Saturday 1 November 2014


A summary of the Scottish Police Federation's submission to the Smith Commission. The full report can be found here.
The Scottish Police Federation believes it is in the interests of the people of Scotland to have a parliament with all necessary powers to ensure it can deliver the best possible life chances for our citizens, regardless of where they happen to live or how rich or poor they happen to be.

The Scottish Police Federation believes the Commission should endorse a statement that it is iniquitous that the Scottish people cannot directly determine the global funding arrangements for the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Police Federation believes the dates within which the Commission is expected to deliver were superficially determined and provide an unrealistic time frame in which to properly consider and evaluate any submissions that it receives.

The Scottish Police Federation believes the Commission should be able to continue its considerations beyond St Andrew's Night and if required to be able to make recommendations for draft clauses beyond Burns’ Night. 
They have to deal with some REALLY dodgy blokes
The Scottish Police Federation believes the Commission should make clear that regardless of its recommendations, there are no guarantees these will be delivered.

The Scottish Police Federation supports the view expressed by the Prime Minister that all options for devolution are possible and believes this statement should be the basis upon which this, and any future discussions on Scottish devolution is based.
The Scottish Police Federation believes that it is incumbent on all parties to set aside their pre referendum positions and work towards delivering proposals that will best deliver for the citizens of Scotland.

The Scottish Police Federation believes that ALL UK spending decisions should clearly identify by each budget line, the proportions of spending drawn from borrowings, income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, excise duties and any other clearly identifiable income stream.
The Scottish Police Federation believes that Scottish MPs should retain the ability to vote on any matter which may have a budgetary consideration or consequence for Scotland.

The Scottish Police Federation believes that any budget in England & Wales which is made up in any part from funding sources which are in themselves contributed to by the citizens in the devolved nations should continue to attract full Barnett consequentials.

The Scottish Police Federation believes that unless the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Annually Managed Expenditure is addressed, that 'control' over income tax will prove to give the appearance of more powers without actually delivering so.

The Scottish Police Federation believes that Barnett bypass is manifestly unfair, deprives devolved administrations of funding that could be utilised to tackle social injustice and that in future only spending on defence, foreign affairs and the administration of the state should be capable of being categorised as being of UK wide significance.

The Scottish Police Federation asks the Commission to ask itself that if the further powers under consideration for transfer to the Scottish Parliament will not help address poverty and its associated devastating consequences, whether these powers go far enough?

The Scottish Police Federation believes that the greatest opportunity for public sector workers to be fairly rewarded and remunerated for the priceless role they perform in our society rests with increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. 

The Scottish Police Federation believes that cutting investment in the public sector actively undermines communities and stymies opportunities for growth and prosperity.

The Scottish Police Federation believes the Scottish Parliament should have full policy as well as legislative responsibility for public sector pensions in Scotland.

The Scottish Police Federation believes ALL revenues raised through the imposition of fines or proceeds of crime seizures (without limitation) should be retained in Scotland to provide the Scottish Government with additional resources to help those who need them most.

The Scottish Police Federation believes absolute authority and responsibility for counter terrorism policing in Scotland should rest with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.

The Scottish Police Federation believes the Scottish Parliament should have full policy and legislative responsibility on all matters that are ultimately enforceable through the courts in Scotland.


  1. Seems fair but will need to look at it further, I do think that there needs to be some adherence to the time scale because looking at the rest of the STV Poll results. people are beginning to feel they are being shafted and are already looking towards another referendum. I certainly do not think we will get anything like that amount of Devolution, we will get as little as they can get away with and I will regard it as asking for sixpence to get tuppence as in Union negotiations.

    1. I think that the time scale was ridiculous, Helena.

      I'm of the opinion that if the job is worth doing, it is worth doing right, but the Daily Record appears to have drawn up the vow, pretty much without Miliband knowing about it, so maybe they decided the time scale too.

      So, given that it was agreed (and even if it was the Record and not the politicians who did it, the politicians didn't demur), then yes, they should be sticking to it.

      But it is now November and unless I'm mistaken, we have missed the first two targets, which as it goes, were the kind of targets that a cheap tabloid would set... all Scottish dates, rather than trying to come up with some sort of realistic time frame.

      So, the politicians either set these dates, or at least agreed to the Daily Record setting them and the vow.

      So yes, they have to try to live up to them.

      Otherwise those who voted NO because of them will have every right to be angry.

      The points that the Police Federation made, are, I think, reasonable and fair, specially those on consequentials. I have no idea why building railways and sewers, roads and bridges all over England (and not just London) can qualify for exemptions to Barnet.

  2. Sorry O/T but related to submissions to the Smith Commission, here is the one submitted by the Black Triangle Campaign:

    This is particularly relevant to me as I mentioned a few days ago how ashamed I felt as being unable to work due to illness.
    I could very well have been on the list of those who took their own life due to the way in which the Government and the DWP treated me.

    I completely understand why these people decided that there was no other option left open to them. Every day I wait for the brown envelope telling me that I have to go through the circus once again. The black triangle campaign website helped me when no-one else did. My local council benefits advisers told me I would never qualify but I should try anyway. After I succeeded (some nine months later) the council asked me to provide them with all of my details so that they could add me to their success statistics. I declined.

    1. Firstly, Anon, I never mind if someone goes off topic. I reckon this is somewhere to discuss what is important to you at the time. I know some people get a bit precious about that kind of thing. I don't. So feel free:)

      In any case this is associated, and I'll enjoy reading this submission.

      A friend, living in England, passed through Atos, or whatever its called, about 8 months ago, but tried to take on part time work because he is trying to make himself better and his doctor felt that some activity could help.

      It was too much for him (many because of the almost (literally) incredible stupidity of his boss) and he had to leave after a very short time, and now has to go through it all again. He is terrified.

      I'm interested in the Black Triangle. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    2. Hi Tris
      A few years back my GP referred me to an agency to help me get back to work.
      (The DWP interviews in this respect consisted of an adviser providing me with a list of available jobs and info on CV writing. He suggested courses I could attend, including a computer literacy course. I already have a degree and two higher degrees. In my past life I was a lecturer in Computer Aided Design.)

      I attended support meetings for 6 months with the outside agency and they suggested that I undertake voluntary work as a means of trying out employment again, I was interviewed and secured a very part time post.

      In the meantime I found out from the DWP that in order to undertake this voluntary work I must stop claiming benefits and re-apply if and when I stopped work, To them work was work whether paid or voluntary. I could attend all of the courses offered by the DWP but if I was capable of voluntary work I should apply for job seekers allowance and get a full time job.

    3. They are completely potty Anon...

      Of course these days all that IDS wants to do is save money. How that affects people he simply doesn't care.

      May he rot in hell.

  3. Comment from Arbroath 1314

    "I think Tris that as we have "the vow" then we should expect and demand that the unionists who signed up to "the vow" are held accountable to it 100%. Every time they fail to meet a target from "the vow" they should constantly be reminded that they have missed it. This will keep the pressure on them and constantly remind them that we are watching their every move and ANY deviation from "the vow" will not be tolerated.

    They have made this "vow" rod for their own backs and it is going to be this rod that we will finally smash their backs to smithereens before claiming independence in a few years time. :-) "

    Which I completely agree with (except for all the violence... goodness, remind me not to get on the wrong side of you Arbroath!!! :)

  4. I read the whole submission earlier (which is more than the commission will do, I suspect) , all seemed fair enough; to me.
    'Mon the polis.

    1. Given the ridiculous amount of time given to consult with the whole of Scottish society, I would agree that at best they will only manage to skim through submissions... and only really read ones that they think will come back and bit them if they ignore them.

      I have to admit I started with the intention of reading every word, but decided that the conclusions would have to do!!

  5. Sounds fair enough to me and actually better than I expected from the police. So agree with comments 're timescales and, as you say, they never refuted these so must stand by them AYE

    1. Stand by them or explain why they are deviating (they will have to; it will be a cack-handed job if they do it all on schedule). They must remember that opinion polls are absolutely against them going back on this.