Parliament: Turf wars hotting up in debate over who holds reins

With Westminster and Holyrood locked in a tussle over the division of powers, the SNP can sit back knowing it is in a win-win situation.

YVETTE Cooper caused a storm this week when she wrote to the Scottish Government questioning its plans to replace the council tax with a local income tax, and highlighting a potential £750 million shortfall.

In the division of powers between Westminster and Holyrood, local taxation falls clearly within the Scottish Parliament's remit. But the UK Government argued the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was entitled to intervene because she was voicing a "legitimate concern as a Cabinet minister on the provision of public services in Scotland".

That's not the way Finance Secretary John Swinney saw it. "This is an issue for the Scottish Government. It is not an issue for the Westminster Government in any shape or form," he said.

The spat raises the prospect that tensions between the Labour Government in London and the SNP administration in Edinburgh could spill over from disputes over funding to a serious turf war about the responsibilities of the two regimes.

Just days before the SNP's row with the Treasury erupted, Labour MP Eric Joyce told a fringe meeting at the party's Scottish conference in Aviemore he believed the House of Commons should spend more time debating matters like Scottish health and education even though they are devolved to Holyrood.

Mr Joyce, MP for Falkirk West, argued that in the US, education was the responsibility of individual states but Congress would still discuss broad issues around the subject. He said: "Perhaps we should be scrutinising these issues more than we do at the moment. I don't think MPs should be setting policy, but where there are larger questions about priorities and what are the really big challenges."

It is a controversial view, especially at a time when increased powers for Holyrood are about to come under active discussion in the cross-party Scottish Constitutional Commission.

Taxation is the most important area where change is likely to be proposed, but there are others such as broadcasting and control of the Scottish Parliament's own elections, where there is support for a switch. With the pressure for more action on airguns north of the Border, even firearms are mentioned for possible devolution.

Some Labour politicians have said the commission must also look at powers being moved from Holyrood back to Westminster. Terrorism, foot-and-mouth and bird flu have been mentioned as possible candidates for transfer south.

Malcolm Chisholm, Labour MSP for Edinburgh North and Leith, speaking at the same conference fringe meeting as Mr Joyce, said the possibility of powers going back to Westminster had to be kept open, but he did not expect a "great migration" in that direction.

"When it comes to defence and foreign policy, the advantages of dealing with these on a UK basis far outweigh the disadvantages," he said.

"Immigration has caused some controversy, but as Jack McConnell showed with his Fresh Talent initiative, we can get a variation within immigration policy. I'm open-minded about broadcasting. But people have to look closely at the evidence, not just make an emotional decision based on whether Scottish football matches are shown on terrestrial television."

Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander wisely steered clear of the constitutional commission in her keynote speech to the Aviemore conference.

But in her St Andrew's Day lecture in November she highlighted several areas she believed worthy of examination to see if more power should be handed to Holyrood – welfare to work, road transport, public holidays, marine issues, animal health and taxation.

Since the commission is "cross- border" as well as cross-party, and has been officially endorsed by the UK party leaders, the MPs – however reluctantly – are signed up to the process.

In a debate at Westminster yesterday on Scotland's future, SNP MPs repeatedly goaded their Scottish Labour colleagues by asking whether they supported more powers for Holyrood.

Scottish Secretary Des Browne took the opportunity of his speech at the close of the Labour conference at the weekend to point out Westminster was passing more legislation for Scotland than the minority SNP Government. He told activists: "We may be in opposition in the Scottish Parliament but we are still in government in Scotland."

For what it's worth, a new study this week suggested a majority of English voters would be happy to see more tax powers transferred to Holyrood.

The Nat-Cen survey claimed 75 per cent of English voters believed that "now Scotland has its own parliament, it should pay for its services out of taxes collected in Scotland".

But English support for Scottish independence was down from 24 to 19 per cent. While Labour was in government at both Westminster and Holyrood, any cross-border clashes could be kept under control.

It's a different story now that the two centres of power are held by opposing parties. But almost whatever happens, it is a win-win situation for the SNP.

If Alex Salmond and his colleagues get their way, it's a victory over Westminster and proof that the Nationalists are standing up for Scotland.

If they don't, it's another example of Westminster being anti-Scottish and another reason to demand independence.

Mr Swinney's territorial tussle with Ms Cooper may be a sign of things to come.