This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/labour-scotland-tie-binds-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Labour and Scotland: a tie that binds Labour and Scotland: a tie that binds
(5 months later)
Ed Miliband made a confident speech to the Scottish Labour party conference at the weekend. Yet it contained nothing about the kind of relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK that he would like to see if Scotland rejects independence in 2014 and he becomes prime minister in 2015. Tactically, that omission may be understandable. The proposals that Labour put forward only last week do not command united support in the party's ranks. Insofar as Mr Miliband wants to discuss the referendum, he naturally wants to focus on the question that will be on the ballot paper – independence, yes or no – not on the devolution settlement that a Labour government, if there is one, might promote after a no vote, if there is one.Ed Miliband made a confident speech to the Scottish Labour party conference at the weekend. Yet it contained nothing about the kind of relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK that he would like to see if Scotland rejects independence in 2014 and he becomes prime minister in 2015. Tactically, that omission may be understandable. The proposals that Labour put forward only last week do not command united support in the party's ranks. Insofar as Mr Miliband wants to discuss the referendum, he naturally wants to focus on the question that will be on the ballot paper – independence, yes or no – not on the devolution settlement that a Labour government, if there is one, might promote after a no vote, if there is one.
Yet the omission was a pity, all the same. The Scottish Labour devolution commission report is an important contribution to the constitutional debate. This would be true of any document that the largest of the anti-independence parties in Scotland produced on the subject, of course. But last week's document highlights some big questions that have been relatively neglected in the debate over Scotland's future. Labour deserves credit for putting them back on the agenda. They deserve thoughtful debate on both sides of the border. And if that means rows, such as the one this weekend over Holyrood's tax-setting powers, so be it.Yet the omission was a pity, all the same. The Scottish Labour devolution commission report is an important contribution to the constitutional debate. This would be true of any document that the largest of the anti-independence parties in Scotland produced on the subject, of course. But last week's document highlights some big questions that have been relatively neglected in the debate over Scotland's future. Labour deserves credit for putting them back on the agenda. They deserve thoughtful debate on both sides of the border. And if that means rows, such as the one this weekend over Holyrood's tax-setting powers, so be it.
The most important of these questions is whether welfare spending should be devolved to the Scottish parliament, which it is not at present. Much of the debate about third way alternatives to independence and the status quo has focused too quickly on the devo-max alternative, which to many of its supporters means full fiscal devolution to Scotland while remaining within the UK. Fair enough, if that is what Scots want. But the trouble with devo-max is that it is little more than de facto independence without the de jure separation. It leaves the UK dimension of Scottish life largely confined to defence and foreign policy, plus cheering on Team GB at the Olympics.The most important of these questions is whether welfare spending should be devolved to the Scottish parliament, which it is not at present. Much of the debate about third way alternatives to independence and the status quo has focused too quickly on the devo-max alternative, which to many of its supporters means full fiscal devolution to Scotland while remaining within the UK. Fair enough, if that is what Scots want. But the trouble with devo-max is that it is little more than de facto independence without the de jure separation. It leaves the UK dimension of Scottish life largely confined to defence and foreign policy, plus cheering on Team GB at the Olympics.
The case for not devolving welfare spending is that pensions, benefits and the welfare state provide a material form of solidarity between the people of these islands. It means that the union is not just about identity and defence but about accepting a shared responsibility for the old and needy from Worthing to Wick. Crudely, it also means that Scots can benefit materially from the wealth of London and south-east England. If Scots prefer to devolve welfare behind Scottish borders, they are entitled to do so. But if UK solidarity – and the rhetoric of one nation – is to mean something for every person in every corner of a devolved UK, much is to be said for caution over cutting one of the strongest ties that bind.The case for not devolving welfare spending is that pensions, benefits and the welfare state provide a material form of solidarity between the people of these islands. It means that the union is not just about identity and defence but about accepting a shared responsibility for the old and needy from Worthing to Wick. Crudely, it also means that Scots can benefit materially from the wealth of London and south-east England. If Scots prefer to devolve welfare behind Scottish borders, they are entitled to do so. But if UK solidarity – and the rhetoric of one nation – is to mean something for every person in every corner of a devolved UK, much is to be said for caution over cutting one of the strongest ties that bind.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.