´óÏó´«Ã½

Scotland, to be blunt, could probably struggle by without a fair proportion of the legislation passed in her name.

That is not to say that such legislation is not frequently worthy. That is not to say that, on occasion, sectors of the populace see improvements in their lives from changing the law in certain ways.

It is to question whether the earth would open beneath our feet were a particular Bill to fail or to be delayed.

.

It gives ministers the legal entitlement to disburse on our behalf some £33bn for the coming year.

That is thirty three thousand million pounds. We would notice its absence.

All of which opens up an intriguing philosophical and constitutional debate in advance of this evening's Holyrood vote on said budget.

'No' vote

Both the SNP and Labour are seeking to get their retaliation in first with regard to this debate.

As you might imagine, their contributions veer more towards rough politics than philosophy - but the thought is there.

In essence, Labour is attempting to defend, in advance, its likely "No" vote.

The SNP is attempting to suggest that Labour's attitude contrasts with the position the Nationalists themselves adopted while in opposition.

The constitutional question is this. The SNP won more votes than their rivals in the election.

Alex Salmond was elected first minister by parliament. He cannot govern without the power to spend.

Is it then incumbent upon the principal opposition party to tolerate the passage of legislation which permits that fundamental function?

Existing budget

They can point out the flaws in the budget, they can target individual issues. But should they seek to thwart such a basic element of government?

Labour's defence is that a "No" vote on the budget tonight does not in itself stop the flow of cash in Scotland.

Ministers would continue with the existing budget pro tem, with cash allocated each month for next year as per one twelfth of last year's total.

But their news release on this subject rightly notes that this would continue "in the interim".

Surely it is also true that - if Labour and the Liberal Democrats persist in blocking the new budget - then Scotland would eventually lose out in that the sums to be spent would be lower then envisaged for the new year.

In response, the SNP argue that they never voted against the Labour/LibDem budget bills. They say they abstained twice and voted for the rest.

The exception is in 1999 when there wasn't a full scale budget bill: then the SNP voted against the figures set out by the then finance minister, Jack McConnell.

Core issue

But is that to suggest opposition parties may never vote against the budget?

Wasn't the SNP's behaviour substantially influenced by the fact that the coalition had a majority, that opposition was futile on such a core issue?

Doesn't that 1999 vote, albeit not strictly against a budget bill, indicate that it is permissible for an opposition to seek to overturn financial plans.

Think of it this way. Today we learned that Scotland's economy declined in the last quarter for which figures are available.

If Labour genuinely believes that the present budget plans are wrong for the economy, are they not entitled to express that in a vote?

I believe both parties are right, to a degree. Labour is entitled to seek to vote down the budget. The SNP is entitled to point out that such a vote is not without consequences.

It will be up to the voters to choose which strategy they prefer. Presumably, they will also offer their opinion on the relevance of sundry tactics during an economic downturn.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?