Calman Commission

Calman Commission
Name	Calman Commission
Formed	2008
Jurisdiction	Scotland
Chairman	Sir Kenneth Calman
Type	Independent commission

Calman Commission was an independent UK-wide review body convened to examine the devolution settlement for Scotland, assess fiscal powers, and recommend constitutional changes. Chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, the commission reported findings that influenced legislation and debate among the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament, and political parties including the Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour, and the Scottish Conservatives. Its work intersected with institutions such as the Treasury, the Electoral Commission, and the Institute for Government during a period shaped by events like the 2010 United Kingdom general election and discussions preceding the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

Background

The review emerged in the context of the 1997 Scottish devolution process that led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood and the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. Developments including the work of the House of Commons Treasury Committee, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and analysis from the Resolution Foundation highlighted debates over the Barnett formula and fiscal transfers. Political actors such as the Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and Labour Party debated powers alongside civic organisations like the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. International comparisons including the Canadian federation, the Australian Commonwealth, and the Nordic model were invoked by commentators from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and academics from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Glasgow.

Establishment and Mandate

The commission was established by the UK Government under Prime Minister Gordon Brown following agreements reached by leaders including Alex Salmond and then-First Minister candidates. Chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, former Chief Medical Officer, the commission included representatives drawn from academia, civil service, and public life with input from the Scottish Government and the UK Treasury. Its remit encompassed examination of fiscal arrangements such as tax-varying powers, welfare implications touching on the Department for Work and Pensions, and intergovernmental relations as practised at the Joint Ministerial Committee. The commission solicited evidence from institutions including the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and trade unions like Unite and the Trades Union Congress.

Key Findings and Recommendations

The commission recommended transferring certain tax powers and adjusting grant arrangements previously determined by the Barnett formula, proposing a framework akin to fiscal responsibility mechanisms seen in the Canadian provinces and the German Länder. Recommendations included partial devolution of income tax powers, new borrowing powers, and strengthened accountability via mechanisms similar to those used by the National Audit Office and Audit Scotland. It advocated clearer fiscal frameworks involving the Treasury, the Scottish Government, and Westminster, and suggested changes to the legislative consent process involving the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The report emphasized transparency with reference to publications by the Office for National Statistics and the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Political Response and Implementation

Responses varied among political parties and institutions: the Scottish National Party argued for fuller powers as reflected in campaigns such as those led by the Scottish Green Party and Yes Scotland, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats supported more modest devolution complemented by cross-party agreements. The UK Parliament considered the report alongside the Scotland Act 2012 and subsequent orders debated in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. Implementation involved negotiation between the Treasury and Scottish Ministers, engagement with the Electoral Commission on electoral implications, and adjustments overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Criticism and Controversy

The commission faced critique from advocacy groups and academics including commentators from the Adam Smith Institute and the Common Weal think tank. Criticisms targeted the sufficiency of recommended tax powers, alleged centralising tendencies compared with federal models like the Swiss Confederation, and concerns raised by law lobbies referencing devolution jurisprudence under the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Trade unions and social policy researchers from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation challenged assumptions about welfare impacts, while media scrutiny from outlets such as the BBC and The Scotsman amplified debates about democratic legitimacy and electoral consequences exemplified in subsequent campaigns like Better Together.

Impact and Legacy

The commission’s report influenced legislative changes and political discourse, contributing to the Scotland Act 2012 and shaping debates that fed into the 2014 independence referendum campaign and post-referendum agreements such as the Smith Commission. Its proposals affected fiscal arrangements and inspired comparative studies by the Institute for Government, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and universities across the UK. Long-term legacies include altered intergovernmental processes involving the Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs, continued contention over the Barnett formula, and ongoing scholarly analysis in journals like Public Administration and Scottish Affairs. The report remains cited in discussions by parties including the Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour when framing positions on devolution and fiscal autonomy.

Category:Devolution in the United Kingdom Category:Scottish politics Category:Public policy