TO be honest, we were never convinced by Conservative assurances that they would consider seriously any amendments to the very limited powers proposed for Holyrood in the Scotland Bill. And so it has proved.
The argument for full fiscal autonomy – dismissed. Moves to devolve National Insurance, employment support programmes and housing benefit – blocked.
Even a Labour amendment which would have allowed the Scottish Government to top up reserved benefits to protect the most vulnerable against the worst effects of Tory cuts was thrown out.
And, perhaps most shamefully of all, a bid supported by every MP in Scotland (apart, of course, from one) to remove a Westminster veto on the limited welfare powers Holyrood will have was also voted down.
David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary of State and the only Conservative MP north of the Border, must have struggled to keep a straight face when he argued that no such veto exists. If that were the case, why refuse to pass measures which would have clarified that?
It’s not just the SNP which disputes Mundell’s interpretation of the Scotland Bill. The Labour Party – yes, even the Labour Party – also argued the veto should be removed. Holyrood’s cross-party Devolution Committee agrees with them, and has said the Scotland Bill does not reflect the spirit and detail of the Smith Commission.
But the Conservatives are turning a deaf ear to the overwhelming view of Scotland and it is now Mundell’s job to impose the weakest possible new devolution settlement on a country that has just emphatically rejected it at the ballot box. This is not democracy.
But the Tory determination to ride slipshod over the wishes of a nation does not stop there. It now seems certain to introduce English Votes for English Laws (Evel) by the backdoor, using standing orders rather than expose the plan to the scrutiny of Parliament.
There is, of course, an argument that Scottish MPs refrain from voting on matters which affect England only. That is very different from a blanket ban on taking part in votes on matters which may have significant spin-off effects for Scotland.
This is a major change to the government of Britain – of which Scotland remains a part, even if many of us wish that were not the case. It reduces the standing and effectiveness of Scottish MPs without any real debate.
It’s worth stating again that neither Cameron nor any other Conservative figure campaigning as part of Better Together made a single mention of Evel until hours after a No vote was in the bag.
The only opportunity Scotland has had to express its opinion on these plans, and indeed on the Tories’ grim determination to continue pursuing the austerity measures which are inflicting such pain on millions, was at the General Election. The message we sent, along with 56 SNP MPs, could not have been clearer.
The same can now be said of the Conservatives’ attitude to the new political landscape in Scotland.
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