David Cameron tells SNP to stop squabbling over further Scottish powers

PM insists the vow he made on the eve of last year’s Scottish independence referendum had been “delivered in full” in the Scotland Bill and says the debate should now turn to how Scotland intends to use the extra devolved powers 

Matt Dathan
Online political reporter
Friday 13 November 2015 15:06 GMT
Comments
PM says the Scotland Bill honors the pre-referendum vow 'in full'
PM says the Scotland Bill honors the pre-referendum vow 'in full' (Reuters)

David Cameron has told the SNP to stop squabbling over which specific powers should be devolved to Scotland and to start talking about how they intend to use the powers set out in the Scotland Bill.

He insisted the vow he made on the eve of last year’s Scottish independence referendum had been “delivered in full” in the Bill, which was voted through the House of Commons this week.

SNP MPs backed the Bill despite saying it fell “far short” of what had previously been promised.

The legislation will hand the Scottish Parliament control over income rates and bands, the power to spend VAT revenues and control over certain aspects of welfare expenditure.

The Prime Minister said the new powers would give Scotland a “powerhouse parliament”.

He said: "Now the debate can shift to how those powers should be used, that's the debate that now needs to start."

The legislation comes on the back of a review of devolution following last September’s No vote in the independence referendum, led by Lord Smith.

The peer said the Bill had honoured what the five political parties in his Commission had agreed.

"The legislation part, the bit that's gone through the House of Commons and will go through the House of Lords, I believe actually honours what we agreed," Lord Smith told ITV News.

Holyrood’s SNP-led Devolution committee said: "At this stage, no amendments have been made to the employment provisions, the clause on disability or placing all three strands of the Legislative Consent Convention into statute.

“The first is a clear breach of the cross-party agreement in Smith."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in