Ian Swanson: Major shift in power struggle

HE used to say that giving Scotland its own parliament was a slippery slope to separation. Now he wants Holyrood to be handed control over everything apart from foreign affairs, defence and the economy.

Sir John Major's apparent conversion to full fiscal autonomy is an astonishing U-turn for a politician who once set his face so firmly against devolution.

This was the prime minister who, in the closing days of the 1997 general election campaign, just before the Labour landslide that put Tony Blair into Number 10, stood in the shadow of Big Ben and warned there were just "72 hours left to save the union".

Earlier in the same campaign, he told a rally that Labour's plans for a parliament in Edinburgh with tax-raising powers would let the "genie of separatism" out of the bottle and "unleash English nationalism" - just before the singing of Land of Hope and Glory.

But now Sir John is calling for the Scottish Parliament to be given far wider powers than it already has or than are proposed in the UK Government's Scotland Bill now going through Westminster.

In his speech at the weekend, he made clear he was still firmly opposed to the break-up of the union between Scotland and England.

But he claimed: "The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap - unless the issue is resolved."

He said the union could not be maintained by "constant aggravation" in Scotland and "appeasement" in London.

And he asked: "Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy? Why not let Scotland have wider taxraising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?"

Sir John argued Scotland should be handed wide-ranging powers in a bid to curb enthusiasm for the "folly" of full independence. That sounds like the very "appeasement" that he says won't work.

And it may be asked how reducing the number of Scottish MPs still further will do anything to strengthen the union.

His comments were welcomed by the Scottish National Party, whose Westminster leader Angus Robertson described them as "a positive unionist alternative" as Scotland looks ahead to the promised independence referendum.

Some right-wing commentators have even suggested Sir John could be acting as an "outrider" for David Cameron, floating ideas that the Prime Minister could not put his name to but might be interested in looking at, depending on the public and political reaction.

As the SNP was quick to point out, senior Labour figures - including Baroness Helena Kennedy, Lord George Foulkes and MP Eric Joyce - have recently voiced support for stronger powers for the Scottish Parliament, full fiscal autonomy or some sort of federalism.

Sir John's ideas might strike a chord with some Conservative MPs and voters south of the border annoyed about the Barnett formula and Scotland's higher-per-head public spending - a manifestation of that "English nationalism" he wanted to avoid? - and there will be some Tory politicians in Scotland who see a more powerful Holyrood as opening the door to tax cuts and lower public spending.

But for many ordinary Tory supporters in Scotland, the radical transfer of power that Sir John suggests is tantamount to surrender to Alex Salmond.

The Scottish Tory leadership ran into enough trouble for agreeing to join the cross-party Calman commission, set up after the SNP's 2007 election victory, to look into more powers for the Scottish Parliament, and then backing its findings, now translated into the Scotland Bill. Backbench MSP Margaret Mitchell called even that limited package "playing into the hands of separatists".

One Tory insider admits: "Most of our membership thinks the Scottish Parliament has too many powers, not too few."

The Tory grassroots might well take the view that, far from curbing demands for independence, handing more powers to Holyrood would be conceding most of what the SNP is demanding, taking Scotland further down the route to independence and hastening the end of the United Kingdom as we know it.

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats, most of whom would be delighted with a move to full fiscal autonomy, are trapped by their UK coalition agreement with the Tories into limiting themselves to supporting the measures in the Scotland Bill. A Tory policy switch would be a liberation for the Lib Dems.

For Conservatives, the problem is that adopting radical reform merely as a tactic carries the huge risk of getting swept along further than they want to go by people who really believe in it.

• Margo MacDonald is away