Fruitless volleys in phoney war over Scotland

Debates about Scotland in the House of Commons usually attract slightly more members than those on Northern Ireland.

Yesterday the green benches had a light sprinkling of bodies, but not much more, for a lengthy if rather fruitless discussion about devolution and the future of the United Kingdom in the wake of Scottish independence.

It is a phoney war. Draft Scottish devolution proposals are still awaited as Lord Smith of Kelvin chairs talks with Scottish parties about what should happen next.

For now, Scottish nationalists – the majority of whom are members of the Scottish National Party – are happily keeping warm a sense of grievance that pre-vote promises will not be met.

Earlier, prime minister David Cameron insisted he was "very confident" that the pledge between him, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg – known to Scottish history as "The Vow" – would be met.

In the hours after the referendum, Cameron further poisoned Westminster/ Scottish relations by saying that extra powers for Scotland must occur in tandem with, and in parallel to, devolution in England.

Asked by MPs yesterday if The Vow is a free-standing pledge, divorced from the Scottish question, Cameron replied: “Effectively, yes . . . And we’ll meet the terms of that pledge in full, I’m very confident of that.”

Few Scottish nationalists believe that and further devolution is only useful to them if it can be used to increase No voters’ appetite for independence.

Barnett formula

Cameron ruled out giving tax-raising powers to English councils, but he also stood beside the Barnett formula – the labyrinthine computation that divides up Treasury cash between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So far, the English debate on devolution is confused about its aims, given that the ambition for “English votes for English law” requires the construction of a federal state. However, there is no appetite for that.

In the Commons yesterday, Bavarian-born MP Gisela Stuart humorously knocked down the English nationalist lobby who look to the German federal model as an example.

“The only time devolution worked was after Prussia was broken up,” said the Birmingham MP, adding that federalism “only works when states are of roughly equal status”.

Ironically, given the increasingly Eurosceptic tone of much of the debate about the European Union within the UK, she said it had reached a state of union between four states hundreds of years before anyone else.

Scotland's new first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, received the royal warrant – the formal approval by Queen Elizabeth of her appointment – at the court of session in Edinburgh yesterday.

Sturgeon starts with her enemies on the defensive, the prospect of major gains in House of Commons elections next May and another majority in the Holyrood parliament a year later.

However, she must advance carefully. Last week, an opinion poll reported that nearly one adult in five fell out with a friend or loved one over the referendum and a third of them – 250,000 people – believes the fracture is permanent.

She takes over today as the best-prepared politician in Scotland’s recent history for the job she has inherited, but deputies, no matter how talented, have failed before.

Future independence

Scotland’s appetite in the future for independence will depend on many factors: the economy, North Sea oil prices, the honouring by Westminster of promises made, a UK exit from the European Union.

It will be affected, too, though by attitudes to the government’s performance. In the past decade, many have warmed to the idea of going it alone on the back of competent rule by the SNP.

However, there are some dangers. Sturgeon wants to expand free childcare.

Previously its absence could be blamed on Westminster, but now with extra tax powers for Holyrood, such excuses will be harder to make.

The successful introduction of such policies would show that Scotland can be more socially just than England. Here lies the trap.

A Conservative chancellor has few objections to Scotland raising taxes, but it would mean cuts in the sums received from the treasury, regardless of anything Cameron said yesterday.