Debating the future of Scotland

The proposals within the Scotland Bill - as well as the associated fiscal framework currently being worked out by the UK and Scottish Governments - represent big changes to Scotland’s political system, says Nicola McEwen. However, has enough room been left for the public at the negotiating table? 
 
“With great power comes great responsibility” – in Uncle Ben’s memorable last words to Spiderman. But is the reverse also true? Do great responsibilities bring great power?
 
I find myself asking this question when reflecting on the Scotland Bill currently making its way through the UK parliament. The Bill emerged from the Smith Commission and is intended to deliver a ‘powerhouse parliament’. There is no doubt that the Bill would increase the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and Government, especially in taxation and welfare, but there are constraints. 
 
In taxation, the Scottish Government would be obliged to set the rates and bands for all tax on earned income. Scottish residents would no longer pay a UK income tax - their income tax would go to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government could use this power to increase the rate of taxation paid by higher earners, either to raise more money for public services or to take less tax from the less well off. But since these tax powers are restricted to earned income, it could not prevent high earners from circumventing these policy goals by shifting more of their income into savings or dividends. 
 
Likewise, the Scottish Parliament would have no control over the personal allowance, the first slice of income which is tax-free for almost all earners. So when the UK Government makes changes here, it will have a knock-on effect for the amount of revenue that can be raised within Scotland. But unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government would have only limited recourse to a broader basket of taxes to make up the shortfall.
 
In welfare, the Scotland Bill brings new powers over social security, especially over benefits for people with disabilities and their carers. In these areas, the Scottish Government would be free to keep, redesign or replace these benefits as it sees fit. It would also have the power to ‘top-up’ UK welfare benefits, and to introduce new benefits for working-age adults that are not already covered by the UK government. So, for example, the Scottish Government would have the power to restore housing benefit to under-21s who will no longer be entitled to UK housing benefit. 
 
In practice, if it wants to make any changes to existing benefits, top up or introduce new benefits, it will almost certainly have to set up new agencies or systems for the processing and delivering Scottish benefits, adding to the cost.
 
The Bill has already been through the House of Commons and is now being debated in the Lords. The Scottish Parliament will also have the opportunity to give – or withhold – its consent for the legislation. In addition, the two governments are currently negotiating the details of a fiscal framework behind closed doors, a key part of the devolution deal.  
 
These are big changes to Scotland’s political system. They could have profound implications for the powers, responsibilities and capacities of the Scottish Parliament and Government to develop and deliver public services. After the democratic engagement of the referendum campaign, it is disappointing that debates on the Scotland Bill have largely excluded the public. Everyone in Scotland should have a voice in debating Scotland’s future.
 
Nicola McEwen will be discussing the Scotland Bill at a public event, What Next for Scotland? in Edinburgh City Chambers on 26 November. For full details, follow this link. Thhis article is co-published with the Edinburgh Evening News.

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Nicola McEwen's picture
post by Nicola McEwen
University of Edinburgh
19th November 2015

Latest blogs

  • 20th July 2018

    Richard Parry reviews a fast-evolving situation as the march of time and need to reconcile rhetoric and practicality constrain policy-makers

  • 13th July 2018

    The White Paper published this week talks about the UK Government making ‘sovereign decisions’ to adopt European rules but, as we know from the experience of Norway and Switzerland, this can be an illusory sovereignty when the costs of deviating from the rules is exclusion from the single market or European programmes. CCC Director Professor Michael Keating looks at whether the UK is ready for this kind of deal.

  • 12th July 2018

    Last week the government released its fisheries white paper. While most of the fisheries and Brexit debate centres on quotas and access to waters, there is also an important devolution dimension. Brexit already has profound consequences for the UK’s devolution settlement and fisheries policy is one example of this. So, in addition to communicating its overall vision for post-Brexit fisheries policy, the white paper was also an opportunity for the government to set out how it would see that policy working in the devolved UK.

  • 4th July 2018

    At the same time as Parliament prepares to ‘take back control’ from Brussels, the executive is in fact accruing to itself further control over the legislative process. CCC Fellow Professor Stephen Tierney addresses a number of trends – only some of which are a direct consequence of the unique circumstances of Brexit – which suggest a deeper realignment of institutional power within the constitution and a consequent diminution of Parliament’s legislative power.

  • 27th June 2018

    Faced with a choice between splitting her Cabinet into winners and losers, Theresa May has sought to keep the Brexit crap game going. She does this by avoiding betting on either a hard or soft Brexit. Professor Richard Rose of Strathclyde looks at the high stakes outcomes facing the Prime Minister. .

Read More Posts