There is no alternative: Calman is only way to go

The following submission was made by Ms Alexander for the Scotsmans above titled article on 25th November 2009:

Two years ago on St Andrews Day 2007 I proposed a new Commission on the Scottish constitution. A week later the Scottish Parliament embraced the concept, the UK Government followed and Calman, as it became known, was born.

There were many sceptics.  They could be forgiven their cynicism. For years Labour had maintained that devolution did not require reviewing. Even after defeat in 2007 resistance to reform prevailed.

Scottish political history demonstrated that improvements in our governance had to be fought for – they were never gifted. Convinced Scottish Labour should resume its role as a constitutional innovator I proposed an arms-length, independent Commission reaching beyond party politics.  This is how Scots like their constitutional reform – even if it is not always to the taste of politicians, and this is what Calman delivered.

Many colleagues advocated an internal Labour-led review.  Others a negotiation between the Unionist parties. Each designed to deliver more manageable and predictable outcomes.  

Media commentators uniformly predicted Calman would not be a “commission”, Commissioners would be “directed”, borrowing powers were out of the question and Barnett unreformable.

The internal negotiations were repeatedly hard-fought but the prize of a better devolution settlement was too precious to relinquish. My non-negotiable terms for the Commission – independent, expert and beyond party  – provided the necessary authority to succeed.

I had witnessed a similar approach work for Donald Dewar a generation earlier around the Constitutional Convention scheme.  Without the Constitutional Convention blueprint Donald would have struggled to convince colleagues to support a proportional voting system, reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, or distinct tax powers.   To many Labour colleagues in 1997 it seemed strange to elect a Labour Government just to then give away that power through a PR Parliament, a cut in Scottish seats at Westminster and other parties a say in future spending decisions.  But the Scottish Constitutional Convention demanded delivery.

Similarly, I was convinced that a joint mandate from both the Scottish Parliament and UK Government would also demand delivery.  By endorsing the establishment of Calman Labour colleagues were effectively relinquishing the right to disown its conclusions.  Des Browne, although also a busy Defence Secretary, deserves credit for bringing colleagues on board.

To Labour, and Jim Murphy’s credit, the UK Government has backed Calman’s recommendations.

The Tories also have no real choice but to endorse Calman’s proposals eventually. Granted they may hesitate in the coming weeks – but in the longer term they are already locked in. Far-sighted Tories recognise that credibility of Cameron’s Scottish “respect” agenda will come to be measured by his willingness to support Calman’s proposals.

It is no accident that finance was the guts of the Calman remit. It is the key weakness in the current arrangements. But experience alongside Donald Dewar had taught me that the Treasury could never be relied upon to advocate further financial powers.  So from the outset I also insisted on a parallel Independent Expert Finance Group supporting the Commission. In Anton Muscatelli, distinguished economist turned University Principal, we found an expert able to withstand any opposition, however learned.

Like the Convention before it, Calman is a good blueprint, not a perfect one. It is respectable to differ on the detail, urge faster enactment or advocate  “Calman-plus” reminiscent of Donald’s delivery of a “Convention-plus” devolution scheme. But it is unacceptable to reject Calman.

The Scottish Government claim to have accepted half of Calman’s recommendations. But on his really important proposals the SNP range from cool to hostile.

Their formal response slipped out last week bears close reading – if only to be reminded of the SNP’s historic ambiguity to Scotland gaining more powers short of independence.

Predictably the SNP reject many of Calman’s recommendations to improve and deepen relationships between Westminster and Holyrood. But most worrying is the Scottish Government’s official rejection of the key financial proposals.  Turning logic on its head they argue these manifest advances are a step backwards. Such nonsensical posturing should be mercilessly dissected in the months to come.

Calman is at his most radical on finance.  A new Scottish income tax rate, the right to borrow for major infrastructure projects such as the Forth Rd bridge, the devolution of four more tax bases, the right to create new tax bases in consultation with Westminster, the reduction in grant financing and the case for a new needs assessment – unarguably constitute a new beginning.

Calman is not perfect, but it is a step change.  Doubtless some proposals may not make it through the Treasury filter. But the essentials will remain intact.  And a new financial basis for devolution matters critically for the future of our Parliament and our nation.

The greatest risk to devolution over the next decade is not the SNP’s desired referendum but that Scotland’s Parliament sidelines itself from wholeheartedly seeking to heal the scars that still blight Scottish society.

Every time debate in the Scottish Parliament gets stuck blaming Westminster we all lose. Scotland needs a Parliament that cannot abdicate responsibility for raising more of the resources it spends.  A “pocket money” Parliament funded overwhelmingly by grant fails that test. So does a Parliament that endlessly luxuriates in a financial blame game.

Forcing Scottish politicians to take more responsibility for their political choices is at the heart of Calman.

Every fair-minded observer should apply the following tests. Would these plans ever have emerged from a Whitehall-led exercise? Will Calman force Scottish politicians to take more responsibility for raising as well as spending money?  Will the Westminster blame game intensify as resources tighten?

If responsibility not rancour is to characterise Holyrood in the years to come Calman must prevail. Without it we risk a return to the sound and fury, but practical impotence, of past generations. A more equitable sharing of risk, revenues and resources is the way forward.

Tory fainthearts and SNP refusniks may kid themselves that there is an alternative to Calman. They are wrong.

It is impossible for the SNP to credibly resist Calman and ill-judged for the UK Parliament post election not to deliver. Calman may be delayed, but it cannot be disinvented. As intended Calman is the only show in town.

Labour and the Liberals know it.  In time the Tories will accept it. And the SNP fears it. Whatever the General Election outcome Calman is the next step in Scotland’s story.