Public Finances: Scotland — House of Commons, 2016-02-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Gordon Mundell (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not recognise, for the reasons I have just set out, that those circumstances characterise the negotiations we have been conducting with the Scottish Government, and I make the case that a degree of privacy for negotiations of this type is required The hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned deadlines. I do not think in terms of self-imposed or arbitrary deadlines. Personally—keen though I am to have a warm and supportive relationship with the Scottish Government—I have never felt that the St Valentine’s day date had much relevance to this process. I am willing to continue working towards a deal for as long as that takes and for as long as we can. However, the usual channels have agreed to move the next day of Committee on the Scotland Bill in the other place to 22 February, as discussions on the framework continue to progress, to enable us to give their lordships as full an update as possible We have shown flexibility in the negotiations. While I cannot, as I have said, give a commentary to the House, Members will have seen via media reports that the UK Government have put compromise proposals on the table. That is a clear signal of our commitment to reach agreement and of our willingness to be as flexible as we can be, within the Smith principles Without commenting on the proposals, I would point out that the House will be aware of some of the tenets of those on the table. There are some suggestions that the Scottish Government should retain all income tax raised in Scotland, as well as a guaranteed share of the growth in income tax in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Professor Muscatelli, who was referred to earlier, told the Scottish Parliament that such an approach would not meet the test of taxpayer fairness. This seems, once again, to be the Scottish Government wanting to have their cake and eat it—indeed, to have a slice of everyone else’s cake while they are at it. That might be understandable enough politics, and an understandable enough position to adopt at the start of a negotiation, but it cannot really be said to be a credible position Once the powers are devolved, Scotland "should retain the rewards of our success, as we will bear the risks." —[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 December 2015; c. 23.] Those are not my words, but those of John Swinney. Mr Swinney has been very clear in the past about exactly what he meant by "risks". He meant the risk that Scotland’s population might decline relative to the rest of the UK’s When asked at the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee by Malcolm Chisholm MSP if the Scottish Government would seek to be protected from the possibility that the rest of the UK’s population will expand more quickly than Scotland’s, John Swinney was very clear: "That is another of the wider range of risks that we take on as a consequence of gaining the responsibilities." The Daily Record newspaper, sometimes brandished by SNP MPs, set this out clearly, finding it hard to see why "a tax-raising Scotland should benefit from a growth in tax receipts in England and Wales" and stating that "there is an undeniable logic" to opposing that view.