Scots deserve more detail before voting on constitutional change

THE establishment of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh was a ground-breaking constitutional initiative that paved the way for the creation of the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, and a directly elected mayor for London.

For those, including this newspaper, who believed that the United Kingdom was too centralised, the devolution of power away from Westminster to bring it closer to the people was a healthy development for a modern democracy.

However, the creation of devolved bodies within the UK has largely halted, leaving the country with asymmetrical devolution which throws up contradictions which have the potential to create constitutional instability.

The most obvious is that outwith some cities devolution has not spread across England, leaving those south of the Border and East of Offa's Dyke with a growing feeling of resentment.

That is reflected today in a study from the IPPR think-tank written by John Curtice of Strathclyde University and based on studies of attitudes by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen). It shows that 40 per cent of people in England feel Scotland receives more than its fair share of government spending, compared with just 22 per cent in 2003, and that 29 per cent support having a new English Parliament.

This change is important, as all of the main parties will be offering further constitutional change, particularly in terms of the financial arrangement for Scotland, at the general election.

Labour ministers yesterday revealed they have asked HMRC to look at the practicality of Calman Commission proposals for half of the income tax in Scotland to be raised north of the Border.

The Tories, who supported Calman in principle, have been less specific but say they are in favour of further powers for Holyrood. The Liberal Democrats retain their consistent support for a federal UK. The SNP obviously wants full independence, but short of that, full fiscal autonomy will do for now.

So change is coming; the question is, what should that change look like? In terms of democracy it is hard not to concede the principle of English MPs deciding on legislation that relates only to their part of the UK, though there are problems with legal definitions. It is unlikely that voters would accept a separate English Parliament and it must surely be possible to adapt the ways of working at Westminster.

In terms of finances, the more responsibilities Holyrood politicians take on for raising the money they spend the more responsible one hopes they become, but again there are dangers here in that if only some tax-raising powers are granted to Holyrood there is always the risk that the Scottish Government – whoever is in power – complains of being short-changed by London over the money coming by block grant.

It is in the area of finance that there is most potential devilment in the detail and, while supporting the principle of greater political and fiscal devolution, voters have a right to know more hard detail from all parties before embarking on another constitutional upheaval.