It didn’t take long. In fact, the tweet from Nicola Sturgeon appeared soon after Alistair Carmichael had started speaking this morning.
Smith clauses publication welcome – but doesn’t include a general power to create new benefits in devolved areas as was promised 1/2…
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) January 22, 2015
2/2…and gives UKG effective veto over changes to universal credit, including bedroom tax. @scotgov will work to secure improvements
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) January 22, 2015
The Scottish Secretary was in Edinburgh with fellow Scot Danny Alexander to launch the UK government’s blueprint for more devolution for Scotland.
Carmichael was just championing the arbitration process, which would sort out any disputes between Edinburgh and London in a ‘mature and collaborative way’ when Sturgeon’s critical tweet appeared. At that moment, any chance of a ‘mature and collaborative’ approach went out the window.
Sturgeon was indignant: the UK government’s plans amounted to an ‘effective veto,’ she claimed, which could prevent the Scottish government from abolishing the so-called bedroom tax.
Such is the way that modern media works that Carmichael was answering one question when he was told what Sturgeon had said on Twitter.
‘She’s wrong,’ he barked, clearly annoyed that his own press conference was being taken over by the Scottish First Minister. But Sturgeon had sown enough confusion for the press conference to be taken sideways. From then on, it wasn’t about the detail of the powers being handed over to Scotland, it became about the ‘veto’.
Had UK ministers written a veto into the plans, a veto that they could exercise to stop Scottish ministers from doing things like scrapping the bedroom tax? Both Carmichael and Alexander were adamant there was no veto and furious with the Nats for throwing their launch off course.
‘I will be astounded if they don’t find something to criticise,’ Carmichael declared, before taking even closer aim at the First Minister.
‘If you are to accept the inference that Nicola Sturgeon suggests, you have to accept that the veto would go in the other direction too,’ he said.
And he added: ‘It would be refreshing if, rather than kicking up dust like this, the Nationalists told us what they would do with the powers of the third most powerful devolved institution in the world.’
Sturgeon, however, was not to be moved. She insisted the veto had been written into the blueprint and, as a result, the proposals represented a ‘watering down’ of the Smith Commission and, as a result, a betrayal of the ‘vow’ given by the main party leaders to Scotland before the referendum. She said:
‘Too much of what the Prime Minister has set out imposes restrictions on the recommended devolved powers and would hand a veto to UK ministers in key areas.
‘For example, the proposals on welfare do not allow us to vary Universal Credit without the permission of the UK government. That means – under the current proposals – we will not have the independence to take action to abolish the bedroom tax.’
And she added:
‘In these crucial areas the clauses set out today appear to be a significant watering down of what was promised by the Smith Commission and need an urgent rethink by the UK government.’
So, who’s right?
The controversial section is Clause 20 paragraph IV, parts a and b. It reads:
‘The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies unless, a) they have consulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementing the regulations, and b) the Secretary of State has given his or her agreement as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld.’
According to SNP ministers, this means the UK government has a veto; according to UK ministers it means only that there will only be consultation between the two administrations before Scottish ministers make a decision.
Who do you believe? I guess it depends where you come from politically but this is one row that has helped blow this big day for the UK government off course and there are still no signs that it has been resolved.
Indeed, if the two governments find it this difficult to agree over what the clauses mean, then the prognosis must be grim for them ever agreeing about the substance of any changes later on. It has not been an auspicious start.
Comments