The Scottish Constitutional Debate September 2009

This is chapter 1 of the Scottish Devolution Monitoring Report September 2009, but with added references at the end. For the full reports see

Key Points

  • Given its limited remit and the tone of its interim report, the final report of the Calman Commission is surprisingly ambitious.
  • Its recommendations on finance, the further devolution of powers, intergovernmental relations and the role of the Scottish Parliament are substantive, providing the potential for further changes in the future.
  • Most significant is the proposal to make the Scottish Parliament more accountable for income taxation
  • Much of the report is consistent with SNP aims. This includes the call for more formal intergovernmental relations and to devolve responsibility for Scottish Parliament elections, airgun and drink-driving regulations
  • While it was received well by its main audience (the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties), no party has made any firm commitment to implement its recommendations.
  • Indeed, the irony is that the party most critical of the report (the SNP) is also the keenest to see some of it implemented immediately.
  • While the National Conversation has been relatively low key, the Scottish Government has reaffirmed its commitment to an independence referendum bill
  • The House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula has recommended Barnett’s abolition

1.1 The Calman Report’s Recommendations[1]
The Calman Commission’s final report was published on June 15th. While most headlines will be reserved for its substantial recommendations on fiscal accountability and the further devolution of powers, there are also some interesting recommendations to improve intergovernmental relations (IGR) and the legislative process of the Scottish Parliament. The main thrust of the report is that the constitutional side of devolution has been a success but that change can improve the settlement. Of course, the proposed level of change falls short of any prospect for independence because the report was established by the SNP’s opposition parties – Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat – and the UK Government to provide competition for the National Conversation.

Fiscal Autonomy
The most significant change can be found in its recommendations regarding the funding settlement. It argues that it would be difficult to maintain the Union if the UK Government granted full fiscal autonomy to Scotland. Therefore, macro-economic policy must remain reserved. While this is a defendable unionist position, it presents considerable problems when formulating further fiscal powers. The report also notes the limitations that it faces when making recommendations on the Barnett formula. Overall, we have a half-way house between fiscal dependence and autonomy (supplemented by its argument there should also be a common sense of social citizenship and minimum welfare rights, but only when the UK and Scottish Parliaments agree their scope). Barnett has the advantage of providing stability during devolution’s first decade and should be maintained, but only until the UK Government commissions a needs assessment to determine a more equitable system of funding. There should also be more accountability for money spent in Scotland. Therefore, there should be a devolution of certain economic powers – the Stamp Duty on property transactions, the Aggregates Levy, Landfill Tax and the Air Passenger Duty – when differences would not undermine overall macroeconomic policy (in part because they largely affect local populations, with relatively little prospect of exit).

More importantly, the Scottish Parliament should be obliged to make a positive and more visible decision about its level of taxation in relation to the UK rather than benefiting from the relatively hidden status quo position in which it accepts the same levels by not using the tartan tax. Calman therefore recommends reducing UK income tax in Scotland by 10p in the pound (for the lower and higher income tax thresholds, with no ability to tax one but not the other) and reducing Scotland’s grant accordingly, meaning that the Scottish Parliament would have to set the Scottish rate at 10p to stay the same as the UK (assuming that this would raise the same amount from a Scottish base). However, the Scottish Government would not be able to make the bigger decisions about the mix of tax bands or the overall structure of taxes set at the UK level. Therefore, this is effectively the introduction of a greater appearance of accountability but primarily for assigned revenues (this is to be extended to a notional share of income tax on savings, to remove the administrative burden of identifying Scottish savers). There is also not a full link between accountability and economic policy in part because there is still a limited incentive for the Scottish Government to increase its own tax revenue by using economic levers to foster growth. There is a limited ability to compete to attract businesses or individuals through the modification of taxes. Overall, the measures may open up the old north/ south debate on UK macro-economic policy. While Scotland’s GDP per capita is higher than most English regions, it is significantly lower than the south-east of England which brings overall English GDP per capita to a level higher than in Scotland. Therefore, the 10p tax rate in Scotland is likely to produce a slightly smaller overall level of revenue, perhaps prompting the Scottish Government to wonder why it should be accountable for the tax when it can not determine the amount fully.

On the other hand, the recommendations may mark the beginnings of a substantive shift in fiscal arrangements since the 10p would be based on identified rather than notional Scottish incomes and, for the first time, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (the HMRC) would be obliged to work on behalf of Scottish ministers in collecting devolved taxes (Scottish Ministers would also be consulted on appointments of HMRC Commissioners). This comes on top of three further recommendations:

1. To keep benefits such as housing/ council tax reserved but give much more scope for Scottish Ministers to amend their use when developing their own policies. This may be seen as an argument that the UK government should not only not interfere in issues such as the local income tax, but also that the UK Government and HMRC should do all they can to minimise the unintended consequences by cooperating on the effects on benefits (although note its very clear recommendation to keep Attendance Allowance reserved as a gateway to other reserved entitlements).
2. To allow the Scottish Government, like local authorities, to borrow on a Prudential basis (i.e. based on its capacity to repay debt) through the National Loans Fund or Public Works Loans Board. This system would perhaps allow the Scottish Government to fund the Forth Road Bridge in a more straightforward way.
3. To consider further tax devolution – on VAT and a share of fuel duty – when these recommendations have ‘bedded in’. This suggests that, again, the recommendations do not mark the end of the Scottish ‘settlement’.

Devolved and Reserved Powers
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the report’s recommendations on devolved powers is that it has not avoided issues that could be embarrassing to its UK Government sponsor and advantageous to the SNP Government’s agenda. This includes a recommendation to devolve responsibility of the Scottish Parliament elections to the Scottish Parliament (following SNP criticism of the role of the Secretary of State in the ballot paper fiasco), allow Scottish ministers to appoint the Scottish member of the BBC Trust (although this falls far short of SNP calls for Scottish-specific broadcasting), devolve airgun regulation (an SNP demand which it partly inherited from the previous Scottish Executive) and drink-driving limits (in the context of SNP criticism of UK limits when promoting its overall, divergent, alcohol strategy). It also recommends devolving responsibility for the national speed limits, animal health funding, marine nature conservation (note that the issue of marine control has divided the UK and Scottish governments for some time), the Deprived Areas fund, discretionary elements of the reformed Social Fund and the prescribing of controlled drugs (e.g. heroin) to treat addiction (perhaps signalling, incidentally, a position on the balance between the medical and criminal treatment of illegal drug use).

The report recommends that many issues – such as charity law and regulation, food labelling and regulation, the regulation of all health professions and the UK Insolvency service – should remain reserved to preserve sensible administrative arrangements and levels of policy uniformity. In other cases it merely calls for better working arrangements to solve problems associated with devolved and reserved policy interaction or problems associated with the implementation of reserved issues in Scotland, including: the operation of the Health and Safety Executive; the scope for local variations in immigration law implementation; the issue of the wellbeing of children of asylum seekers; Welfare to work; and, the operation of Crown Estate. It strongly recommends that the UK Government maintains the principle of UK-wide Research Councils (which allow Scottish Universities to ‘punch above their weight’ and remain part of a wider pool of scientific funding) but also establish comparable ‘government-funded’ status for particular Scottish research institutions. Perhaps of most note is the absence of a recommendation to change the constitutional settlement regarding nuclear power. This may in part follow the UK Government’s acceptance of a Scottish veto on new nuclear power stations. It also follows a broader recommendation to accept that there will always be issues regarding devolved/ reserved boundaries and that they should be resolved through better intergovernmental relations.

Intergovernmental Relations
The report is critical of the informality of intergovernmental relations (IGR) between the Scottish and UK Governments and it makes recommendations for ministers, civil servants and the Parliaments. First, it argues that the Joint Ministerial Committee should become a body to foster close working and cooperation relationships (perhaps like the JMC Europe) rather than just dispute resolution. The JMC (Domestic) should meet at least annually, as should a new JMC Finance (to discuss macro-economic policy as well as taxation); and a JMCO (for senior officials). The JMC agendas should be published in advance to parliaments (and there should be an annual report). The JMC Europe should foster earlier and more engagement between Scotland and UK, with Scottish Ministers to be automatically part of UK delegation and to speak more on the agreed UK line. There should also be a greater expectation that Scottish MEPs attend Scottish Parliament committees. Second, it argues that there should be more training for UK civil servants to improve their knowledge of devolution and that the civil service code should be amended to ensure cooperation and mutual respect.

Third, although it suggests that the Sewel convention, in which Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matter unless given permission by the Scottish Parliament, has been respected and works well, it must be used better to foster meaningful links between Parliaments (Sewel, or legislative consent, motions are primarily addressed through executives). The report makes a wide range of recommendations in this regard: the Sewel convention should be entrenched in standing orders of each House; there should be more parliamentary cooperation and discussion – perhaps by each passing motions for the other’s attention; Westminster should debate devolved implications and establish a regular ‘state of Scotland’ debate; a ‘standing joint liaison committee of the UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament should be established to oversee relations’; barriers to sharing information and inviting each other to committee meetings should be removed; the Secretary of State for Scotland should appear annually to a convenors’ (committee chairs’) group of the Scottish Parliament and in plenary to report on the devolved implications of the Queen’s speech; the First Minister should appear at Scottish Affairs Committee once per year generally and once per year to discuss how its legislation interacts with reserved matters; there should be Scottish MPs on any UK legislation that uses a substantive Sewel motion, followed by the potential for Scottish Parliament committees to invite the MPs to discuss their implications; and Scottish Parliament and Westminster committees should be given an answer on legislation as they would to their own committees. Further, Calman suggests that there should be a Westminster equivalent to the Sewel motion: ‘A new legislative procedure should be established to allow the Scottish Parliament to seek the consent of the UK Parliament to legislate in reserved areas where there is an interaction with the exercise of devolved powers’.

Scottish Parliament recommendations
Finally, Calman makes some recommendations to improve the scrutiny role of the Scottish Parliament. To deal with the lack of a second chamber and the relative finality of its stage 3 legislative process, it recommends giving the power to the Presiding Officer to refer novel, substantive amendments at stage 3 back to committee before bill is passed (to give MSPs and stakeholders chance to look at implications). Or, an amendment to proceed to stage 4 can be proposed by MSPs. It also recommends that committees seek to minimise their MSP turnover (although this is still largely the decision of the parties themselves) and that committees should be able to decide themselves when to create sub-committees to deal with scrutiny overload.

1.2 Reactions to the Calman Recommendations
In some respects the overall reaction to the Calman report has been odd. For example, the initial media reception was fairly warm, with many references to the report’s boldness.[2] Its immediate audience – the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties – was also enthusiastic, with Jim Murphy keen to be photographed accepting the report from Calman and both the UK Labour and Conservative parties intimating that the report would find its way into their general election manifestos in some form.[3] Yet, things have been quiet since, with both parties suggesting that they need more time to digest the report and that its recommendations come as an overall, coherent package that would be difficult to implement incrementally. Of course, the more honest statement would be that constitutional reform in Scotland is way down the list of priorities for a UK Government.[4] The lack of progress appears to have frustrated Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott who has ‘lost patience’ with his colleagues in the other parties.[5] It has also produced an ironic turn of events: the party most critical of the report (the SNP) is now the keenest to see some of it (not surprisingly, the section recommending more devolved powers) implemented immediately.[6]

1.3 The National Conversation
The National Conversation itself (i.e. not including moves to introduce a referendum bill – see 1.4) has been relatively low key in this period, with the most notable development regarding opposition party criticism of its costs. This may arise again during negotiations on the annual budget (see 3.3).

1.4 The Referendum on Independence
The Scottish Government outlined in September its plans for a bill to enable a referendum on independence (as part of its overall legislative programme)[7]. Of course, whether or not this bill will be passed by the Scottish Parliament is another matter. The probability of this event has never been clear and it is no clearer now. While the main opposition parties were very quick to announce that they would not support the bill, whispers continue about various members of various parties being keen to see it go ahead. The parties may also have blundered by placing so much criticism on a discussion of constitutional change during a recession, suggesting that they may be more open to the prospect after an economic recovery.

1.5 The Barnett Formula
Media attention to the Barnett formula was raised briefly during the summer following a Lord’s report.[8] The report criticises the fact that a short-term measure has been in place for so long, with no real attempt to adjust the baseline according to population or to allocate money at the margins with reference to need rather than automatically. It recommends a needs assessment exercise followed by a system that provides clarity on how territorial funds are distributed. While David Cameron has in the past expressed similar aims, and the Treasury is in the process of reviewing the system,[9] a major reform is by no means inevitable because both have much higher priorities. Indeed, if there is anything that demonstrates the extent to which Scottish funding is small beer to the Treasury, it is the news that the effect of the recession is to reduce its tax take by more than the Scottish Government’s annual budget.[10]

Further references not in the SDMR
P. Jones 5.6.09 ‘Calman Commission says no to devolution of North Sea oil revenues’ The Times
T. Murden and T. Peterkin 7.6.09 ‘Calman set to support Barnett Formula’ The Scotsman
D. Maddox 6.6.09 ‘’Too late’ for Scotland to claim North Sea revenues’ The Scotsman
R. Dinwoodie 6.6.09 ‘’Give Scotland borrowing powers and oil revenues’’ The Herald
H. Macdonell 15.6.09 ‘SNP pledge to use new powers to ban airguns’ The Scotsman
B. Currie 15.6.09 ‘Major tax handover expected in Calman report’ The Herald
D. Maddox 12.6.09 ‘Calman’s Holyrood tax power plans ‘don’t go far enough’’ The Scotsman
D. Maddox 11.6.09 ‘Holyrood in line to get new powers over tax’ The Scotsman
L. Davidson 14.6.09 ‘Voters are denied referendum on Calman proposals’ The Times
D. Maddox 16.6.09 ‘Calman’s bold proposals to empower Scotland’ The Scotsman
H. Macdonell 16.6.09 ‘Hamish Macdonell: Calman report a giant leap for Scots autonomy’ The Scotsman
J. Curtice 16.6.09 ‘Analysis: Offering an alternative to the ‘subsidy junkie’ jibe’ The Scotsman
16.6.09 ‘Steering group named to push Calman forward to next stage’ The Scotsman
16.6.09 ‘Making the parliament more effective’ The Scotsman
16.6.09 ‘Holyrood will have to foot bill for changes’ The Scotsman
16.6.09 ‘A More Perfect Union’ The Times
16.6.09 ‘Calman’s vision could bolster Holyrood and end English cash grievances’ A. Macleod 16.6.09 ‘The Calman Commission: the main recommendations’ The Times
A. Young 16.6.09 ‘Grant formula may be seen as weapon against Scots’ The Herald
R. Dinwoodie 16.6.09 ‘Should there be a referendum on flagship proposal?’ The Herald
16.6.09 ‘Lessons learned from abroad could keep Union intact’ The Herald
16.6.09 ‘Powers returned to Westminster’ The herald
B. Currie 15.6.09 ‘Major tax handover expected in Calman report’ The Herald
The Scottish Government 15.6.09 ‘Calman Commission’ The Scottish Government
D. Maddox 17.6.09 ‘Referendum challenge by SNP to choose independence or Calman’ The Scotsman
D. Maddox 16.6.09 ‘Labour promises to deliver Calman reform in 10 months’ The Scotsman
17.6.09 ‘Salmond springs surprise by including Calman in his referendum plans’ The Times
H. Mcleish 16.6.09 ‘Calman report is Westminster’s golden chance to redefine devolution’ The Times
P. Jones 16.6.09 ‘Calman’s vision could bolster Holyrood and end English cash grievances’ The Times
A. Macleod 16.6.09 ‘Gordon Brown backs Calman’s ‘bold’ tax-raising proposals for Holyrood’ The Times
M. Wade 16.6.09 ‘’Holyrood has proved itself’: Calman Commission wins over Scots’ The Times
A. Macleod 16.6.09 ‘The Calman Commission: the main recommendations’ The Times
A. Macleod 16.6.09 ‘Calman: give Scotland power to set speed and drink-driving limits’ The Times
J. Allardyce 21.6.09 ‘Former Labour ministers condemn Calman report’ The Times
A. Black 22.6.09 ‘What has devolution done for us?’ BBC
18.6.09 ‘Change in devolution ‘must come’ ‘ BBC
R. Dinwoodie 24.6.09 ‘Outnumbered, not outgunned: Murphy holds his own with SNP’ The Herald
A. Macleod 23.6.09 ‘We hoped for a scrap, but the Murphy and Swinney show was pure comedy’ The Times
I. Swanson 24.6.09 ‘Ian Swanson: Ban on airguns finally looks to be in Holyrood’s sights’ The Scotsman
D. Maddox 26.6.09 ‘SNP urges political rivals to back key Calman proposals’ The Scotsman
E. Barnes 28.6.09 ‘Cameron sounds nuclear warning’ The Scotsman
D. Maddox 29.6.09 ‘Foulkes calls for swift action on Calman proposals’ The Scotsman
A. Macleod 28.6.09 ‘Tory split over Calman threatens to go nuclear’ The Times
A. Macleod 28.6.09 ‘Implement Calman proposals now, Salmond urges Brown’ the Times
M. Howie 6.7.09 ‘Fresh bid to take control of gun laws’ he Scotsman
D. Maddox 7.7.09’ Calman denies SNP claim that inquiry was ‘nobbled’’ he Scotsman
6.7.09 ‘MPs grill Calman over comission findings’ The Scotsman
R. Dinwoodie 8.7.09 ‘Gun law reforms in Scotland could provide model for UK’ he Herald
E. Barnes 30.7.09 ‘Calman accuses SNP of ‘misrepresentation’’ The Scotsman
R. Dinwoodie 10.8.09 ‘Calman’s tax ideas ‘would drag down Scottish economy’’ The Herald
A. Macleod 12.9.09 Cracks appear in unity over Calman reforms’ The Times
4.6.09 ‘SNP rejects Calman plan for future of devolution’ The Scotsman
16.6.09 ‘Brown urged to act quickly to extend Holyrood powers’ The Scotsman
J. Purvis 25.6.09 ‘Tax-raising powers will change parties’ ways of campaigning’ The Scotsman
T. Peterkin 5.7.09 ‘’Rich will run’ if new tax power brought in’ The Scotsman–
R. Dinwoodie 8.7.09 ‘Gun law reforms in Scotland could provide model for UK’ The Herald
15.6.09 ‘Calman Commission’ Scottish Government News Release
5.6.09 ‘Response to Calman Commission’ Scottish Government News Release
T. Peterkin 19.8.09 ‘Steel backs tax powers’ he Scotsman
D. Maddox 17.6.09 ‘Economists condemn proposed reforms as ‘recipe for instability’’ The Scotsman

6.7.09 ‘SNP defend cost of ‘Conversation’’ The Herald
A. Philp 6.7.09 ‘SNP blasted for spending £500,000 on National Conversation’ The Scotsman
N. Christian 19.7.09 ‘Conversation and Calman cost £1m’ The Scotsman
J. Robertson 19.7.09 ‘SNP slams £600,000 Calman consultation’ The Times
10.9.09 ‘’Conversation’ inquiry step’ The Scotsman–
R. Dinwoodie 17.6.09 ‘Eck’s blether on the future’ The Herald
S. MacDonald 5.7.09 ‘£450k cost of ‘talking shop’’ The Times
16.6.09 ‘National Conversation’ Scottish Government News Release
8.9.09 ‘National Conversation’ Scottish Government News Release
A. Macleod 9.9.09 ‘SNP plans to share diplomatic services under attack’ The Times
L. Cameron 21.9.09 ‘Salmond hits back at tycoon’s ‘Titanic’ comments’ The Scotsman

Independence bill
T. S. Robertson 31.8.09 ‘’Futile’ independence bill won’t stand a chance, vows opposition’ The Scotsman
31.8.09 ‘SNP to reveal timetable for independence referendum’ The Herald
L. Davidson 31.8.09 ‘Scottish referendum Bill heads for defeat as parties close ranks’ The Times
S. Johnson 30.8.09 ‘Alex Salmond to table independence referendum bill’ The Telegraph
29.8.09 ‘MSPs to debate independence bill’ BBC
31.8.09 ‘The big question’ The Herald
3.9.09 ‘Scottish independence: Salmond sets out plans for referendum’ The
9.9.09 ‘SNP’s paper on independence branded ‘unforgivable’ waste’ The Scotsman
J. Hjul 6.9.09 ‘Jenny Hjul: Treat SNP referendum talk with the ridicule it deserves’ The Times
A. Macleod 3.9.09 ‘Salmond to push ahead with referendum Bill’ The Times
A. Macleod 3.9.09 ‘Salmond to push ahead with referendum Bill’ The Times
A. Macleod 14.9.09 ‘Is Salmond serving up independence lite?’ The Times
R. Dinwoodie 17.6.09 ‘Salmond challenge on independence’ The herald
16.6.09 ‘Referendum ‘could look at powers’ BBC
28.9.09 ‘’Wrong time’ to hold referendum’ BBC
22.9.09 ‘Leader plays down talk on referendum’ The Scotsman
21.9.09 ‘Scottish independence referendum: Lib Dem leader Clegg says vote would be ‘wrong’’ The Scotsman
22.9.09 ‘Tavish Scott denies turnaround on Lib Dem independence referendum policy’ The Herald
3.9.09 ‘SNP outlines plans for referendum’ BBC
E. Barnes 23.9.09 ‘Lib Dems gag MSPs over independence referendum’ The Scotsman
G. peev 29.9.09 ‘Gray hints at policy U-turn with mention of referendum’ he Scotsman
A. Macleod 29.9.09 ‘Confusion as Gray hints at referendum’ The Times
T. Crichton 28.9.09 ‘Gray set to allow vote on SNP key mandate’ The Herald
G. Bowditch and S. MacDonald 27.9.09 ‘SNP denies Labour call for constitutional debate’ The Times
J. Allardyce 23.8.09 ‘Tory peer calls for independence poll’ he Times
L. Davidson 20.9.09 ‘SNP attacked over plan to lower voting age in independence poll’ The Times

17.7.09 ‘Lords call for an end to Barnett’ BBC News
23.5.09 ‘Barnett formula ‘lacks any logic’’ BBC News
17.7.09 ‘Lords call for an end to Barnett’ BBC News
S. Johnson 17.7.09 ‘’Unfair’ Barnett formula should be scrapped say Lords’ The Telegraph

M. Settle 1.7.09 ‘Watchdog warned ‘steer clear of reserved issues’’ The Herald
R. Lydall 13.7.09 ‘Second ‘dinner party summit’ suggested to discuss recession’ The Scotsman
R. Lydall 19.7.09 ‘Salmond with your meal? PM wants a second ‘dinner summit’’ The Scotsman
J. Allardyce and J. Robertson 30.8.09 ‘SNP makes nuclear subs a prime target’ The Times
16.9.09 ‘Salmond to ask Westminster for more cash to kickstart recovery’ The herald
S. McGinty 12.7.09 ‘SNP accused of ‘hissy fits’ over bombers’ trial’ The Scotsman
10.5.09 ‘MSPs ‘must respect’ Westminster’ BBC
M. Williams 4.7.09 ‘MSPs: Stop cheating our troops out of their R&R’ The Herald
C. Claire 5.7.09 ‘SNP demands change to stop military being ‘cheated’ out of holidays’ The Scotsman–
M. Settle 13.7.09 ‘Bombing ‘hissy fits’ by Salmond dismissed as nonsense’ The herald
J. Quinn 13.8.09 ‘Murphy fails to secure Scots visas for Pakistanis’ The Scotsman
M. Settle and M. Williams 8.9.09 ‘Cameron calls for 10% cut in number of Scots MPs’ The Herald
A. Macleod 8.9.09 ‘Civil servants accused of stoking conflict with UK’ The Times (big one)
P. Jones 21.6.09 ‘England and Scotland ‘must learn to talk’’ The Times
L. Davidson 12.7.09 ‘Salmond ‘exploited’ Glasgow Airport terror attack’ The Times
A. Massie 12.7.09 ‘Alan Massie: The SNP’s nuclear option is to have no defence at all ‘ The Times
D. Maddox 18.6.09 ‘Row erupts over £20bn North Sea oil cash shortfall claims’ The Scotsman
J. Quinn 22.6.09 ‘SNP to demand more powers from Scottish Secretary’ The Scotsman
22.6.09 ‘SNP to demand powers in Scottish Secretary talks’ The Herald
E. Barnes 21.6.09 ‘Costs at Scotland Office ‘out of control’’ The Scotsman
B. Currie 19.6.09 ‘North Sea oil revenue would ‘see Scotland in the black’ The Herald
R. Dinwoodie 29.6.09 ‘Salmond in clash with Cameron over Clyde Trident’ The Herald
S. Johnson 28.6.09 ‘David Cameron warns Alex Salmond not to obstruct new Trident’ The Telegraph
27.6.09 ‘Tories were ‘wrong’ on devolution’ BBC
D. Maddox 30.6.09 ‘General Sir Mike: Scotland safer in the UK than under independence’ The Scotsman
R. lydall 30.6.09 ‘SNP angry at Tory leader’s Trident vow’ The Scotsman

B. Currie 20.7.09 ‘Swinney’s Japan visit aims to bolster Scottish trade links’ The Herald
M. Macaskill 2.8.09 ‘Malawi journalist tells Scotland to keep cash’ The Times

[1] Commission on Scottish Devolution (2009) Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century

[2] G. Braiden 16.6.09 ‘Some reservations, but report widely praised’ The Herald; D. Maddox 16.6.09 ‘Critics confounded by radical reform plans’ The Scotsman
[3] A. Macleod and P. Jones 11.6.09 ‘Labour and Tories to back new tax-raising powers for Scotland’ The Times; A. Macleod 16.6.09 ‘Gordon Brown backs Calman’s ‘bold’ tax-raising proposals for Holyrood’ The Times
[4] A. Macleod 26.6.09 ‘Scottish Conservatives step back from Calman Commission findings’ The Times; J. Allardyce and J. Robertson 12.7.09 ‘No new powers for Scotland until 2015’ The Times
[5] D. Maddox 18.9.09 ‘Labour and Tories not pulling their weight on devolution – Scott’ The Scotsman
[6] A. Macleod 28.6.09 ‘Implement Calman proposals now, Salmond urges Brown’ The Times

[7] 3.9.09 ‘Programme for Scotland’ Scottish Government News Release
[8]House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula (2009) The Barnett Formula, HL Paper 139 (London: The Stationery Office)
[9] BBC News 10.9.09 ‘Funding rules ‘unfairness’ claim’
[10] T. Crichton 21.7.09 ‘Tax take falls by £32bn amid economic downturn’ The herald

Leave a comment

Filed under Scottish politics, Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s