Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-285)
PROFESSOR JAMES
MITCHELL
26 FEBRUARY 2008
Q280 Chairman: That prompts a question
in my mind that Scottish governments and Scottish parties in every
case have so far excluded the use of their limited existing tax
raising powers. Are you envisaging a situation in which the Barnett
Formula starts to work in reverse, and if you do not know anything
about it that is to say if UK public expenditure starts to be
reduced because of economic circumstances, then the expenditure
of the Scottish Government at that point has to be reduced, not
because the Scottish Government has decided to do it but because
it is working to a formula. At that point is any Scottish Government
going to have the courage to use its limited tax raising powers?
Professor Mitchell: It may have
no choice given the commitments that were made in the early days
of devolution. As was predicted by civil servants in the 1970s,
in the first few years of devolution there would be all sorts
of great policies invented and such like and it would be costly,
and I think that is what we did in Scotland with tuition fees
and care for the elderly. At some stage I think we are going to
have to pay for these and unless we reduce our spending then we
will need to find ways of paying for them. As I say, in a sense
that is likely to happen anyway at some stage in the future and
it will encourage a politics of responsibility which, though devolution
has addressed to some extent, I do not think has been addressed
sufficiently.
Q281 Mr Turner: Could I just remind
you in a way that you are talking about concerns in the south
as well as in the north, in the Isle of Wight, in Devon, in Dorset
and so on.
Professor Mitchell: I do not think
it has taken off to quite the same extent there yet. The other
part of the UK where it has become a big issue is London. In each
of the elections for the London Mayor the Barnett Formula has
been raised. That is not to say it has been raised in an intelligent
way or with full understanding of it, but that is part of the
problem, Barnett is one of these things that is misunderstood
and sections of the media misunderstand and so on and so forth,
and the Daily Mail will play it up in a particular way.
It is something we cannot stop but it does need to be addressed.
While some of the media coverage has grossly exaggerated and distorted
the operation of Barnett, there is a grain of truth in what they
say.
Q282 Julie Morgan: I just wanted
to go on to the issue of public opinion and independence. What
evidence do you see for any greater appetite for independence
since the new SNP Government has come into place?
Professor Mitchell: I do not think
there is any at all that I am aware of. At the moment the evidence
would appear to point to support the greater powers but not independence.
I have not seen any evidence that shows support for independence
has increased; indeed, there is evidence that it has reduced over
the last few months. That is no great surprise, the SNP has hardly
been making a great deal of its commitment to independence since
it came to office or, indeed, during the election. The SNP has
transformed itself. Although it has independence as its long-term
objective, and I am sure that others and if Nicola Sturgeon is
around will challenge this, but in a sense I think the SNP has
put it on to the backburner for the moment and have adopted a
more pragmatic approach, a gradualist approach. One of the reasons
they have done so is because that was the only way they had any
hope of succeeding in becoming Scotland's first party. That has
transformed politics. We often say that politics corrupt but,
in fact, electoral politics tends to moderate politicians and
mature politicians, and I think that is exactly what we have seen.
It is the pursuit of the median voter, as it were, that has forced
the SNP to moderate its position on that without entirely abandoning
support for independence, but even when the SNP talks about independence
it is not the independence that the SNP talked about in the 1970s,
for example. As often as you hear a senior SNP politician talking
about independence, he or she will talk about interdependence
and different meanings of independence and so on, and that is
all part of the changed nature of Scottish politics.
Q283 Julie Morgan: If the SNP has
moderated its view on this sort of key defining issue, do you
see there being less dividing lines between some of the parties
in Scotland?
Professor Mitchell: Yes, I think
so. I am not convinced these days that nationalist, unionist terms
are terribly helpful, frankly. Look at the non-SNP main parties,
they are nationalist with a small "n", almost all of
them now, and even SNP politicians. One member of the Government
produced a book at the end of last year in which he talked about
the need for a new union. A new union used to be the language
that was used by people who were hostile to devolution, far less
independence. Things are beginning to change. We do need a new
language in Scotland in order to understand our politics and certainly
the divisions between the parties are less. It is very difficult
for the politicians to articulate that, they have to keep their
party members happy and so on, but that is beginning to happen.
One of the most interesting politicians around, or former politicians,
is Henry McLeish. He has articulated some of the points I am making
much more cogently than I can and he is in the luxurious position
now of being a retired politician and Mr McLeish has probably
seen the way Scottish politics is going better than most.
Q284 Chairman: Is there any emerging
clarity about what greater powers might constitute that middle
option which is much talked about but I do not have a clear picture
of what the additional powers might be?
Professor Mitchell: There is no
consensus on that. Talking about the public first, I do not think
the public can be expected to have a very clear view on that and
within the parties there are different views. At this stage I
do not think we are anywhere near identifying clearly those matters
which might be devolved. I do think the issue of finance and some
measure of fiscal autonomy, not full fiscal autonomy, may be emerging
as a runner and there are certain people in each of the parties
who now advocate something like that but they do not all agree.
That debate is just beginning, frankly. There is certainly no
agreement on a range of other possible matters that could be devolved.
Chairman: Professor Mitchell, thank you
very much indeed. It has been extremely helpful to have your evidence.
|
