Funding deal for Scotland prompts call for 'similar generosity' for rest of UK
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been ``bought and sold with English gold'' to secure further powers for Scotland, a former Scottish Secretary has said.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been bought and sold with English gold'' to secure further powers for Scotland, a former Scottish Secretary has said.
Conservative Lord Forsyth of Drumlean paraphrased Scottish poet Robert Burns as he called for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be treated with similar generosity'' as Scotland.
He made the remarks as peers were informed of the funding deal behind new powers, including control over income tax, for Scotland agreed by Westminster and Holyrood.
The Liberal Democrats also voiced concerns that a review of the deal in 2021 could be used by the SNP for further grievance and further battling'' with the UK Government.
Speaking in the Lords, Lord Forsyth told Scotland Office Minister Lord Dunlop: To paraphrase Robert Burns, now that the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been bought and sold with English gold, could you give an assurance that that same generosity which has been given to Scotland will be applied to England, to the English regions, to Northern Ireland and to Wales.
And in particular, could you confirm the briefing which was given to the Times by a 'Treasury insider' - that had this settlement been in place since 1999, then Scotland would have got all the money from (the Barnett formula), that is 20% more per head than England, plus an additional £6 billion.
And if so, then surely the rest of the United Kingdom is entitled to be treated with similar generosity.
And when you say this is a transitional arrangement for five years that will be subject to agreement, isn't another way of putting that that there will be a veto on the part of the Scottish Government to prevent any change, and do you really think that this delivers a deal which is fair to all parts of the United Kingdom?''
In reply, Lord Dunlop: On that last point, absolutely I do believe that this is a deal that is fair to all parts of the United Kingdom.
That is what the Smith agreement was all about - fair to Scotland, fair to the UK as a whole and that is what this deal delivers.
To address directly the two points you raise ... what is the cost of this deal to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
There is no additional cost to the taxpayers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
This deal produces the same outcome as Barnett set out in the comprehensive spending review.
There is no adverse impact on UK taxpayers.'' On the question of a veto, Lord Dunlop said:The Scotland Bill that delivers the Smith agreement is a very significant act of devolution.
It represents a new world and an opportunity for a new politics in Scotland, one in which blame can no longer be heaped at Westminster's door.
I think it's absolutely right to have a review on how the far-reaching arrangements are working in practice to ensure, as you say, that these arrangements are fair, transparent and effective in line with the Smith agreement.''
Liberal Democrat Scotland spokesman Lord Stephen said of the deal: It's clear this is not the beginning of the end nor even the end of the beginning, rather it all remains to be fought once again in 2021.
And it seems inconceivable that the SNP will not use the opportunity for further grievance and further battling with the UK Government.''
As the upper house moved on to debate the report stage of the Scotland Bill, crossbench peer Lord Kerr of Kinlochard expressed concern about the wording of the legislation regarding the Sewel convention, which refers to the precedent that Westminster must have the consent of Holyrood to legislate on devolved matters.
Lord Kerr criticised the Bill's assertion that Westminster would not normally'' legislate without Edinburgh's consent because he said it was ambiguous and would be open to judicial challenge.
The crossbench peer asked if the Government had a hidden agenda to reserve powers to act in breach of the convention if it felt it needed to in certain circumstances, such as war time, or if the Scottish parliament broke an international agreement signed by the United Kingdom.
Lord Forsyth warned that the Sewel convention had now effectively become a Scottish veto.
The ex-Scottish secretary said that peers may be wasting their time'' debating the Bill as the front benches had already decided it would go through the upper house without amendments.
Labour's Lord Davidson of Glen Clova insisted he had not been nobbled'' by party whips to allow the Bill through without any changes after he refused to support moves to remove the wordnormally'' from the legislation regarding the observation of the Sewel convention.
Lord Keen of Elie, the Advocate-General for Scotland, said the word normally'' was in the original Sewel convention and that Westminster had ultimate sovereignty as the supreme parliament.
Former Ulster Unionist leader Lord Empey said he did not agree with the Sewel convention due to the experience of Northern Ireland.
Lord Keen also ruled out setting up a procedure for a possible abolition of the Scottish parliament as this was a hypothetical'' notion, and if such a situation ever arose, the terms of reference for a referendum on the issue could be determined at that time.
Lib Dem peer Lord Wallace of Tankerness expressed concern about the centralisation'' agenda of the Scottish government as he called for island authorities to be given greater control over crown estates.
Lord Dunlop said that a consultation should take place in Scotland about devolving powers over the assets to island councils.
An amendment calling for the management of the functions of the crown estate commissioners to be transferred directly to the Shetland Islands, Orkney Islands, and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar was defeated by 189 votes to 68, a Government majority of 121.
The Lords approved amendments intended to sort out a constitutional grey area regarding which parliament is responsible for certain transport measures.
Lord Dunlop said the moves would lead to a crackdown on pavement parking across Scotland.
People have been waiting a long time for legislation to take inconsiderate parking off our streets,'' the minister said.
Labour's Lord McFall of Alcluith said the measures would be of particular benefit to disabled people.
The Earl of Kinnoull expressed concern about security fears resulting from the proposed break-up of the British Transport Police (BTP).
The crossbench peer said this would go against the principles of the Smith agreement as it would be detrimental to other parts of the UK.
Lord Dunlop said the Bill devolved the functions of the BTP to Holyrood, and it would be up to the Scottish parliament to decide the future shape of the force north of the border.
The minister said any transition process would be seamless'' and the force would maintain its effective counter-terrorism role.
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester forced a vote on his amendment calling for the BTP to maintain its role policing railways and railway property in Scotland.
The move was defeated by 22 votes to 7, a Government majority of 15. But, under Lords rules, because fewer than 30 peers voted on the matter it was classed as being not decided'' and consideration of the Bill was adjourned.