IN AMERICA they take constitutional literacy very seriously. Schools, naturally, embellish the traditions of the country’s declaration of independence and bill of rights. They even swear a rather creepy nationalistic "oath of allegiance" to defend that constitution.
What would a Scottish equivalent curriculum be? The Declaration of Arbroath? The Claim of Right? Certainly significant. But the greatest current literacy requirement is distinguishing between the Scotland Act (1998), the Scotland Act (2012) and the current Scotland Bill (2015).
That can leave you in a bit of a fankle. Especially due to the fact that – as I type these words – 80 new amendments to the ongoing bill are about to pop up on the whim of the last Tory King of Scotland, David Mundell.
Why does all this matter? Well I think – love it or loath it – understanding the differences (and the long-winded complexities) will be at the heart of the Scottish election next May. It’ll be an election, I suggest, that will suffer in the shadow of the Smith Commission and Westminster’s abysmal failure to deliver clear and substantial devolution to Scotland.
Labour’s recent conference in Perth confirmed this. Tax and social security power changes – which at least represent a step forward – will come to Holyrood during the next parliament. Surprisingly, Labour has presented a politically astute combination of claiming that tax rises on the well-off can be used to top up welfare payments – and thereby stop Tory cuts.
Labour, of course, opposed the devolution of the powers they now say can save Scotland from the Tories. And whether their sums add up isn’t yet clear. But it’s undeniably a popular concept. The crucial question is whether it is workable. That’s the quagmire the Scotland Bill leaves us all in.
The SNP have already made similar arguments about the new powers. They say carers’ allowance can go up. Tribunal fees which prevent access to justice can end. Air Passenger Duty will be cut (whatever the environmental cost).
All these arguments matter greatly from a simple point of good governance: demonstrating whether our politicians can operate effectively in the public interest. They also demonstrate that the Scottish Parliament can operate with greater financial responsibility and provide a social security system that is more caring that the Westminster alternative.
Rather than being a distraction from Westminster attacks or a "Tory tax trap", further devolution is an opportunity to demonstrate the maximum capability of the parliament to take a distinct approach when it has the opportunity to do so.
Personally, when I consider the 16 years of devolution, I look to the progress made on community ownership of land and the explosion in renewable energy production as two examples of distinct policy making leading to both economic and social progress. Scottish Governments providing financial and planning support for land reform and renewables projects. The gradual benefits have built across the country.
New borrowing powers provide the opportunity to replicate this approach – and to push further in areas where policy could be far more ambitious (including land reform, rent controls, council structures and taxation).
Of course the shambolic contradictions of partial devolution must be highlighted too. Instead of mitigating Tory social security cuts, those services could have been devolved. Devolving the minimum wage and enforcing a living wage would simultaneously save billions in social security spending and reduce poverty.
The Green Party is also clear in its understanding that taxing wealth – not income – is a more effective approach to reducing inequality. That’s another avenue closed off in Scotland, for now.
All three proposals would be preferable to anything that will appear in election manifestos. In these areas hands in Scotland remain tied.
On the policy of reversing tax credit cuts – which involves UK revenue and customs, the department for revenue and customs and respective UK/Scottish Governments – confusion reigns. No-one knows whether under the current Scotland Bill this would be workable or affordable.
Yet with the bill still contested, and now facing further amendments, there is no foundation for the election to take place upon. It’d be a great shame if the next opportunity for political change was side-tracked by a lack of constitutional literacy and technical squabbles over the blurred lines of further devolution.
Napoleon would have approved...
IT was a grand night in Glasgow when the council performed a famous U-turn and decided to leave the famous traffic cone on the head of the Duke of Wellington statue.
A groups of friends took this city emblem to heart and dressed head to toe in massive cone costumes for Halloween. This caused some confusion for local taxi drivers, who suddenly saw the road ahead blocked by a dancing orange-and-white squadron. Top marks.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here