Scotland’s newly appointed justice secretary Michael Matheson travelled to Carlisle in the north of England last Wednesday with a warning for English drivers travelling north.
From last Friday, Scotland’s legal drink-driving limit dropped to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood – the same as the Republic’s, but 30mg higher than the rate that will continue to apply in England.
The different rules are, perhaps, the best simple illustration of the gap that is growing between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom – one accelerated by September’s referendum, not stopped.
In Holyrood last week, Scotland’s finance secretary, John Swinney, infuriated some by claiming that the Smith Commission’s proposals on devolution had disappointed many in Scotland. In truth, Swinney is right, or nearly right – at least with that section of Scottish public opinion that makes itself most heard, often raucously, sometimes belligerently.
The body led by Lord Smith of Kelvin was not a commission in the normal sense, one that cogitated at length, perhaps years, before pronouncing judgment on the public policy issue of the day.
Certainly, it held hearings. Essentially, however, it was a rushed haggle between 11 political party representatives that saw significant powers fall away at the last minute from the list of ones to be devolved to Edinburgh. For the "No" side, its contents delivered "The Vow"– the far from clear pledge signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg in the Daily Record newspaper days before Scots went to the polls.
However, Scots’ demands for greater self-rule are often incoherent. A majority want powers over everything bar foreign policy and defence ceded to Edinburgh. Yet they are divided about what to do with many of those powers if they got them – a majority, for example, are not keen on having differing income taxes from England. However, they are absolutely united that the state old age pension should not be different. So, in essence, many want to be different so that they can be the same.
Incoherence
However, incoherence is not just a Scottish problem. There is much of it to be found too among English Conservative MPs in the House of Commons. There, they demand “English votes for English laws”, insisting that Scottish MPs should not vote on issues affecting the English if powers in relation to them have been devolved to Holyrood.
Ostensibly, the argument is a fair one, but as Welsh first minister Carwyn Jones pointed out recently, it is far from clear exactly what is an English law. Since the first World War, governments in London have almost always had a majority in England, bar on two occasions – 1964-66 and February/October 1974.
Despite Conservatives’ hyperbole, however, the McKay Commission was able to find only two examples where policies were introduced in England against the wishes of a majority of English MPs.
In 2003, English Labour MPs rebelling against the creation of foundation hospitals were foiled by the votes of their fellow party MPs from Scotland and Wales. A year later, the same thing happened tuition fees, according to the McKay Commission’s report, which examined the consequences of devolution on the House of Commons two years ago.
Interestingly, England has become more dominant: in 1997 80.3 per cent of MPs represented English constituencies. Since 2010 that is 82 per cent – though that actually better reflects voter numbers.
The principal difficulty with “English votes for English laws” is that some laws that cover England have implications for the rest of the UK, even if their legal writ does not run that far. For instance, funding changes to the National Health Service in England would not directly force ministers in Scotland and Wales to copy them.However, they could impact on the percentage of state money spent on health under the bewilderingly complicated Barnett formula, which which divides up UK public spending between the four nations.
If that happened, then the NHS run from Cardiff, Edinburgh, or, indeed, Belfast could face funding cuts spurred by cuts to the treasury block grant brought about by decisions in England, about England.
Here there is division. Local authorities in Manchester have become Chancellor George Osborne’s favourite because they have been able to speak with one voice on major issues. Part of Osborne’s instincts, if not all of his actions, hark back to the days of Birmingham’s greatness under the Chamberlains in the late 1880s, when it raised most of its own spending.
Currently, he is offering authority over billions worth of spending to local authorities willing to copy Manchester – but spending powers are not the same as powers to legislate.
Resentment
Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael dryly batted away Conservative MP John Redwood’s talk of English disenfranchisement recently, saying that its needs would be met once it could figure out what it wanted.
The solution is a proper federation, but this finds little favour with English MPs, who dislike, or barely understand, the idea that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would have to be given an equal voice to make it work.
The solution to many of England’s demands is the return of the relatively powerful county councils that existed until the early 1970s. However, the same public that wants greater local powers over spending seems far less certain about giving local politicians greater powers to impose taxes upon them.
Mark Hennessy is London Editor
Salmond opts for Westminster seat: foreign