Meeting of the Parliament 10 December 2014
Not at this time.
The SNP would be unwise in the extreme to place roadblocks in the way of that development or to create straw men to knock down.
The SNP’s complaints are misplaced and staggeringly hypocritical. Had the outcome in September been different, the party would now be trying to explain how its promises on the economy could withstand an oil price that is nearly half what it claimed it would be. The Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that the SNP’s figures already contained a £6 billion black hole, so the mind boggles at what would have happened when its fantasy economics collided with the reality of a volatile oil market.
On the subject of the SNP’s response to Lord Smith’s report, I must also express disappointment at the nationalist amendment to our motion. This debate was an opportunity for all five parties to back a path forward following the commission’s proposals. We welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, which calls for more devolution within Scotland. However, the SNP has chosen to rewrite our motion, purely, it seems, because it objects to the use of the word “significant” to describe the new powers that are coming our way. It is pretty risible stuff and I am afraid that it betrays once again the ideological blinkers of the nationalist Government.
Let me tell members that complete control over income tax bands and rates, with the money raised returning directly to the Scottish Government, is significant. The assignment of VAT is significant. The increased borrowing powers are significant. The devolution of power over air passenger duty and the aggregates levy is significant. In welfare, the power to top up any existing benefit is significant. The power for the Scottish Government to create any new benefits that it likes in any devolved area is significant. The devolution of attendance allowance and disability benefits is significant. The power to make variations in housing benefit is significant.