain is a unitary state the Basques or Catalans can’t secede even if they want to?!
It is in reality vanishingly unlikely that any UK administration would try (whether via direct popular vote in a referendum or indirectly via vote of MP’s in Westminster) to over-rule or refuse ANY reasonable scheme for Devo Plus, Devo Max, Devo Midi or whatever, because by doing so they would sign the death warrant of the Union.
Independence may not be inevitable, but more devolution almost certainly is. The English, Welsh or NI people have no more right to dictate the amount of devolution than they do to veto independence. If the find some future plan for more devolution a bridge too far, then they (presumably through their MP’s) are quite at liberty to state the maximum level they will accept. No doubt the Scottish people can make their own minds up about whether those terms are acceptable, and whether the Union should be dissolved.
Scotland is not trying to “impose” anything on England or rUK, nor is it attempting to take away anything equivalent to the Scottish legal system or parliament in your example above.
In summary we are QUITE entitled to unilaterally state our terms for remaining in the Union short of actual independence; the issue would be what would happen if the rUK found that unacceptable.
#56 by Alasdair Stirling on March 1, 2012 - 7:39 pm
“Are you suggesting that the population of the rUK have a direct say. i.e. that further devolution (or indeed for that matter independence) could be vetoed by English voters?”
I explicitly said that a Scottish vote for independence would not be subject to ratification, approval or any other form of sanction by anyone. However, I cannot see how we could reasonably expect the English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens of the UK to acceed to our Devo-Max/Plus demand for continuing membership of the Union.
I think your summary contemplates an ‘agree or else’ strategy whereby Scotland unilaterally decides on Devo-Max/Plus and then demands that all of the other UK citzens accept our terms against the threat of our breaking up the Union. However, it would appear that the Unionists are already considering this prospect. If they are successful in demanding a single In/Out question, Scotland will have re-committed itself to the Union before deciding on Devo-Max/Plus thereby denying us this sort of agree or else strategy.
#57 by Alex Buchan on February 29, 2012 - 7:48 pm
Very well put Galen
#58 by rullko on March 1, 2012 - 12:43 pm
<i.Devo “X†isn’t the kiss of death for independence, any more than devolution was in 1997… another prediction which is a hostage to history if ever I heard one! Even in the unlikely event that Devo “X†ever gets off the ground, it is simply independence deferred…. the logic of full fiscal autonomy will never sit comfortably within the current structure of the UK, and the current political elites don’t have the finesse, the gumption or the stomach to make it so!
The biggest difference between this time and 1997 is that independence is going to be on the ballot. Voters have never directly endorsed the Union before, but that still doesn’t stop some Unionists arguing that the result of every Westminster election – or, even better, the 1997 referendum – represented a rejection of independence. Imagine what will happen if independence really is rejected?
If we’re offered the opportunity to vote for independence, and choose not to do so in favour of devo max/min/plus/minus/cubed, we are, for the first time, accepting that the final say on Scotland’s constitution lies with the UK. Once we’re in that hole, how would we ever get out?
By the way, the nesting of comments on the site is pretty confusing. At whom, for example, is Alasdair’s “exactly” at #50 addressed? Is there an easy way to tell?
#59 by Galen10 on March 2, 2012 - 8:30 am
A no vote to independence in 2014 would be a set-back, but you are deluded if you think it would be “game over”. The final say on Scotland’s constitution lies with the Scottish people; any attempt by Unionist/English politicians to paint a no vote in 2014 as definitive would not be valid under international law (altho only the most ridiculous fringe would try to argue that I suspect), but would also fan the flames of dissatisfaction.
There IS a danger for the anti-independence movement in NOT having a detailed, positive alternative in place, whether it appears on the 2014 ballot or not. People won’t fall for the “jam tomorrow” ploy again, and given the total disarry in the Devo camp (think of the nonentities fronting it, and the fact that they can hardly bear to share a platform).
If as seems likely the SNP start moving towards a majority of Scottish seats in Westminster as well as at Holyrood, and if more devolution is denied them (whether as a re-run of the 1979 Jam Tomorrow lie, or simply because the Devo brigade have no organisation, no champion, and no hope of getting it thru Westminster), the Scottish people will be able to draw their own conclusions. Hopefully they will do so between now and 2014 and vote yes, but even if they vote no few but the most blinkered Unionists would be able to claim that as aringing endorsement of the status quo.
#60 by ReasonableNat on February 29, 2012 - 3:59 pm
Really, this is why the whole 2nd question concept creates checkmate for Salmond. Realistic unionist options are pretty much confined to either preventing Scots from voting for it, or allowing the vote then disappointing us afterwards. Either way, at some point it will become obvious that the extent of devolution that we can have is far short of what the majority wants. I guess the unionists would just prefer to delay that revelation/realisation until after the indyref. Perhaps it is my bias, but this feels like a King Canute inspired strategy.
Devo-plus, at first sight, looks like it might be a way out of this trap (as it is clearly designed to be), but on any increased level of examination it is clearly very far away from the devo-max solution that most of the population supports. In any case, getting the tories to agree to the devolution of corporation tax AND oil revenue – is that really EVER going to happen???
#61 by Jeff on February 29, 2012 - 5:29 pm
I’d be interested to know how Devo Plus “is clearly very far away from the devo-max solution that most of the population supports”.
I think it fits in with the apparent public preference rather nicely.
I do agree that the litmus test of whether Cameron would ever actually go for it is key; but I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if he accepted it as a compromise for keeping the UK intact.
#62 by ReasonableNat on March 1, 2012 - 2:47 pm
Well, there’s not a great deal of detail on anything other than the tax ‘distribution’ but it very much looks like it is really just a different kind of ‘barnett’. There doesn’t appear to be any change in actual powers, just in the taxes that each parliament is responsible for (i.e. just because tax income from oil is devolved, it doesn’t necessary follow that devo-plus also devolves regulation of that industry, does it?), and even at that, though their calculations may fit right now, they wont fit if the VAT or NI rates change. Some of the ‘minor’ taxes that are not mentioned might actually be quite contentious – I suspect most Scots want to see APD devolved for example.
#63 by Alasdair Stirling on February 29, 2012 - 6:06 pm
Exactly.
#64 by Galen10 on March 2, 2012 - 8:09 am
As Colin Dunn and other have already noted however, it IS in the end down to the Scottish people to decide how much Devo they want, whether Min, Midi, Plus or Max.
Whilst it might be helpful if the amount chimes with what rUK people feel is reasonable, they don’t have a veto, i.e. they cannot expect to over-rule what the Scottish people demand in respect of Devo “X”, anymore than they can expect to stop independence by saying that Scotland has to have a majority of MP’s in the Westminster parliament, or in a UK wide referendum.
The rUK population are quite free to express their opinion of course, or to say no to the level of Devo the Scottish people decide they want, but in that event the Union would already be a dead man walking.
#65 by Jeff on March 2, 2012 - 9:39 am
rUK, be it their politicians or public, could quite easily say No to Devo Plus and wield a veto, even if Scotland had voted for it in a referendum. Just because Scotland says it wants something then it doesn’t mean it has to come to pass.
I don’t think it would come to that but what have the Tories got to lose? 1 MP? If Scotland doesn’t vote Yes to independence, there are no guarantees around what Westminster will deliver after the referendum.
#66 by ReasonableNat on March 2, 2012 - 10:20 am
Of course, one way for Scots to attempt to create a backup plan would be to vote SNP in droves in the next Westminster election. There is at least a possibility that they could end up holding the balance of power, if there were enough of them.
#67 by Jeff on March 2, 2012 - 10:41 am
I think 2010 was the best bet of that strategy working and, given that the result that year was the same as 2005, I don’t think winning a significant number of seats at Westminster is a good plan for the SNP, backup or otherwise.
Scots will vote incumbents to keep the Tories out unless anything dramatic changes regarding Tory sentiment, though where some (all?) of the Lib Dem seats go in 2015 will be interesting.
If we’re not independent by then that is, of course.
#68 by ReasonableNat on March 2, 2012 - 12:26 pm
Yeah, that was kinda tongue-in-cheek. I think what you said above is most important. We can’t be certain that the Westminster government/parliament would introduce/pass legislation to allow devo-plus/max. I used to feel that the political pressure caused by a referendum ‘yes’ to such an arrangement would be impossible to resist but watching the squirming of the unionist parties since last May leaves me suspecting that even if it were to be implemented, it would be very heavily watered down. Essentially, that’s what devo-plus is; the beginning of the watering down of devo-max. In the long term, if we don’t opt for independence, we’ll be disappointed with the devolution that we get. This is largely because it will not do the things that we would like it to, like protect us from the tory ‘welfare reforms’ of the future, or from changes to employment rights. Scotland is really quite out of step with rUK on many such issues (whether we are being realistic or not is not the point). Suffering policies that we don’t like is the price of being in the union, and devolution, if it is too small in scope will not protect us from these policies. I think that this, in the main, is what has been driving the long term rise in support for independence, and unless the unionist parties are prepared to devolve powers to the maximum extent possible, and the population of rUK is prepared to accept it too, that rise in support for independence is likely to continue. With a little imagination, very little is impossible with devolution, even the removal of trident and some mechanism preventing Scottish participation in foreign military adventures would be possible, technically possible, but importantly, probably not politically possible.
#69 by Alasdair Stirling on March 2, 2012 - 12:52 pm
There is hee-haw chance of the UK enacting any further devolution – most likely quite the reverse in fact.
#70 by Alasdair Stirling on March 2, 2012 - 12:45 pm
The Scots have already voted for (and therefore mandated the Scottish Government to negotiate) enhanced devolution in the form of financial responsibility for Corporation Tax and Excise Duty, enhanced borrowing powers and responsibility for the Crown Estate Commission (page 3 of the SNP 2011 Manifesto). As we all know, the UK Government has simply ‘thumbed its nose’ at the Scots electorate over these matters and therefore I think that it is naive to believe that the UK Government will enact any significant enhancement to devolution after a No’ vote. That said, I rather think UK Government will take a No vote as authority to reopen the current the settlement and amend the Scotland Act to make sure that Holyrood can never again seek authority from the electorate for an independence referendum.
#71 by Jeff on March 2, 2012 - 1:05 pm
That’s a sceptical view to take Alasdair, some may even say cynicaly, but nonetheless I can certainly appreciate why you would take that view and it’s not at all lacking in logic. I guess I’m often closer to optimistic than I am to pragmatic, stoic or realistic, hence no doubt the difference in our viewpoints.
#72 by Galen10 on March 2, 2012 - 1:36 pm
On the contrary, Alasdair’s view is totally illogical. Rolling back current levels of devolution, or trying to somehow remove the ability of Holyrood to try and hold future referendums on independence would be suicidal for the Union, and the Unionists know it.
Trying to pretend that there is any real likelihood of reversing devolution, or trying to tie the hands of Holrood for the future simply shows how out of touch some people are.
#73 by Galen10 on March 2, 2012 - 1:19 pm
Based on what? The chances of them rolling back the current level of devolution are vanishingly remote. there would be no surer way of killing the Union stone dead.
Even if the result of the vote in 2014 is “no”, the issue of the Scots wanting more devolution isn’t going to go away; in fact the genie is well and truly out of the bottle given the levels of dissatisfaction in England with the current level of devolution. The Unionists and/or Devo “X” brigade are delusional if they think they can dictate terms without simply adding fuel to the vehicle of ultimate independence.
As Canon Wright has said, in the Scottish Review, any referendum not made in Scotland will be self defeating for the forces of Unionism and the status quo. The disarray amongst the proponents of Devo “X” and the Labour, Tory and LD’s, and their failure to come up with a workable Devo alternative BEFORE 2014, simply makes waverers more likely to vote yes to independence.
If you honestly believe there is any direction the process is going other than forward, your tin foil hat needs adjusting Alasdair!
Type your comment here