STEPHEN DAISLEY: The great taboo – Devolution has only worked for one class of Scots …the politicians
There is a question more taboo than any other in Scottish politics. It’s not about a salacious scandal, a behind-the-scenes row, or a tidbit of gossip from the corridors of power.
It’s quite a simple query, really: How is devolution working out for you?
The question is prompted by reports the SNP Government is mulling the introduction of a 45p income tax band on those earning more than £75,000.
At present, these earners pay 42p in the pound up to £125,000, when the 47p rate kicks in. Some might say: what’s another 3p? After all, we’re talking about incomes significantly above the Scottish average.
Donald Dewar is sworn into the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, Wednesday, May 12, 1999, during the opening ceremony
Yes, we are. We’re also talking about most GPs, all police superintendents, and headteachers a decade into the role.
That’s who would be hit by a 45p band.
We don’t talk about tax rises in such terms in this country because we prefer to pretend they only affect The Rich.
We need a lot more rich people in Scotland but stretching the definition to include the family doctor and the head of the local comp is not the way to go about it.
Then again, perhaps we have a surfeit of doctors, senior cops and experienced heads that I’m unaware of.
Perhaps ministers figure the personal, bureaucratic and financial costs involved in relocating to England are such that most of those affected would just put up and shut up.
Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But this cuts both ways: a tax hike on doctors and headteachers might not drive all of them south, but it may well make these professions think twice about taking up a post in Scotland.
It wouldn’t be so bad if this fiscal smash ’n’ grab was going to rake in piles of cash, but the Fraser of Allander Institute forecasts a haul of just £60million.
So we are faced with the prospect of tax rises for GPs at a time when more than a third of practices have a vacancy and all to raise the equivalent of 0.1 per cent of the Scottish Government’s annual budget.
When Westminster legislated to expand the Scottish parliament’s tax powers, we were assured that more fiscal devolution would ensure more fiscal responsibility from ministers.
How bitterly hollow those promises now ring.
Contrary to what all the clever people said, turbo-charging Holyrood’s fiscal powers has given Scotland the highest income tax rate in the United Kingdom and, in tomorrow’s budget, could see even more taxation pain for very little gain. Is this what fiscal responsibility looks like?
This should not be mistaken for an exculpation of the SNP and its mesmerisingly dire government.
I bow to no one in my commitment to pointing out every Nationalist blunder, idiocy and political vanity. But we have to face facts: the SNP only gets to this because of devolution.
If your taxes go up tomorrow, it’s because second-wave devolution gave Holyrood the power to do so in 2016. First-wave devolution, which set up the Edinburgh parliament, only permitted MSPs to raise or lower the basic rate by 3p.
If you’re already paying more than someone earning the same south of the Tweed, the point still stands. Had those additional tax powers not been devolved, you would be paying the same in Musselburgh as you would in Middlesbrough.
Which brings us to the taboo. You see, you’re not supposed to point this out because it implies that devolution might not have made things better, and that is blasphemy to the ears of the Scottish political establishment.
The only criticism permitted of devolution is that there hasn’t been enough or that it should be replaced by full independence.
And, sure, a devolved government of a different stripe could use the same fiscal powers to cut taxation and make Scotland more competitive. Even so, I suspect the election of such a government will be a long day coming.
If you hand extensive fiscal powers to a parliament dominated by centre-left parties, you know (or should know) what is going to happen.
It’s equally the case that a high-tax government could get in at Westminster and the Scottish parliament could use its powers to insulate Scots from the impact. But even if that were to happen, reserved and devolved fiscal decisions are fundamentally different.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether Tory or Labour, wants to put up income tax, he or she will be subject to intensive parliamentary, party, think tank, economist, business and broadcast media scrutiny.
In almost all regards, the Scottish Finance Secretary can expect infinitely less scrutiny, not least at Holyrood where backbench discipline is much more rigid than at Westminster and where committees still aren’t properly independent of party bosses.
While the SNP is particularly averse to oversight and accountability, many of the structural faults in Scottish politics would pertain under a government led by any of the opposition parties.
It’s not just about tax. Displeased about the Scottish Government interfering in foreign affairs?
Frustrated by ministers picking costly legal fights with Westminster at your expense? By the farce over ferries and the deposit return debacle?
All products of devolution.
Now, I’m not saying we should do away with devolution and shutter the Scottish parliament.
True, it has the potential to be the most architecturally avant-garde multi-storey car park in Europe, and would probably do the country more benefit in that guise, but I’m afraid that’s not how these things work.
The electorate voted for a parliament and while some now long to see the back of it, the polls show a clear majority still committed to devolution.
What I am saying is that we need a little candour about the gulf between what devolution was sold as and what it has turned out to be.
Not only because it failed to ‘kill nationalism stone dead’ but because it failed to resolve the ‘democratic deficit’, or rather it replaced the old one with a new one.
Today, it doesn’t matter what the voters think about gender self-ID or imprisoning people for things they say in their own homes.
Four out of five parties at Holyrood are committed to these policies and the public will just have to deal with it.
Lord knows Westminster is flawed but while the quality of legislative scrutiny there is not what it was, it is much more robust than at Holyrood. What is meant to be a fearless, questioning chamber is little more than a rubber stamp for the preferences of SNP ministers.
Which is why it is so taboo to raise these matters. Because in doing so you are acknowledging that the foundation upon which modern Scottish politics is built does not work properly and may be making things worse than they would have been without devolution.
There is a lesson in this about the false promise of grand solutions.
Politics is, for the most part, about managing lots of discrete problems that can’t be swept away by even the most ambitious constitutional change. A dose of political modesty and moderation is called for.
And candour. Devolution has fallen far short of expectations. We should not shy away from acknowledging this. Quite the opposite: only by talking about these failings can we begin to remedy them.
A settlement designed around one political elite transferring its powers to another was never going to serve the people of this country, and so it has proved.
We need a devolution conversation that is not about what additional powers Scottish ministers should gain but about what they should be doing – and not doing – with the powers they already have.
We need a devolution system that is about making Scotland better governed and more prosperous rather than making her political class more powerful.
Source: Read Full Article