|
09/06/2010 |
|
Presiding Officer, The debate this morning will serve little purpose if it merely restates each of our own well known positions on Scotland’s constitutional future. Those positions may well be heartfelt, vocal, and in some cases even right, but their mere rehearsal will not suffice. It will be of much more interest to the people of Scotland if today we each show some willingness actually to listen to a debate on which there is, surprisingly, at least some common ground. If you will allow me a Hebridian analogy, perhaps our common ground is like the apocryphal disputed peat bank; that is to say it is the subject of a tense stand off for decades, it is the object of deeply entrenched positions, and it is narrow. But it is clearly in everyone’s interest that the Scottish and UK Governments speak to each other constructively when a proposal for constitutional change in Scotland is once more on the table. The challenge is to come up with legislative measures which will work. The Queen’s speech talks about implementing Calman commission recommendations, and there is an evident willingness on the part of both governments to continue a dialogue about what that might mean in practical terms. Be in no doubt. From the point of view of all of us who see Scotland’s destination as independence, the Calman proposals do not take the political temperature in Scotland anywhere close to the flashpoint of heather. However, as I and other nationalists have said before in this chamber, we recognise that there are things in these proposals which are good, and worthy of implementation. But the proposals in Calman are neither indivisible nor sacrosanct, and I suspect that mine is not the only party that takes that practical point of view. The fact that the UK Government is prepared to repatriate to Scotland legislative competence over drink driving, speed limits and airguns is to be welcomed. In as far as these go, these are all highly reasonable. My colleague Dave Thomson has been active among members of all parties in his support for this place to have control over drink driving law. Likewise many have campaigned hard for Holyrood to legislate on airguns. And it certainly does seem strange for a country with its own legal and criminal justice systems not to be able to legislate on something as everyday as speed limits. However, I believe Calman is genuinely more problematic when he talks about fiscal powers. If I thought that Calman was proposing fiscal autonomy or anything resembling it, I would have no such reservations. But in his fiscal proposals, I am afraid Calman has simply not presented a coherent picture. It is therefore for all parties in Scotland now to engage rationally on how to provide genuine fiscal responsibility for this Parliament. Calman’s proposal to reduce UK income tax to 10p in Scotland, leaving Scotland to levy the rest herself, only sounds radical, until you consider that income tax is but one tax. Under these proposals, 80% of tax revenue generated in Scotland would continue to go to the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament would have roughly the same scope for fiscal manoeuvre as does Clackmannanshire Council. Less, probably, as we would have no borrowing powers. Valuable as much in Calman is, scepticism about his fiscal proposals is far from confined to the SNP’s benches. The existing fiscal proposals are undermined even from out of the mouths of members of Calman’s own advisory panel. Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet has of course described the fiscal proposals as “seriously flawed, if not illiterate”. Others have pointed to the fact that Calman’s system, which assigns revenues to Scotland based on UK Treasury forecasts, ensures that when growth is forecast the UK Treasury gains, and when decline is forecast Scotland loses. While Calman’s intentions are honourable, I believe that even his report’s stoutest defenders will surely accept that the time has come for his fiscal proposals to be subjected to further thought. Particularly when other studies, ranging from the Scottish Government’s National Conversation to the Lib Dems Steel Commission have all identified far more fiscally autonomous solutions for our country. Indeed, many options among these would have Scotland raising virtually all taxes in Scotland and making a subvention for services provided by the UK Government in reserved areas. Presiding officer, If Scotland is to be competitive economically in the future, then there has to be some relation between what Scottish governments plough into the economic development of the country, and what they are then able to reap from that economic activity through a stronger tax base. Despite our manifold differences, there is a clear willingness for the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments to talk sensibly about these issues together. Talking sensibly, I contend leads us to this conclusion. By all means let us implement the uncontentious areas of Calman. But if there is a respect agenda, it has to mean more than polite conversation. There is a demand from all political quarters for Scotland to take more responsibility for raising the money that it spends. The fiscal proposals in Calman do not achieve that end. Therefore we must use this moment rationally and ensure that Scotland comes to exercise the control over her own economy that most of us know Scotland both wants and needs.
|
