Scottish Home Rule E-Book

Ben Thomson

• Herausgeber: Birlinn
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 267

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

Every debate about the Scottish constitution should include the topic of Scottish Home Rule, and if there is to be another referendum in Scotland then Home Rule should definitely be one of the options on the ballot paper. Home Rule is not widely understood being seen by many Unionists as the slippery slope to Independence and by Independence supporters as a Unionist proposal to retain sovereignty over Scotland. It is however a strong proposal in its own right with a separate history from Independence and a more likely stepping-stone to Federalism. This book is a much-needed statement for the merits of Scottish Home as the best solution for Scotland. It covers the history and support for the Home Rule option from 1860s, a clear structure for what Home Rule is and how Home Rule could improve both Scotland as well be a framework for constitutional reform across the UK.

Leseprobe

Professor Ben Thomson CBE, FRSE was educated at Edinburgh University, where he received a BSc (Hons) and honorary doctorate (Arts), and was a Scottish international athlete. His main career has for 35 years been in finance, and between 1997 and 2010 he was chief executive and then chair of the Scottish investment bank Noble Group. After leaving Noble Group he became a founding partner and chair of two new Scottish fund management companies, Urbicus and Inverleith.

Ben has been actively involved in government policy and the Scottish public sector. In 2007, he founded the think tank Reform Scotland, and chaired the campaigns for greater fiscal responsibility (2010), Devo Plus (2012) and Scottish Home Rule (2016). He has advised the Scottish government on the banking sector and produced the Thomson Report on the Scottish legal system in 2010. He was also a director of Scottish Financial Enterprise and a chair of the National Galleries of Scotland and Creative Scotland.

Ben is currently chair of Inverleith, Planet Organic and OMNOS, and a visiting professor at the Business School of Dundee University.

In memory ofAlick Buchanan-Smith

Scottish Home Rule

The Answer to Scotland’s Constitutional Question

Ben Thomson

First published in 2020 by

Birlinn Limited

West Newington House

10 Newington Road

Edinburgh

EH9 1QS

Copyright © Ben Thomson 2020

ISBN 978 1 78885 378 1

The right of Ben Thomson to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Designed and typeset by

Mark Blackadder, Edinburgh

Printed and bound by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

PART 1. THE HISTORY OF SCOTTISH HOME RULE

1. Introduction

2. Pre-First World War

Daniel O’Connell and Catholic Emancipation

Charles Stewart Parnell and Irish Home Rule

Gladstone’s Irish Home Rule Bills

The Scottish Home Rule Association and Home Rule All Round

The Liberal Party and the Government of Scotland Bill

3. Post-First World War to the Establishment of the Scottish Parliament

John MacCormick and the Birth of the Scottish National Party

The Rise of the SNP and the First Devolution Referendum

The Second Devolution Referendum

The New Scottish Parliament and Further Constitutional Reform

4. The Independence Referendum and Its Aftermath

Alex Salmond and the Referendum on Independence

The Smith Commission

The Campaign for Scottish Home Rule

Scotland Act 2016

Brexit and Calls for a Second Independence Referendum

PART 2. THE STRUCTURE OF SCOTTISH HOME RULE

5. What Is Home Rule?

6. Home Rule in the Modern World

7. The Division of Powers

General Reservations

Specific Reservations

8. Financing Home Rule

9. Fiscal Power

10. The Pros and Cons of Devolving Fiscal Powers

11. A Fiscal Settlement for Home Rule

12. Social Cohesion Fund

13. Funding the Deficit

14. A Scottish Treasury

15. A Constitution for Home Rule

16. Why Home Rule Now?

PART 3. THE POTENTIAL OF SCOTTISH HOME RULE

17. Introduction

18. Reform of the Tax System

Making Tax Simpler

Three Principal Taxes

19. Ideas for Welfare Reform

Citizen’s Basic Income

Negative Income Tax

20. A New Pensions System

21. Enhanced Local Democracy

Local Financial Responsibility

Reviving Local Democracy

22. Towards a Federal UK

Federal Constitution

Governance of England

UK Federal Parliament

Constitutional Court

Constitutional Convention

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendices

Appendix ISummary of UK Parliament Powers Under a Home Rule Settlement

Appendix IISummary of Current Scottish Parliament Powers

Appendix IIISummary of New Scottish Parliament Powers Under a Home Rule Settlement

Index

Foreword

The Rt Hon. Lord Campbell of Pittenweem CH, CBE, PC, QC, FRSE

I think I was about twelve years old and tall for my age when, in the early 1950s, I was encouraged sign the Scottish Covenant, the brain child of Dr John MacCormick, calling for Home Rule for Scotland.

In 1978 I was a small player in the Scottish Liberal team led by Russell Johnston, the long-time MP for Inverness and passionate supporter of Home Rule, which negotiated with the Labour Government represented by John Smith MP, then a Minister of State, some small changes in the Bill for a Scottish Assembly which failed to achieve the 40 per cent of the electorate hurdle in 1979.

And I stood with Charles Kennedy MP, later Leader of the Liberal Democrats, as we both signed at the same time the Claim of Right, the outcome of the constitutional convention of the late 1980s in which neither the Scottish Conservatives nor the SNP participated. Influenced by the legacy of John Smith, the Claim of Right ultimately led to the United Kingdom Parliament passing the Scotland Act of 1998 and the Scottish Parliament.

But following the Gladstone and Asquith tradition, I never lost my belief that Home Rule was and remains to this day the best and most effective and stabilising devolving of power from Westminster to Edinburgh. It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that I should need no second bidding to endorse Ben Thomson’s lucid, well argued and impeccably researched case for Home Rule.

At the time of writing, the political, economic and social consequences of Covid-19 are so uncertain that even the most noisy advocates of Scottish independence have felt it necessary to turn down the volume. But Thomson’s assumption that at some time in the future the constitutional issue will once more be presented to the people of Scotland is hardly unreasonable.

In the negotiations led by Michael Moore MP, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, and Nicola Sturgeon, then Deputy First Minister, between Edinburgh and London, David Cameron set himself against any other choice in the 2014 referendum than a binary one.

There are those who believe that if Home Rule had been on the ballot paper it would have prevailed. Ben Thomson argues persuasively that Home Rule should be included in any future test of Scottish opinion. He does so by way of an informed account of the Home Rule movement’s origins and the efforts of its supporters to promote it.

But this book is not a list of wishes. It contains detailed analysis of the fundamental issues of taxation and the division of powers between Edin-burgh and London. This being Scotland, he can hardly expect unity of response. But those who accept the need for lasting and stable constitutional reform to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people and to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom will find much to encourage them that Home Rule is both desirable and practicable.

Menzies Campbell is the former Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Member of Parliament for North-east Fife. Since 2015 he has been a member of the House of Lords.

Preface

In my 35 years of business I have seen many management styles. Generally, however, managers and their organisations fall into two camps: the first favours heavy centralisation and getting things done through a chain of command, while the second favours delegated management, with responsibility devolved to those in charge of the relevant part of the business. I have always and unashamedly been in the second of these camps. Fundamentally, I believe that people will rise to the job if they are given responsibility within an organisation and allowed to stand on their own two feet. As this book will demonstrate, it is this principle that has guided my support for Scottish Home Rule.

Of course, sometimes it is risky to delegate, and sometimes people may let you down, making good guidance and support all the more important. And, yes, often the person with greater experience could have done a task faster, but doing so would have meant denying others the experience they needed to improve. Overall, though, my own management career has been amply rewarded by seeing so many people rise to the responsibilities they have been given.

I have long been interested in politics, and between school and university I worked as a researcher in the House of Commons. Government at any level involves a wonderful (and sometimes not-so-wonderful!) mix of people, ideas and beliefs. Everyone can and should contribute. Over the years, I have been fortunate enough to meet and debate with politicians from all major parties, and through advising government have been able to gain insight into how it operates. It has always struck me how similar the structure and management of business organisations and government is. In my assessment, government errs towards centralisation and so struggles to delegate – this applies across the board, from the civil service executive who carries out public sector work to the various local and community levels of government. Arguments regarding organisation often heard in large centralised businesses are echoed in Westminster: the quality of local politicians not good enough and blame comes back to the top, so the top must manage things.

In 2007, I stepped down after ten years as CEO of the Scottish Investment Bank Noble Group and became its part-time chairman. This gave me time to do other things, including becoming Chairman of the National Galleries of Scotland, a job I enjoyed for eight years and showed me at close quarters how public sector organisations can inspire people and change lives. I also became involved in advising Scottish government in a number of ways. I had been a director of Scottish Financial Enterprise and, together with its chair, John Campbell, persuaded the then First Minister, Lord McConnell, to set up the Financial Services Advisory Board (FiSAB) to liaise between Scottish government and the financial sector. I served on its board for the first five years. Separately, I advised Scottish government on the situation facing Scottish banks during the 2008 banking crisis, particularly HBOS. In 2010, I produced the Thomson Review on reforms to representation in the Scottish Courts, and also went on to chair the board of Creative Scotland, Scotland’s arts and film funding body. These roles provided me with insight into the interface between the commercial sectors and government, setting me along the path to setting up and subsequently chairing Reform Scotland, a non-party-aligned think tank tasked with helping research and promoting public policy. I was encouraged in this by senior politicians of all parties, who saw the value of such an organisation in the relatively new Scottish Parliament.

I set up Reform Scotland in 2008 together with Geoff Mawdsley, who was its director for the first ten years. Its stated aim was to set out a better way of delivering increased economic prosperity and more effective public services, based on the traditional Scottish principles of limited government, diversity and personal responsibility. Fundamental to this was a belief that government is best served by devolving responsibility to whichever level of government is best able to deliver a particular public service. It gained support from individuals within all the political parties in Scotland. As Alex Salmond, the First Minister at the time, said at our first annual dinner: ‘I agree strongly with about a third of what Reform Scotland says, I am okay with about a third and I disagree with about a third, which is probably about right for an independent think tank.’

Although Reform Scotland initially focused mainly on public sector areas, such as education, health, policing and transport, it soon became impossible to ignore the constitutional debate in Scotland. Given Reform Scotland’s focus on limited government, diversity and personal responsibility, it seemed natural that it should promote a Home Rule-type option, with Scotland having more domestic matters passed to its control while remaining part of the UK. Therefore, in 2010, based on a report we had written as evidence to the Calman Commission and the Scottish government’s National Conversation campaign, we set up the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility. The group, which I chaired, aimed to build a broad coalition in support of the Scottish Parliament gaining greater financial responsibility.

With the 2011 election of the majority Scottish National Party (SNP) government, the political debate in Scotland underwent a sea-change. No longer was it a debate over more powers, it was a debate about independence. As a result, the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility ended and the debate moved on. In 2011, Reform Scotland published ‘Devolution Plus’, setting out our evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee and outlining a new tax and spending framework. This included the devolution not only of sufficient taxes to ensure the Scottish government would be responsible for raising what it spent, but also of benefits linked to such policy areas as housing and social inclusion. In February 2012, I set up and chaired the Devo Plus Group, which was initially led by former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purvis. The group consisted of high-profile politicians from each of the unionist parties (Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour), who all believed that more powers should be devolved to Holyrood while at the same time Scotland should remain within the UK. The purpose of the group was to promote the idea of greater devolution within the parties, in the hope that the public would have a clearer idea of exactly what would happen after the referendum in the event of a ‘No’ vote.

A year before the referendum, the Devo Plus Group called on all the unionist parties to sign a ‘Glasgow Agreement’ setting out the foundation for how further powers would be devolved in the event of a ‘No’ vote. We also published polling, carried out by YouGov, indicating that 16 per cent of voters who did not currently plan on voting ‘No’ were more likely to do so if this led to substantially more powers being devolved to Holyrood.

Alongside this, I was persuading the First Minister, Alex Salmond, to push for a second question in the referendum, offering a choice between the status quo and devolving the majority of fiscal powers under a Devo Plus or Devo Max scheme. While the Scottish government backed this proposal, it proved a red line for British Prime Minister David Cameron in the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement negotiations, which set out the terms of the referendum. This was both a huge shame and a missed opportunity. At the time, the Prime Minister, believing he had a comfortable majority to win the referendum, did not want to confuse a straight fight between the status quo and independence. In the final couple of weeks leading up to the referendum, however, the result looked less certain and he was forced to concede the middle ground through the ‘vow’. This vow, formulated by Gordon Brown and agreed by all the unionist party leaders, laid out a set of ideas for a federal-like arrangement after the referendum. While it is hard to know how much this influenced voters, many think this offer of an alternative federalist option was a key factor in Scotland remaining within the union.

Following the referendum, I wanted to ensure the vow was honoured in a way that was fully reflective of the promises made by the unionist party leaders. I therefore helped set up and chaired the Campaign for Scottish Home Rule (CSHR). This involved people associated with the five main political parties in Scotland, as well as others from outside traditional party politics. Its aim was to submit a report to the Smith Commission, which had been set up to implement the vow, and ensure it stayed true to the promises made.

CSHR believed the Home Rule settlement had to be based on clear principles. As such, it set out the following three guiding principles:

•Devolve responsibilities: A presumption in favour of devolving responsibilities to Holyrood, with a review of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 and the burden of proof resting with Westminster should it wish to retain a responsibility.

•Raise what you spend: Ensure both Holyrood and Westminster have the appropriate tax and borrowing powers to make them responsible for raising the money they spend.

•Mutual respect: Improve the relationship between parliaments and secure the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, which would almost certainly require a written constitution (or something similar) for the UK.

The CSHR’s view of the eventual Smith Commission recommendations was that not only did they fail to meet these principles, they were essentially based on no underlying principle or principles. Instead, they were the outcome of political horse-trading arising from the different party proposals. Ultimately, this meant the solution was unlikely to be either sustainable or stable, as it was not built on a consensus about the type of Home Rule settlement the people of Scotland wanted or needed. This was deeply disappointing, given the strength of the promises made by the unionist parties.

It is not always easy to occupy the middle ground. The independence referendum polarised political opinion into two camps: all or nothing. It cost me friends on both sides, who believed in the old adage that if you are not with us you are against us. The day before the referendum, when the stakes were at their highest, senior politicians on both sides tried to twist my arm into declaring that Reform Scotland would support their camp. We did not, as Reform Scotland’s alternative proposition of a Home Ruletype settlement was not merely a compromise, but a path that I believed offered a better way for Scotland and the UK to work in collaboration. It is also a path that I continue to believe many voters would support, and should be on any ballot in the event of another referendum. Before this can happen, though, its principles and practicalities need to be clearly laid out, and the ultimate aim of federalism robustly defended. This, then, is why I have written the book you now hold in your hands: Home Rule is a way forward I passionately and wholeheartedly believe in. Hopefully, the following pages will demonstrate why this is the case.

Introduction

The concept of Home Rule is not always clearly understood, and has often been misrepresented – sometimes inadvertently, sometimes deliberately. What it does demonstrate, however, is the potency of the idea as a label under which groups and individuals have attempted to package their preferred set of constitutional proposals. Above all, it is important to understand that Home Rule is distinct from both independence and current devolved government. Only if this distinction is more widely understood will we be able to enable in a fully informed debate on the constitutional options available to Scotland and the UK as a whole.

The specifics of Home Rule can be defined in many ways, but for the purposes of this book two characteristics are key. Firstly, Scotland and UK must be a constitutionally mandated partnership of equals; and, secondly, Scotland must have responsibility for all areas of policy unless the burden of proof suggests otherwise. While devolution can in theory deliver on the second point, it can never do so for the first. Also, though Home Rule has potential implications for a federal UK, it is not itself federalism, as this book will explain.

It should be acknowledged that Home Rule has its opponents on both sides of the fence. Those who support unionism often see Home Rule as a slippery slope to independence, while those who support independence see it as a unionist proposal to retain sovereignty over Scotland. Donald Dewar is often given credit for the famous phrase ‘devolution is a process not an event’ (in actual fact, it was first coined by former Welsh Secretary Ron Davies). Yet this statement is not entirely helpful, as it suggests that passing powers to Scotland inevitably leads to independence, with Home Rule merely a step along the way. It need not be. Home Rule is a destination in its own right, or if it is a stepping stone then it is just as likely to lead to federalism. The history of Home Rule is also different from independence, with roots that go all the way back to the second half of the 19th century and the formation of the Scottish Home Rule Association.

Understanding the concept of Home Rule is more important than ever, as it is clear that the question of Scotland’s constitutional future is far from settled. This is despite the fact that in the Edinburgh Agreement – which determined how the 2014 independence referendum should be conducted – both sides portrayed the referendum as a ‘once in a generation’ decision. Yet, by March 2017, the Scottish government had submitted a Section 30 request to its UK counterpart, which would give the Scottish Parliament the legal power to hold an independence referendum. Several factors led to this, the most significant being Brexit. In the Brexit referendum of June 2016, 52 per cent of people in the UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union (EU), while in Scotland only 38 per cent did so. This difference in attitude towards the EU was the main justification for the Scottish government pursuing another referendum, supported by the Scottish Parliament, which – through the combination of SNP and Green MSPs – has a majority in favour of independence. The protracted difficulties with the Brexit negotiations, the existence of a significant number of SNP MPs at Westminster, Boris Johnson succeeding Theresa May as Prime Minister, the strong performance of the SNP in the December 2019 election, and the subsequent departure of the UK from the EU at the end of January 2020, have all served to intensify these calls for another Scottish referendum.

If another referendum is to happen, it is important that people in Scotland are not restricted to the options of independence and the status quo, but are also offered Home Rule. The fact that the current devolved settlement has not created a genuine partnership of equals between Scotland and the rest of the UK has understandably fostered resentment amongst many. This has been compounded by Home Rule being largely absent from the discussion, leading to a polarised debate between the opposing status quo and independence camps. Thus, we are at a crossroads. If the path of maintaining the current devolved settlement is taken, this risks creating a still greater sense of resentment amongst half the Scottish population. Equally, if the path towards full independence is pursued, this means going against the strongly held views of the other half of the population. There is, though, another way forward, one that attempts to achieve a broader consensus. It requires a two-question referendum, which would allow voters to decide not only whether sovereignty should reside at either Holyrood or Westminster, but whether or not they would prefer Home Rule – with sovereignty split between the two levels of government – to either of these options.

At its heart, the disagreement between unionism and independence is a battle over sovereignty. In other words, should the ultimate power to make political decisions lie with Westminster or Holyrood? However, despite sovereignty being much loved by politicians and political analysts, it is a somewhat vague and indistinct concept for most of the public. We increasingly live in a world where decisions are taken at many different levels and – particularly for younger people – allegiance to a single ultimate affinity group is something of an antiquated concept. Many of us feel perfectly comfortable supporting UK athletics, Scottish rugby and even Barcelona at football, without feeling the need to prioritise one over the other. Even so, as we have seen in recent years, such concepts as sovereignty and national identity can be unsettling for older generations and their sense of identity in an increasingly globalised world.

Home Rule has always been about decentralising control of local matters (or what used to be called domestic matters) while remaining part of a wider entity. It is a form of government in which the responsibilities of national government and those of sub-national government are clearly separated. Crucially, a genuine Home Rule settlement requires constitutional checks and balances ensuring that the relationship between the national and sub-national level is mutually respected, and that any changes to the relationship are mutually agreed.

Home Rule is a bilateral arrangement between one area within a nation state and the rest of that nation state. This is distinct from federalism, which represents an equal relationship between all constituent parts of a country. There is no obvious reason why a Home Rule settlement cannot be sustained over the long term, although it is true that campaigns for Home Rule can lead to independence, as happened in Ireland. In Ireland’s case, however, this was – at least partly – due to a failure to deliver meaningful Home Rule. If Home Rule proves successful it could provide a template for the entire UK moving towards full federalism, with each constituent part responsible for domestic matters. In this regard, it is worth noting that some of the most economically successful countries in the world are run as federal nations, including the USA, Switzerland, Germany and Australia.

For much of the 130 or so years since the Scottish Home Rule Association was formed, Home Rule was a movement in its own right, largely separate in its aims and objectives from movements centred around independence. In 1914, a bill brought by a Liberal MP to establish Home Rule in Scotland passed its second reading in the House of Commons. Sadly, it was never enacted due to the outbreak of the First World War, after which the Liberals lost and then never regained power.

Given this, it seems somewhat strange that in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, Home Rule was largely ignored, or, at best, discussed as a compromise position. In negotiations between David Cameron and Alex Salmond for the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish government’s negotiating team did in fact put a two-question referendum on the table. The first question asked whether Scotland should have independence, while the second asked, should independence be rejected, whether Scotland should have Devo Max (the SNP’s version of Home Rule, even if it differs in some important respects to Home Rule as it is proposed in this book). It proved to be David Cameron’s only real red line in the negotiations. He accepted lowering the voting age to 16, which was thought to benefit the independence cause, and allowed the independence question to be framed as a ‘Yes’ for independence and ‘No’ for the status quo – again, an important concession to the SNP. However, despite polls at the time indicating it would have been the most popular choice, he would not move on including Devo Max as a third option.

The first part of this book sets out the background and history of the Scottish Home Rule movement and its relationship with Irish Home Rule. It is a history that is separate from the independence movement, although at times the two are interconnected. The book will also show how the precise meaning of the term Home Rule – while always lying somewhere between the complete sovereignty of Westminster and the complete transfer of sovereignty to a Scottish Parliament – has shifted throughout its history.

Part two looks at the current constitutional relationship between Scotland and the UK, before setting out what a defined structure of Home Rule could look like and why this would lead to a new and better relationship. It also examines how responsibilities should be split between Scotland and the rest of the UK; how a Home Rule settlement should be financed and what fiscal powers would be required; and how current constitutional arrangements would need to be changed in order to deliver a genuine partnership of equals.

Finally, part three examines the potential of Home Rule, including how such a settlement between Scotland and the rest of the UK might develop into a fully federal system. Further, it explores what might be done with the new powers devolved under Home Rule, and how they could be used to strengthen Scotland both economically and socially, including improving public sector services.

Despite devolution, the UK is still in many ways a centralised country due to the high level of fiscal control exerted by Westminster. It is not only Scotland, or even Wales and Northern Ireland, that would like to see more powers devolved in order to bring decision-making closer to those affected – many local areas, such as Manchester or London, feel this way too. While national governments are often keen to publicly espouse this principle, known as ‘subsidiarity’, they tend to be less enthusiastic about devolving powers in practice. This has resulted in a strong desire for greater devolution and, in Scotland, a simmering dissatisfaction with the status quo.

At the same time, full independence comes attached with real problems, with monetary policy being one of the independence campaign’s most unconvincing arguments in the run-up to the 2014 referendum. If Scotland were to leave the UK, what currency should it use? To continue using sterling without any mechanisms for influencing monetary policy was seen as a weakness, yet the alternative of moving to a Scottish currency or the euro was not popular with the majority of voters, with only around 12 per cent supporting it.

The stated rationale for a second independence referendum is that people in Scotland, contrary to the rest of the UK (Northern Ireland excepted), voted to remain within the EU. This was backed up by the SNP’s strong performance in the December 2019 UK general election. Thus, it is logical to assume that should there be a majority vote for independence, Scotland will immediately apply to re-join the EU, and as a new member will be part of the euro currency. While the public may change its views on the euro, this is certainly an obstacle to independence.

However, there is now a larger problem that events since the last independence referendum have created. If the UK leaves the EU there are likely to be tariffs and hard borders, which will have a major impact on trade and the movement of people. Currently, 60 per cent of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, compared to 19 per cent with EU countries. As an EU member, Scotland will be bound to the same trading arrangements with the UK as the EU’s other members. Any disruption of trade with the UK would have a major economic impact on Scotland, which would inevitably be more damaging than any barriers to trade with the EU that Brexit might create for Scotland as part of the UK. In addition, if there was a need for a hard border, this would have serious implications for the many families with relatives and friends on both sides of the border.

Home Rule should not be seen as a compromise between independence and the status quo – rather, it is a proposal in its own right which provides most of the benefits of both. Under Home Rule, the Scottish government would have responsibility for domestic matters, including the setting and collection of taxes, social welfare, pensions, drug enforcement, and many other issues. However, Scots under Home Rule would still be UK citizens, with monetary policy (including borrowing), international relations, defence and trade decided by the UK government, albeit with input from the Scottish government. In addition, there would be a mutually agreed constitution, changes to which would require the consent of both levels of government.