'Devo plus' for Scotland? Let's unpack it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/28/devo-plus-scotland-future

Version 0 of 1.

The Holyrood Three and their cross-party "devo plus" launch is a long overdue effort to take some wind out of Alex Salmond's billowing sails.

The McTroika of former Scottish Lib Dem Leader Tavish Scott, former presiding officer and Tory MSP Alex Fergusson and former chair of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party, Duncan McNeill argue devo plus (Scottish control of welfare benefits, income tax, corporation tax and oil revenues) would bring prudence home to Scotland. Holyrood could not spend without raising taxes. Kelvin MacKenzie might even approve.

Devo max would go further and send pensions, national insurance and VAT north too – opinion polls suggest around a third of Scots would back plus or max – about the same proportion support full independence.

So devo diversity is welcome. And yet – happily for the ebullient Scottish first minister who wants but cannot overtly support a second-prize option on his referendum ballot paper – it also prises the lid of Pandora's box further open with a small mountain of procedural questions.

First, why devo plus and not devo max or indeed the full bhuna? If a little responsibility is a good thing what's wrong with a lot? Second, why have these "long-term supporters" of Scotland bill plus powers stayed silent for so long? Did the SNP's epic 2011 election victory concentrate minds? If so, can fair-weather home rule supporters be trusted to carry devo plus over the line if the independence project fails? Third – when will the unionist parties themselves enter the frame? Individuals can float ideas but devo plus must stand up to scrutiny or look as vague as the promise of "more powers" recently dangled by David Cameron. While we're at it, is devo plus what he has in mind or is devo diversion more the prime minister's style? A pre-referendum promise by Alec Douglas-Home for a better option never materialised in 1979 – Scots are now deeply suspicious of constitutional jam-later pledges.

And finally – if devo plus is such a handsome little lad, why don't his many dads want an early appearance on the referendum ballot paper? Why not equal treatment (and scrutiny) for every democratic option?

So many questions – perhaps we need two years till D-Day after all.

Naturally, devo plus sounds cuddlier, safer and easier than full-blown independence. Option B always does. But any change to the status quo that's worth the candle must tackle the twin problems of devolution: lack of control and responsibility. That won't be easy in a centralised state like Britain – on the other hand, settling the Scots could provide some democratic models for the whole of "top-down" Britain.

The passive, pocket-money model of funding Scotland is over, so it's high time to start unpacking devo plus. The idea we could discuss Scotland's future for two years without any option bar the two "extremes" – independence and the status quo – was always ludicrous. The idea of discussing an option without putting it as a formal ballot paper will soon seem equally daft – and undemocratic. Without the forensic scrutiny that inclusion on a ballot paper brings, devo plus will be a tempting but fuzzy alternative that prompts an epidemic of proxy voting in the clarity-providing, single-question referendum.

Some supporters of change will vote no, believing devo plus is round the corner – others will vote yes because their preferred option looks like a dead duck. Such an outcome may deliver statistical clarity but the collective will of the Scottish people will remain as clear as mud.

The devo debate has really just begun.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree