IT'S nearly a year since the idea of a cross-party commission on more powers for the Scottish Parliament was officially put forward by Wendy Alexander in a St Andrew's Day lecture at Edinburgh University.
Former senior civil servant Sir Kenneth Calman was appointed in March to head the group. And at the beginning of next month, he is due to publish his interim report – speedy work on a complex topic.
But Scottish politics is nothing if not fast-mov
ing.
Since the Calman commission came into being, two of the three party leaders who set it up, Ms Alexander and Liberal Democrat Nicol Stephen, have resigned; the team in charge of the Scotland Office, Des Browne and David Cairns, have also been replaced; Labour's own fortunes reached rock bottom in the wake of the Glasgow East by-election and were revived by Glenrothes; and the financial crisis has dramatically changed the backdrop to the political debate on Scotland's future.
It is not clear how far next month's report will go in putting forward definite proposals – Sir Kenneth is not scheduled to present his final recommendations until next spring.
Big questions remain about whether any scheme he eventually produces for further devolution will command support from the three parties which are backing the commission.
But there is no doubt some serious work has been done behind the scenes.
A report on taxes and finance published earlier this week by an independent expert group, led by Professor Anton Muscatelli, principal of Heriot-Watt University, included a detailed discussion of issues such as accountability, efficiency, fairness and transparency, and a survey of how some other countries with devolved administrations deal with taxation and finance.
Rather than the SNP's favourite overseas models, the famous one-time "arc of prosperity" – Ireland, Iceland and Norway – the commission looked at Australia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland and Spain.
Professor Muscatelli and his colleagues said tax "assignment" – simply allocating Scotland the revenue from taxes collected here – would not work because it would need to be supplemented by some further payment from the UK Government.
They also argued full fiscal autonomy – handing Scotland control of all its own taxes – would not be "readily compatible" with staying in the UK.
However, they did not come up with any hard and fast recommendations about how tax powers should be divided between Holyrood and Westminster.
One senior MSP admits to some disappointment there was not a clearer steer from the group.
"Many people were expecting some kind of general recommendation from such an expert group, but it is still useful, especially in providing international examples. If people understand there are lots of different ways of arranging finance and taxation which are already used in other countries, it gives people confidence."
Liberal Democrats have long supported a major transfer of new powers to Holyrood. But Tory MSPs are split between those who believe Scotland must be responsible for raising the money it spends and others who argue the Scottish Parliament is always going to have a left-of-centre majority more inclined to tax and spend than tax-cutting, pro-business policies.
There are differing views within Labour too. Gordon Brown appeared no more than lukewarm towards the idea of the Calman commission when Ms Alexander first proposed it. He reportedly wanted to downgrade it to a "working group" or a "review".
Then, in his speech to a CBI Scotland dinner in September, the Prime Minister signalled support for more powers for Holyrood when he said the "one problem" with devolution was the Scottish Parliament was "wholly accountable for the budget it spends, but not for the size of its budget".
Just a week later, he tried to water down his comments, claiming the speech had been "misread" and he just wanted to wait for Calman to report.
And the UK Government's response to Calman published last week largely steered clear of comment on tax powers and focussed instead on questioning Holyrood's strategic planning powers on the grounds the SNP wants to use them to block any proposals for new nuclear power stations, which is a Westminster responsibility.
Senior Scottish Labour figures have sought to distance themselves from the submission. One party source says diplomatically: "There is some disappointment about the UK Government response." Then he adds: "I'm not sure why they put in a response because the Calman commission will report to them as well as the Scottish Government, they would have been better not making a submission at all."
A senior Labour figure who has discussed the question of further devolution with the Prime Minister, says Mr Brown still has to be persuaded about the importance of more powers.
However, one of the party's Holyrood backbenchers insists the Scottish party is still firmly in the "more powers" camp.
"The leadership is holding its fire at the moment, but the group discussed it recently and the mood music is still very much that we are up for change.
"We remain committed to financial changes. The current situation is not tenable. We need more financial accountability for the parliament.
"We can't just have assigned revenues, we have got to get the right mixture."
This backbencher also argues for some shift in legislative powers as well as financial ones, with control of firearms perhaps the most obvious candidate for transfer from Westminster to Holyrood.
Once Calman's final report comes out next year, the three opposition parties will need time to consider their positions. But they will be under pressure from the SNP to come up with a clear set of proposals which the Nationalists will challenge them to put to the vote alongside independence in a multi-option referendum. Alex Salmond has the date pencilled in already: November 30 2010.
The full article contains 963 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
