Power struggle has barely begun

IT'S two months since Wendy Alexander first announced plans for a cross-party commission to look at new powers for the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Labour leader's public support for the transfer of more responsibilities – including tax powers – from Westminster to Holyrood was a significant step.

But despite meetings involving senior figures from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories in Edinburgh and London, there is still no clear picture of what the Scottish Constitutional Commission is to look like or what it will do.

Party leaders are currently said to be trying to fix another meeting which would agree on a remit.

But insiders say the key issue of appointing a chairman or chairwoman – a non-politician who could help foster a Scottish consensus – has "not even been discussed". And questions are now being asked about how serious the parties are about the exercise.

Talk of the commission inevitably prompts comparisons with the Scottish Constitutional Convention which met regularly over six years to draw up a blueprint for devolution. Labour and the Lib Dems were the key players, but churches, trade unions, business people and representatives from a wide range of Scottish society took part too. The Tories and the SNP stayed out.

The convention, set up in March 1989, did a lot of hard work, thrashed out many practical issues and had genuine debates about how a Scottish parliament should work. But the strength of the exercise was it had been inspired by a decade of shared frustration at unrelenting Tory rule from London and started from an agreed basis – that there had to be some form of devolution.

The commission is being established in very different circumstances. Instead of plotting how to escape the grasp of an unpopular government at Westminster, it is defining itself against the aspirations of a newly-elected Holyrood administration basking in strong public support.

And where the convention had a clear common goal, the commission faces the prospect of tackling a whole host of tricky questions with no guarantee of reaching agreement.

The Lib Dems have always wanted more powers for Holyrood. But the problem is there is no consensus within the Labour or Conservative parties on going further down the home rule road.

And the commission is open to the accusation it is a panic reaction to the SNP's success last May.

There are individuals in both Labour and the Tories who are convinced of the need for a further devolution of power, including some degree of control over taxes. But both parties also have others who are deeply sceptical.

And the argument has not been had, far less won, internally in either party.

Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie is said to be facing a backlash from traditional Tories worried that any support for further devolution is simply playing into the hands of the Nationalists.

Ben Wallace, once a Tory MSP and now an MP, used last week's Scottish Questions in the Commons to claim greater tax powers for Holyrood "reeks of appeasement of the SNP".

And even Tory elder statesman and former Edinburgh Pentlands MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who supported devolution when it was unfashionable in the party, has been critical.

He called it "naive and simplistic" to talk generally about more powers for the parliament so soon after its establishment. He said: "I don't say there can never be any further changes, but each proposal will have to be argued on its merits."

Ms Alexander has long believed in a more powerful Scottish Parliament and argued for it behind the scenes when devolution was being planned.

But many of Labour's Scottish MPs are in no mood to see more of their responsibilities transferred to Holyrood, especially now it has fallen into SNP hands.

And Labour fought last year's Scottish Parliament elections arguing there was no need for more powers.

One Labour insider says there is widespread support in the Scottish party for a serious look at the question of more powers for Holyrood.

But he admits there might not have been so much interest in the idea if the SNP had not got into power.

He says: "If we had won the election, the commission would not have grown the arms and legs that it has.

"But there is a general feeling we need to discuss this now because although there is no surge in support for independence, people will inevitably start to look at it because Salmond is talking about it and we need to have something to offer instead."

Opinion polls regularly show stronger support for "more powers" than for independence. But the chances are people are choosing that as the most attractive of the options put to them. It doesn't necessarily reflect a popular clamour for MSPs to be given extra responsibilities.

Now they have embarked on the commission project, the opposition parties cannot afford to dither – but they also need to tread carefully if they are going to keep people on board.