Stewart Sutherland: We have powers aplenty

ALL THE current talk is of independence, but, as Stewart Sutherland says, Scotland is already far more powerful than it was on that famous Devolution Day – and there is more to come.

Did you note a recent golden date in Scotland’s constitutional evolution? 24 April, 2012. I did not see the bunting out, nor a formal welcome from the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps an oversight: or perhaps an embarrassed truculence.

The thing is that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are now much more powerful than ever agreed on Devolution Day.

On 24 April, the Scotland bill completed its progress through the House of Lords. A Bill that had been accepted by the House of Commons, and after some unexplained delays by the Scottish Parliament, was finally to become law. Does this matter? Judge for yourself.

1 From April 2016 a new Scottish rate of income tax, settled in Holyrood, will be in place. I am not, on the whole, a betting man (I never came across a poor bookie), but if I were, I would not bet on the rate, and the taxes payable, going down.

2 From April 2015, a new capital borrowing power for Scottish ministers will be in place. An advance on this power to allow borrowing to fund pre-payments for the Forth Road Crossing will be in place from April 2013.

3 From now, there is in place a power to implement new devolved taxes, subject to the agreement of the UK government.

4 The full devolution of stamp duty and land fill tax will be in place from April 2015.

In addition to these headline measures, which very significantly extend financial powers, there are several other changes to the Scottish Devolution Settlement recommended by the Calman Commission – in relation, for example, to the use of drugs, the administration of elections, appointments to the BBC Trust in Scotland, the process for appointing the Crown Estate Commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland, drink-drive limits, national speed limits, and regulating air weapons (.22 calibre rather than V-bombers!)

Several important legal measures are tidied up or clarified, as are aspects of parliamentary process.

Various conclusions can be drawn from this and two important questions must be posed. The first is that the Devolution Settlement was a beginning, not an end. That raises the further question of whether this is predictable evolution or a slippery slope.

The second conclusion is that the political powers that be in Holyrood and Westminster can agree a process for continuing to learn from the practice of devolution. This has involved the setting up of the Calman Commission by three of the main parties in Scotland, and the public and parliamentary scrutiny in both Edinburgh and London, of its conclusions. This has led to common legislation in both parliaments. All of this reassures us that when there is a will there can be a consensual parliamentary way – both within and between parliaments. All involved are to be congratulated on this mature exercise of democratic process.

Are there other lessons to be learned? One for sure is that a question raised at the very beginning of the devolutionary process is still with us. Is this evolution, or is it a step on the way to separation?

This is a question which requires an urgent and clear answer: “Yes” or “No.” There is now an acceptance that the question must be put to the Scottish people. However, my primary point is that whatever the answer to that question, very significant powers have been devolved in the Scotland Act 2012, and that these powers will have much impact on the lives which all of us Scots lead. The most obvious and most pressing, in the short, the medium and the ever-increasing long term, will be the size of the state and the consequent tax burdens.

The Scots people, through their parliament, are now in a position to express preferences and make decisions on that. Is this not what we all wanted? And, if so, why no bunting, and why the stunning silence? I do not think that we have yet taken on board what, in practice, all this means.

There are, however, also two other major questions which I raised more than once in the consideration of the bill in the House of Lords: as yet, questions without formal answer.

The first is not a new question, but is a re-emphasis on what, following Tam Dalyell, has come to be known as “the West Lothian Question”. Already, as Dalyell insistently pointed out, there is a democratic imbalance between Scotland and England. Scots MPs can speak and vote in Westminster on a whole range of matters already devolved to Scotland, but which structure life in England. This cannot be right.

The effect of this act is to make matters worse – and so it will be with every additional power devolved to Scotland. Now I agree that this is not an issue for Holyrood, but one for Westminster. However, it is an issue for Scotland (and there is a difference between Holyrood and Scotland) for we elect and for the foreseeable future will continue to elect more than 50 MPs to Westminster. Is Tam Dalyell to be the only one of these ever to have raised the question? I would like to think better of their democratic sensibilities than that.

The second question, which now becomes increasingly pressing, is that of the federalisation of the United Kingdom. As many voters in England are daily more intent on pointing out, increasing devolved powers, is a form of increasing and creeping federalisation of the United Kingdon. This raises three further issues: is this practicable; do we really understand what it involves; and is this what we want?

These are important questions for the future of all of us in the UK. They are questions about the implications of so-called devo-max (assuming of course that we understand what that is).

My point is not to stifle that debate, but to open it up. Those who propose such a third question must tell us what it means.

But much more important, they must accept that such a question is about constitutional change in the UK – a move to a federal system of government. This is not a question for Scotland alone – it is a question for all voters in the UK.