Damp Squib
According to the latest opinion polls, apparently two-thirds of Scots believe that the Smith Commission does not go far enough with its proposals to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
And if this article in The Observer is anything to go by, Kevin McKenna is one of them and I can't blame him for arguing that the whole business is a bit of a damp squib.
Because what we have ended up with are proposals to devolve more powers in a very piecemeal way that retains the bulk of job creation powers at Westminster, along with control of the welfare agenda.
Which is odd if you ask me, because 100 per cent of the responsibility for the NHS was devolved to Scotland in 1999 - not little bits here and there as if the Westminster Parliament is cared to let go.
What's the logic behind devolving income tax rates to Scotland while withholding control of the personal allowance element or in retaining corporation tax and capital gains tax at Westminster.
None whatsoever - it makes about as much sense as allowing the Scottish Parliament to run hospital based NHS services while the Westminster Parliament continues to oversee GP and community based services.
David Cameron has sold Scotland down the river
The Smith report confirms little – other than that Tory leader is the undoubted politician of the year
By Kevin McKenna - The Observer
Lord Smith of Kelvin, flanked by deputy first minister, John Sweeney, and Annabel Goldie, with his report looking into further devolution for Holyrood. Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA
In the Scottish higher modern studies exam paper for the class of 2025, I would not be surprised to read the following question: to what extent do you think the Smith commission played a role in bringing forward the second referendum on Scottish independence? Indeed, there would be a persuasive case for saying that it may even have hastened indyref2.
Whatever occurred between 10 politicians and a Tory lord in Edinburgh over the past six weeks or so was not about delivering further devolved powers to the Scottish parliament. This was a sophisticated and multilayered deception made merely to legitimise the cartoon “vow” carried on the front page of 16 September’s Daily Record.
Last week, the Spectator was patting the heads of Alex Salmond and Jim Murphy at its annual awards bash. The former first minister of Scotland was voted politician of the year by the brayers and snorters, while Murphy was accorded the accolade campaigner of the year. From the perspective of the magazine, each of these Scots had contributed to the gaiety of the nation by providing it with an old-fashioned, colourful and dramatic political campaign. True, there were some hairy moments but, by Jove, it was a splendid campaign and Blighty is still standing.
The real politician of the year, of course, has been David Cameron. The Tory leader has delivered a quite stunning display of political legerdemain. That he has used the hapless Murphy and poor, deluded old Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to carry out the plan simply makes it sweeter. “Right, Darling, I want you to go up there and tell those Caledonian fuzzy-wuzzies that we’ll give them devo max after the referendum. Can’t you get that Daily Record to cobble up some sort of pledge, what?”
Poor old Lord Smith, too. There he was wandering around the television and radio stations on Thursday promoting the sanctity of the Smith agreement on extra powers. Of course it is binding, he said; it would be unthinkable that Westminster wouldn’t respect what we have proposed. And there was Alistair Carmichael saying that this wasn’t government policy. And there too were the usual camp followers and fluffers eager to proclaim that Smith was delivering a blueprint that would make Scotland more powerful and accountable. Letting the nation out to play with one full tax-raising power, and letting it have air passenger duty too, without any adult supervision, does not make it stronger and more accountable. It is merely an exercise in giving the country the least possible and not scaring the horses south of the border. (Does anyone really think the Westminster Tories will allow the devolving of all air passenger duty?)
Point by point, the Smith commission must still be given approval by the mother of all parliaments before this exercise in political condescension can ever come to fruition. Why don’t we all just go outside with Nanny while Mummy decides what must be done next? Such was the haste with which this commission was convened and so meagre has been the information about its rules and parameters that many people in Scotland thought that what they agreed would be set in stone.
In fact, Smith, inadvertently, has revealed what Scotland still isn’t permitted to do on its own. Even if Westminster allows the Smith proposals to proceed, Scotland will be unable to exert much control over its finances. Its spending status is about equal to that of a child saving up for the new Xbox (you’re not getting it all at once because you’ll just spend it on sweeties). Scotland will be allowed just 30% of taxes raised and be given the capacity to control about 15% of welfare spending within its borders. Indeed, on employment and welfare, the Smith report is light to the point of being gossamer thin when stressing that income tax will remain a shared UK tax. Everywhere you look in this report there are qualifications. There are more caveats in it than the dowry agreement of a Tuscan princess, including the bit that says that the assignment of tax receipts should be accompanied by a concomitant reduction in the Westminster block grant.
In its overall character, there is a stark absence of anything significant that would allow any Scottish government the essentials to set its own policies in areas where radical and remedial action is required. In their response to the Report, Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney were choosing their words carefully: “Welcome any new powers”; “pay tribute to Lord Smith”; “bit disappointed”. But there is widespread astonishment and genuine anger among several others close to the commission at Labour’s conduct during the deliberations. “Seeing all welfare powers being taken away at the last minute and seeing Labour argue against the devolution of the minimum wage are things I don’t think I’ll ever forget,” I was told. “In the last hours of the Smith deliberations, the Tories were getting direct input from Westminster government departments and cutting deals with Labour to avoid anything that might affect English votes for English laws [Evel].”
Those who believe that the Smith recommendations – and they are only recommendations – even slightly resemble devo-max are deluding themselves. Only a few hours had elapsed following the result of the Scottish referendum and David Cameron was moving swiftly through the gears to the one marked “easy cynicism”.
“Just as Scotland will vote separately in a Scottish parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England,” he said. Yesterday, he saw the main part of his masterplan come to fruition. A green light for Evel, the resultant neutering of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster, a vow that existed only inside the head of the editor of the Daily Record and a commission that recommends continuing Westminster control over the lion’s share of Scotland’s finances and then get the suckers to swallow it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you David Cameron, politician of the year and first ever leader of the joint Conservative and Labour party.
In the Scottish higher modern studies exam paper for the class of 2025, I would not be surprised to read the following question: to what extent do you think the Smith commission played a role in bringing forward the second referendum on Scottish independence? Indeed, there would be a persuasive case for saying that it may even have hastened indyref2.
Whatever occurred between 10 politicians and a Tory lord in Edinburgh over the past six weeks or so was not about delivering further devolved powers to the Scottish parliament. This was a sophisticated and multilayered deception made merely to legitimise the cartoon “vow” carried on the front page of 16 September’s Daily Record.
Last week, the Spectator was patting the heads of Alex Salmond and Jim Murphy at its annual awards bash. The former first minister of Scotland was voted politician of the year by the brayers and snorters, while Murphy was accorded the accolade campaigner of the year. From the perspective of the magazine, each of these Scots had contributed to the gaiety of the nation by providing it with an old-fashioned, colourful and dramatic political campaign. True, there were some hairy moments but, by Jove, it was a splendid campaign and Blighty is still standing.
The real politician of the year, of course, has been David Cameron. The Tory leader has delivered a quite stunning display of political legerdemain. That he has used the hapless Murphy and poor, deluded old Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to carry out the plan simply makes it sweeter. “Right, Darling, I want you to go up there and tell those Caledonian fuzzy-wuzzies that we’ll give them devo max after the referendum. Can’t you get that Daily Record to cobble up some sort of pledge, what?”
Poor old Lord Smith, too. There he was wandering around the television and radio stations on Thursday promoting the sanctity of the Smith agreement on extra powers. Of course it is binding, he said; it would be unthinkable that Westminster wouldn’t respect what we have proposed. And there was Alistair Carmichael saying that this wasn’t government policy. And there too were the usual camp followers and fluffers eager to proclaim that Smith was delivering a blueprint that would make Scotland more powerful and accountable. Letting the nation out to play with one full tax-raising power, and letting it have air passenger duty too, without any adult supervision, does not make it stronger and more accountable. It is merely an exercise in giving the country the least possible and not scaring the horses south of the border. (Does anyone really think the Westminster Tories will allow the devolving of all air passenger duty?)
Point by point, the Smith commission must still be given approval by the mother of all parliaments before this exercise in political condescension can ever come to fruition. Why don’t we all just go outside with Nanny while Mummy decides what must be done next? Such was the haste with which this commission was convened and so meagre has been the information about its rules and parameters that many people in Scotland thought that what they agreed would be set in stone.
In fact, Smith, inadvertently, has revealed what Scotland still isn’t permitted to do on its own. Even if Westminster allows the Smith proposals to proceed, Scotland will be unable to exert much control over its finances. Its spending status is about equal to that of a child saving up for the new Xbox (you’re not getting it all at once because you’ll just spend it on sweeties). Scotland will be allowed just 30% of taxes raised and be given the capacity to control about 15% of welfare spending within its borders. Indeed, on employment and welfare, the Smith report is light to the point of being gossamer thin when stressing that income tax will remain a shared UK tax. Everywhere you look in this report there are qualifications. There are more caveats in it than the dowry agreement of a Tuscan princess, including the bit that says that the assignment of tax receipts should be accompanied by a concomitant reduction in the Westminster block grant.
In its overall character, there is a stark absence of anything significant that would allow any Scottish government the essentials to set its own policies in areas where radical and remedial action is required. In their response to the Report, Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney were choosing their words carefully: “Welcome any new powers”; “pay tribute to Lord Smith”; “bit disappointed”. But there is widespread astonishment and genuine anger among several others close to the commission at Labour’s conduct during the deliberations. “Seeing all welfare powers being taken away at the last minute and seeing Labour argue against the devolution of the minimum wage are things I don’t think I’ll ever forget,” I was told. “In the last hours of the Smith deliberations, the Tories were getting direct input from Westminster government departments and cutting deals with Labour to avoid anything that might affect English votes for English laws [Evel].”
Those who believe that the Smith recommendations – and they are only recommendations – even slightly resemble devo-max are deluding themselves. Only a few hours had elapsed following the result of the Scottish referendum and David Cameron was moving swiftly through the gears to the one marked “easy cynicism”.
“Just as Scotland will vote separately in a Scottish parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England,” he said. Yesterday, he saw the main part of his masterplan come to fruition. A green light for Evel, the resultant neutering of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster, a vow that existed only inside the head of the editor of the Daily Record and a commission that recommends continuing Westminster control over the lion’s share of Scotland’s finances and then get the suckers to swallow it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you David Cameron, politician of the year and first ever leader of the joint Conservative and Labour party.
