THERE'S trouble ahead. And the evidence is there for all to see in black and white. I admit I approached the Calman Commission's interim report, published last Tuesday, with a feeling of dread. And I was right to be worried. I read it with rising trepidation and it wasn't long before alarm bells started clanging in my head.
It appears I had misunderstood what Calman was all about. To my mind the commission's primary function was to make Government work better for the people of Scotland. The aim was to modernise Scottish devolution; to give more financial powers to Hol
yrood; to re-examine the assumptions that give Westminster the sole right to make decisions about Scotland's drug laws, to name just one glaring inconsistency.
But when I read the report I was left with a very different understanding of Calman's intentions. For some reason he seems to have taken it upon himself to reform the entire United Kingdom, coming up with a whole new theory about how it should operate – philosophically, economically and politically. Updating devolution to meet Scotland's changing needs and ambitions is a big enough task. But Calman seems determined to take on a bigger challenge – a constitutional version of the Theory of Everything.
Calman used the report to rule out full fiscal autonomy for Holyrood on the grounds that it wasn't "consistent with the key principles of the Union". Eh? What are these key principles, exactly? And who decided them? In 20 years of reporting on Scottish politics, they seem to have passed me by. To my mind, what keeps the Union together is any combination of policies that keeps Scots voting for Unionist parties. As simple as that. There are no lines that cannot be crossed, no powers or areas of influence that are sacrosanct and have to remain Westminster's by divine right.
And why is Calman trying to wear such a bewildering array of hats? Why is he taking the position of the Englishman who is concerned about the high level of public spending north of the border? Or pondering the dilemma faced by UK Government ministers on how to give different parts of Britain a fair share of public spending? Surely these are matters beyond Calman's competence? Doesn't this risk a very real backlash from south of the border as the English express their resentment at 14 Scots deciding what is best for them?
Calman's approach seems in marked contrast to that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's Claim of Right in the 1990s, which simply stated what Scotland wanted and then challenged the UK Government to deliver it.
My worry is that Calman has lost sight of the fact that his commission was set up by the Scottish Parliament. Not the Westminster Parliament. Or the Westminster Government. He owes his first allegiance to Holyrood. My suspicion is that instead of acting as Scotland's champion, Calman may end up doing Westminster's dirty work.
There were, I admit, some glimmers of encouragement. For example, Calman's list of no-go areas for Holyrood were: defence, national security, foreign policy, the monarchy, the constitution, currency and corporation tax. Now, I might have quibbles on foreign policy – what about the Scottish Government's right of representation in Europe on issues that are wholly devolved, for example – but it is, encouragingly, not a very long list. More worrying, however, is Calman's apparent obsession with what the English make of us. It is worth quoting one passage from his report at length.
"Devolution as it stands would in principle allow for a fundamentally different welfare provision in Scotland or in England, at least in relation to health or education. But there may be a case for a broadly common social citizenship across the UK, even though there will be some scope for Scottish differences and, if so, does a common understanding of what that involves need to be more clearly articulated?"
To my eye, this is in danger of undermining some basic principles of devolution that we have taken for granted over the past decade. The right, for example, to have free personal care for the elderly in Scotland because we believe this reflects our values and beliefs, irrespective of what the Westminster Government feels is appropriate for England. We cannot be always looking over our shoulder at our English neighbours while deciding what is best for ourselves. As long as the funding system for Scotland is equitable, and fairly reflects Scottish topography and demography, there should be no restriction on how we spend our money in the areas where we have legal responsibility.
Calman should stick to the basics. Can Scotland's growing sense of confidence be done justice within the Union? And if so, how? What new economic powers would allow a Scottish Government to respond effectively to economic difficulties? Does Westminster rule over key aspects of Scottish life such as drugs and welfare make sense? How do we make the Scottish Government truly accountable for its own actions? There is a debate to be had about the future of Britain – one that includes voices from the English regions. But this is not the time and the Calman Commission is not the forum. The job in hand is to decide what is best for Scotland. Then to look at how it can be accommodated within the United Kingdom. The first is Calman's job and the second is the UK Government's. Calman should stick to the brief.
