John McTernan: Scotland clearly remains a problem for the coalition

'HOW Scottish is the Queen's Speech?" will have been the question echoing round the Scotland Office over the last few days. Or more truth-fully, "How Scottish can it be said to be?"

Eternal vigilance is the price of union – and yesterday two utterly decent politicians, Danny Alexander and David Mundell, will have essayed their first briefing on precisely how the coalition has been better for Scotland than the previous administrations ever were.

Their initial problem is simply that three major factors prevent this being an honest Queen's Speech – one which levels with voters and is clear about the impact of legislation passed.

First, we have the grandstanding Bills – necessary to the coalition's self-esteem, but barely registering on the public consciousness. A Bill to stop the creation of unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter. You what? The first peacetime coalition in nearly 80 years and it's delivering on a promise to two local papers. You're having a laugh.

Secondly, there are the laws with no detail. A Welfare Bill – to cut the cost of social security. Great idea. Odd no-one has thought of it before. Actually they have, and three of the most thoughtful and technocratic politicians of the last 30 years – Peter Lilley, Alistair Darling and John Hutton – have each had a go. What did they deliver? Grindingly slow, but lasting change and falling bills.

A wise old hand once advised me: "Sometimes the hard things in politics are difficult because they are hard." The coalition is about to find this. Welfare bills can only be cut if you take money from existing recipients. And the last person to try this was Harriet Harman who cut lone parent benefits – and lost her job (and mine, as at the time I advised her). Despite a cut worth 50 million a year being driven through the Commons against a 100-strong revolt, the cut was bought out with nearly 2 billion of extra spend the next year.

There is, for better or worse, a strong sense of fairness in British political culture. Violate it at your peril.

Thirdly, and most dangerously, there are the Bills that you do for political reasons that have unintended consequences. There are two stand-outs in yesterday's Queen's Speech. First, the Equitable Life Bill. Every political party has a group for whom it – ultimately irrationally – believes that there should be government-supported compensation. For Labour, it was sufferers from pleural plaques. The High Court, sensibly and justly, ruled that because there was no medical evidence that pleural plaques cause harm there was no case for insurance payouts. Solidarity with those who had suffered from asbestosis led to Labour seeking ways round this logical ruling (and to the Scottish Parliament extraordinarily legislating that a condition that causes no harm should be compensated as if it caused harm; ina more honest world that is called robbery).

The Tories' soft spot is Equitable Life's investors. This is undoubtedly an awful tale. But, at the end of the day, individuals knowingly entered into a private contract to invest their money willingly in a private company – at risk. It was something done by consenting adults in private. Now the coalition proposes to stand behind a private company's default. In human terms, totally understandable; in government terms, utterly bonkers. Once you concede the principle that the public purse is liable for the failure of such arrangements, where does it stop? This is classic populism, good for a headline, deadly for a lifetime.

A more slow-burn error is the idea of ending biometric passports. A key part of the "harvesting" of personal and biometric data for the National ID infrastructure, these were an obvious target. But in politics there are always actions which are simple, obvious and wrong. And this one will bite the coalition back badly.

The plain truth is that since 9/11 the US has planned to introduce biometric visas for entry. Without a passport that delivers to the standard required by the American Department of Home-land Security, anyone travelling to the States will require a biometric visa. How to get one? A journey to the US Embassy in London, in person, a queue and a couple of hundred quid. Three major factors prevent this being an honest Queen's Speech

But, top of the bill for Scotland is the constitution. What is the coalition's response to Calman since the Tories thought he went too far, and the Lib Dems thought he didn't go far enough? Answer – a fantastically opaque and cautious commitment: "My government will introduce legislation to implement recommendations from the Final Report of the Commission on Scottish Devolution." Note the magisterial omission of the definite article. Not the recommendations, but merely recommendations. Which ones? You pay your money and you take your choice.

The easy position is the demand for "more powers". Though to be fair, Scotland runs fairly well with the London government setting speed limits, drink-drive limits and gun laws. However, the meat is financial powers, and the devil is, as ever, is in the detail. This was tough enough with the last administration, with a Scottish PM and Scottish Chancellor. Now we have Cameron and Osborne whose emotional and intellectual commitment to the union is beyond doubt, but whose willingness to mitigate the impact of UK government actions on Scotland is in doubt. This is the rub. As the block grant is cut, the flexibility of tax-raising powers for the Scottish Parliament is clear. But as the deficit is cut, the logic for borrowing powers becomes questionable. Scottish debt is UK debt, particularly as most Scottish political discourse implies that getting these is like a teenager getting his Dad's Visa card and PIN.

This is a big, but not a defining, moment for the coalition. The first baby steps. What do we know? Well, spin is alive and living in No 10. Many of these proposals are laughably thin as primary legislation and are just the kind of things derided by Tories and Lib Dems when in opposition. Then, we see the start of building up undeliverable commitments as in welfare.

Of course, there are admirable proposals such as Michael Gove's education plans. But finally, we can see Scotland remains a complex, sensitive prob-lem. There's a consensus for change but not for what in detail.

Danny Alexander may find, when he's back from paternity leave, that he's been left in charge of the 21st-century equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein Question. Where are we? I don't know. What are we doing? Not clear. Why? Because. Really? See previous answers. Good luck to him.

• John McTernan is a former special adviser to the former Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy