Why Scottish Tories under Jackson Carlaw may take radical action over two-child benefit cap – John McLellan

New Scottish Conservative leader Jackson Carlaw may pledge to mitigate the controversial two-child benefit cap, while abandoning opposition to popular SNP spending decisions, writes John McLellan

Jackson Carlaw is the new Scottish Tory leader (Picture: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)

Thank goodness that’s over. After what was at moments a surprisingly tetchy leadership contest, Jackson Carlaw is emphatically the official Scottish Conservative leader and can get on with planning for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election.

He has not been short of advice, particularly tackling a perception that under Ruth Davidson the party was strong on personality and weak on policy, an opposition line of attack which did not stand scrutiny but has unwisely been echoed by some members.

There is a difference between disciplined messaging and policy vacuum and throughout Ms Davidson’s eight-year tenure there were commissions, policy papers and policy-themed speeches to give substance to her public persona.

Biggest of all was the 2014 Strathclyde Commission which drove the post-referendum Smith Commission and produced a massive transfer of power to the Scottish Parliament with which the SNP has struggled ever since.

New powers over welfare, for example, have been delayed or in some cases rejected out of hand for political expediency. There is growing speculation that Mr Carlaw will be radical in tackling corrosive issues, which he can do so without changing the devolution settlement, while abandoning opposition to SNP spending decisions which have proved popular.

All of this makes sense. A strong steer from insiders suggests Mr Carlaw will back mitigation of the two-child benefit cap, which with an estimated 9,000 Scottish families affected would only cost around £10m a year.

With an annual underspend of around £400m, the Scottish Government can easily afford it, yet the SNP refuses to act on political principle. Nor is there any point on entering an election promising to reintroduce university tuition fees when Scottish families are used to the idea that tertiary education in Scotland is free.

But now we are out the EU he can propose the introduction of fees for European students to end the anomaly of rUK undergraduates paying while EU students do not.

Already he has signalled his priorities are more flexible childcare for working parents, lower tax for low and middle earners, prioritising housing and hiring 2,000 new teachers.

Perhaps the most radical change for which he can argue is the devolution of VAT, something backed by the Strathclyde Commission, which would hand Holyrood more responsibility for economic performance and establish a direct link between the Scottish Government and high street prices, so giving him more levers for competition if in power and one less place for the SNP to hide if not.

This is another tool which EU membership prevented, described as “unfortunate” by Strathclyde. “Sales taxes are commonly decentralised – even down to local level – in countries such as Canada and the US.

Further, VAT is a growth tax, which supports the sorts of services devolved governments provide,” said the report. “Were it not illegal under EU law, we would have been inclined to recommend that VAT be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.”

Mr Carlaw knows time is short and a promise to put more money in people’s pockets at the same time as killing off the instability of another divisive referendum campaign could be a compelling message to the 20 per cent of people in the middle who will decide the make-up of the next parliament. That and setting up an emergency education task force and he won’t have to say much more than that.

Regulating social media a munitions’ dump, not a minefield

On the subject of more responsibility, three years ago Ofcom took over BBC regulation from the discredited BBC Trust, but if that was a tough assignment it will be dwarfed if the UK Government decides to task it with bringing order to social media.

Taking control of BBC oversight was a doddle for the state communications regulator because, some obvious failures like the Jimmy Savile disgrace apart, the BBC has been tied firmly to regular political scrutiny through the charter renewal process and the Trust structure.

Social media is vastly different because no regulatory framework exists, so the first job would be to establish a system with which the tech giants will comply. “With Ofcom at the helm of a proportionate and strong regulatory regime, we have an incredible opportunity to lead the world in building a thriving digital economy, driven by ground-breaking technology, that is trusted by and protects everyone in the UK,” said departing Culture Minister Baroness Morgan this week.

Given American media companies are innately hostile to any notion of regulation, government or otherwise, this is somewhat optimistic, with Home Secretary Pritti Patel warning it was “incumbent on tech firms to balance issues of privacy and technological advances with child protection”.

In light of the Derek Mackay scandal, this raises a key issue about when a company like Facebook must take responsibility for individual behaviour without compromising freedom of speech.

Further, how would Ofcom handle the deliberate targeting of individuals or content by politically motivated third parties to create blocks, such as recently happened to unionist blogger Kevin Hague?

News publishers have been promised exemptions from online controls, but this too is a challenge when so much news content and commentary is provided via social media.

But what happens if the tech giants simply say no thanks and up sticks? Online regulation isn’t just a minefield but, to use a description currently in vogue, a munition dump the size of Beaufort’s Dyke.

Finn Russell hands Gregor Townsend an excuse

Still on the responsibility theme, when Scottish rugby people gather these days, conversation inevitably turns to the dispute between stay-away stand-off Finn Russell and Scotland coach Gregor Townsend.

Last night at Myreside, now dubbed Fireside or Hell’s Kitchen after the blaze which put the old pavilion out of action, was no different. The consensus amongst the many seasoned ex-players enjoying hospitality in the primary school dining hall before the Watsonians v Heriot’s Super 6 semi-pro derby was the coach is the boss and professional players don’t walk away when there is a problem.

While there is not much rugby union can learn from professional football, there is one very obvious trait of professional footballers which seems to have passed Mr Russell by; they don’t strop off, they just stop playing. Ask Jose Mourinho. Just as he turned last season’s Calcutta Cup from ignominy to glory, the unpredictable playmaker could do the opposite, and if it looked like he was having inexplicable off-days the coach would be blamed for not getting the best from him.

Apparently having a target of three wins in the Six Nations, Mr Townsend is on borrowed time and Mr Russell actually had his fate in his hands. By disrupting the squad he has instead handed him an excuse.