The Guardian view on the devo max pledge
|
Version 0 of 1. Just 48 hours before the polling stations open in Scotland, voters were offered a pledge. Published on the front of the Daily Record, and thus aimed prominently and squarely at the traditional Labour voters who make up a lot of the Record’s readership, “the vow” reiterated that extensive new “devo max” powers for the Scottish parliament would follow hard on from a no voteon Thursday. It also promised the continuation of the Barnett formula in calculating public spending in Scotland and it promised that the final say on NHS spending in Scotland will rest with the Scottish parliament. It ended by pledging “faster, safer and better” change for Scotland than separation. Signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, the vow’s political purpose was transparent. Its aim is to steady the Labour vote in Thursday’s referendum. Enough of that vote has been slipping towards the yes campaign to ensure that the outcome remains very much in doubt. Strong commitments to protect Scottish Labour voters’ traditional material and political interests may therefore make the difference. Getting the three leaders to sign up was an attempt to show that there would be no wriggling – to say that if Scotland votes no, these things will happen. Three questions arise from Tuesday’s vow. Is it credible? Is it desirable? And will it do the electoral business? The answer to the first is yes … but. When Gordon Brown unveiled the new devolution powers last week, there was scepticism, especially from his enemies. Simultaneously, the yes campaign was making headway with its alarmism over the NHS. The vow was therefore an attempt to make the pledges copper-bottomed. That makes them credible in the sense that they are an all-party priority, in spite of some English Tory grumbling. Whether an agreed package will be fast-tracked in the very tight pre-general-election timetable is frankly less certain. What can be safely predicted, however, is that some new powers are likely to be in place in time for the Scottish elections in 2016. The desirability of such powers is a more open question. The pledge says nothing about England or Wales. There is no commitment to an even-handed federalism. And Barnett applies to Wales too, unfairly so in Welsh eyes. In a federal system whose shape has not yet been agreed, it cannot be certain that the Barnett mechanism would survive. Even so, it is reasonable that Scotland should not be worse treated in any new system than it is today. But in the end, Tuesday’s “vow” will stand or fall according to Thursday’s result. If yes wins, the vow will have been in vain. If no prevails, the vow will have played its part. It will then have to be redeemed, even though many big questions will remain. |