Mark Stuart: If we want to preserve the Union, let the Scots manage their own taxation

POST Olympics, I'm delighted to see that nearly all of us are feeling more British again – all except Alex Salmond, who introduced a sour note last week by vetoing plans for a British football team to compete in London in 2012.


Buoyed up by his by-election win in Glasgow East in July, and heading for another win in Glenrothes before long, Salmond stands a better than evens chance of winning the most seats in Scotland come a General Election. Such a result would undoubtedly help send David Cameron to Downing Street. But, in such circumstances, how would the new Conservative Prime Minister address the delicate question of the future of the Union between Scotland and England?

As an ardent Unionist, I was greatly encouraged by David Cameron's remarks earlier this year, when he took part in a grilling from Yorkshire Post readers. When quizzed by Paul Cockcroft, a member of the Royal Society of St George about introducing a new public holiday to celebrate St George's Day, Cameron rejected the idea, adding: "I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just England. I think we're stronger having England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland united."

So, one of the first things English nationalists need to realise about David Cameron is that he will leave them disappointed. The Conservatives have no plans to establish an English Parliament. Nor do they propose solving the so-called West Lothian Question – why should Scottish MPs at Westminster be allowed to vote on English matters, when English MPs have no say over Scottish-only matters – by introducing English Votes for English Laws: allowing only English MPs to vote on measures relevant to England alone.

Instead, Cameron established a Democracy Task Force, headed by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke. Its report – Answering the Question: Devolution, the West Lothian Question and the Future of the Union – which was published almost without comment back in June, makes some interesting recommendations. Among them is a modified version of the English Votes for English Laws idea, whereby measures classified as "English only" would go into a Committee stage, and then a Report stage, in which English MPs alone could discuss the detail of legislation, before the whole measure could then be voted upon by all UK MPs at a final stage, currently known as Third Reading. Since no amendments would be possible at Third Reading, the governing party would have to accept the changes English MPs wished to make at Committee stage, or else face defeat.

These compromise proposals have one very striking advantage over any others previously devised. As Douglas Hurd put it succinctly a few years ago: "The government of the United Kingdom would have to ensure that its English measures were acceptable enough to English MPs – or else not put them forward."

However, the biggest single problem is this: these sensible proposals risk being overtaken by seismic political events north of the border. Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP, has built a political career out of blaming Westminster for all Scotland's woes. Personally, I loathe this method of political scapegoating: in the last five years, I've lost count of the number of times I've heard Salmond slam "London Labour" or "the London way". Should David Cameron be elected at Westminster, Salmond would be sure to play the same dirty blame game, intent on driving Scots voters ever closer to independence.

Imagine the following sequence of events. Inheriting a huge budget deficit from Labour, Prime Minister Cameron launches a sensible and long-overdue review of the Barnett Formula, whereby Scots receive a good deal more funding per head of population on public services than their English counterparts. Salmond creates a political stink north of the border, and wins enough public support for a referendum on full independence. That scenario needs to be prevented at all costs.

Cameron isn't to blame for the New Labour constitutional tinkering that has got us into this mess in the first place, but perhaps the only way for him to seize the political initiative from the nationalists is to engage in a good deal more meddling. One way would be to make Scotland much more financially responsible for its own affairs by handing more or less all powers over taxation to a Scottish Parliament (beyond the so-far unused powers to vary income tax by 3p in the pound). That old rallying cry of the American Wars of Independence could be inverted: "No representation without taxation".

Not to put too fine a point on it, if Scots were in charge of their own money, they would be less able to blame "London" for an alleged lack of funding. Meanwhile, English voters could rest easy that Scots voters now had to pay higher taxes for the better services that they so desire.

I understand that David Cameron is still a fan of that most traditional of English sports, hunting with dogs. To use a hunting analogy, it's time that he shot the nationalist fox before it succeeds in outwitting him.


Mark Stuart is a political commentator and historian from York who has written biographies of John Smith and Douglas Hurd.

"To be born English is to win first prize in the lottery of life"