Missed opportunity

IF YOU stood in any Scottish high street and asked the first fifty people who passed if they knew what the Calman Commission was, how many would give the correct answer? Maybe fifteen? Fewer?

And yet the Commission – which has been examining the case for more powers for the Scottish Parliament and which publishes its final report tomorrow – represents a landmark moment in the way this county is governed, with potentially far-reaching consequences.

Some aspects of the Commission's work remain contentious. Its rationale, it seems, was to examine ways in which devolution could cement Scotland more firmly into the United Kingdom, rather than ways in which Holyrood could provide more effective, responsible and accountable government. As a result Calman was perhaps too wary of how changes might be regarded south of the Border, rather than doing justice to Scotland's growing self-confidence and desire for stronger home rule, as evidenced in every opinion poll. Calman seems at times to have been guilty of the assumption that devolution is a zero sum game – that any power devolved from Westminster to Holyrood makes the Union weaker. Yet he must also have been aware of the risk that the Union would truly be in peril if Westminster acted as a brake on Scottish ambitions.

This newspaper has long advocated what we dubbed 'Devo Max'. The best way to end Scotland's dependency culture and garner a new sense of responsibility is to ensure its politicians have to raise at least some of the money they spend. Furthermore they need sufficient financial powers to make a difference to the Scottish economy, so they are no longer able to blame Westminster for the nation's ills. All this, we have argued, can be accommodated within the Union – for now, at least.

A full judgment on Calman will have to wait until the publication of the full report. But the test will be this: Does it improve the Scottish Parliament's ability to counter economic problems of the kind that have engulfed the world in the past six months? Does it provide sufficient economic levers to respond effectively to Scotland's distinctive economic circumstances and social priorities?

If leaks are reliable, there is some cause for satisfaction. The fact that Clackmannanshire Council enjoys borrowing powers but the Scottish Government does not is simply bizarre, and it prevents ministers behaving prudently when faced with huge one-off expenditures such as a new Forth Road Bridge. Calman, it seems, has acknowledged this. Similarly the income tax proposals – especially the potential to vary more than just the basic rate – look sound. Control over stamp duty is an unexpected reform that provides a means of influencing the all-important housing market. Also welcome is Calman's thinking on Holyrood and Westminster working together to scrutinise issues where their competencies overlap – on tackling poverty, for example, or the banking crisis, or Britain's rail network. One of the failures of devolution has been the lack of trust and co-operation between the two legislatures and administrations. Building these relationships so that they are mutually beneficial will take more than a Calman recommendation – it will require political will and a change of culture on both sides of the Border.

More disappointing is Calman's apparent refusal to end the last vestiges of Westminster control over Scottish criminal justice, such as the law on drugs and firearms. Scotland's judges already have the ability go their own way on sentencing for drug offences, but Scotland's politicians can do nothing to change the actual drug laws. This is an anomaly that Calman should have had the courage to address. Assigning revenue from VAT and other taxes would also have been a useful step – ensuring the Scottish Government's coffers prospered when it was running the economy well, and were diminished when it was performing poorly. Again, this has been shirked. On the available evidence, Calman looks to be a positive step towards a better-governed Scotland – but also something of a missed opportunity.

Wha's like us... Gillian Mitchell

CHARITABLE works are not that uncommon. There can't be many people who don't occasionally do their bit for good causes – sponsoring someone or handing some clothes in to a charity shop or making a call to a telethon hotline. We manage to convince ourselves that we've done our bit, our consciences temporarily salved.

But who are we kidding? Especially when we hear about people such as Gillian Mitchell, who was yesterday named in the Queen's Birthday Honours for her voluntary work raising funds for premature babies.

Over the past 23 years she has worked tirelessly to improve the facilities available to mothers and their babies at the Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

The amount of cash she has raised in the past decade alone has been estimated at £400,000, paying for specialist incubators and scanners. Gillian, 53, a neonatal secretary at the ERI, more than deserves her MBE for her work – and for reminding us we should all be doing that little bit more.

Get a grip on swine flu

WITH every new announcement of infection figures, the reality becomes clearer – Scotland is one of the worst-affected countries in the world for swine flu, with a higher per capita rate of infection than Mexico, where the pandemic began. The tone from Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon is nevertheless one of calm and reassurance. This approach is to be welcomed – no one wants the public to panic. But with swine flu beginning to take a grip in densely populated urban areas such as the south side of Glasgow, is the Scottish Government's unflappability in danger of becoming complacency?

Expert opinion on why Scotland is faring so badly is split – some say it is just an accident of circumstance, others say it is the result of a failure in strategy. What is clear is that there are answers needed as to what is happening in this country. There is evidence that when someone calls an NHS helpline to report flu symptoms, they are simply being told to take to their beds, with no need to be swabbed to see whether they have swine flu or just a case of the sniffles.

Ms Sturgeon calls this "introducing greater flexibility to our approach". Yet how then can the Government put any credence on – or take any reassurance from – its official figures? And how can the authorities react prudently to identify a risk of the infection spreading – in a school, for example? So far the Government has been praised for its handling of swine flu, but now there is a need for answers and transparency to maintain public confidence.