´óÏó´«Ã½

At Westminster, the government's fiscal boost has opened up a new fault line between Labour and Tory over the best level of taxation, spending and borrowing.

At Holyrood, reaction to it has been very different. Finance Secretary John Swinney quickly alighted on the impact for public spending. The package throws a big wad of tax cuts at the next 16 months, plus £3bn of capital spending brought forward to next fiscal year.

With optimistic assumptions about a return to growth in 2010, payback time starts very quickly after. With £5bn being taken out of previous spending plans UK-wide the year after next, the SNP minister said the consequent population share of up to £500m would be a "crude cut" .

The number affecting Holyrood's budget is imprecise because it depends where the efficiency drive, as the cuts are to be known, fall across Whitehall departments.

More of a cut on welfare and defence, and Holyrood comes off relatively lightly. If English health, education and justice take the brunt in Whitehall, that would hurt the block grant heading north. Those decisions are some way off.

Note some significant effects of this. If both Whitehall and St Andrew's House bring forward capital spending from 2010-11 to 2009-2010, that leaves much less for 2010-11 within the constraints of the three-year spending period, of which we're now in Year 1.

Second, the pain hits in the year preceding the next Holyrood election - the very time when finance ministers of every political like to splash some cash.

And don't forget that Year 3 of the spending round was already looking very tight, before most of us had heard of the credit crunch.

Consider also why this isn't such a big issue at Westminster. Is it just that MSPs only think about spending rather than tax and borrowing? That Scotland's public sector dominates? Or could it be that MPs don't believe the 2010 upturn forecast, reckoning that the chancellor will be back with more emergency measures before too long, while tearing even more holes in last year's three-year plans?

And what are the implications of this? Well, it looks like the whole debate about public spending in Scotland is going to shift from choosing what to do with the extra cash to what we can least (and most) afford to do without. The politics of choices becomes much tougher in that uncharted territory for devolution.

A flavour of that debate has already been offered by Tory leader David Cameron this week, suggesting there should be an end to the "apartheid" between public and private sector occupational pensions. It doesn't take much interpretion to see where he's heading with that suggestion.

The closing down of final salary, defined benefit pensions across the public sector over this decade has left this as the biggest imbalance between public and private, contributing to business disadvantage in competing for skilled workers while it complains of having to foot the bill to let it continue.

Demographics don't look too good for sustaining relatively generous benefits in lengthening old age.

And a severe downturn offers the Treasury an opportunity to get concessions out of public sector workers and their unions, when people are grateful just to have job security.

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, told ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio Scotland this week that he had no plans to use his efficiency drive to tackle public sector staff pensions, which is a long way from saying he won't do it.

So if this is a looming issue at Westminster, how will it be handled at Holyrood? Is anyone willing to grasp this thistle? And if not pensions, where else to wield the knife?

Let's hear from Annabel Goldie, for instance - does she agree with her UK leader in wanting to end pensions "apartheid"?