STEPHEN DAISLEY: Welcome to the club, Kemi… you’ve found the perfect way to force the SNP to get on with the day job
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has signalled her willingness to amend the Scotland Act and reverse parts of the devolution settlement if Scottish ministers fail to improve their record, particularly on education. A columnist supports this approach, arguing it would compel the Scottish National Party to perform better and allow Westminster to reassert control over key policy areas.
The piece identifies income tax and welfare as prime targets for repatriation. The columnist argues that Scotland's devolved income tax has resulted in the UK's highest rate, which he says deters business investment, and that welfare devolution has been used to increase spending without sufficient fraud prevention. He contends that Westminster has established systems to prevent fraud and financial mismanagement that Scotland currently lacks, making it better suited to administer these policies.
- Badenoch signals willingness to reverse devolution if Scottish performance doesn't improve
- Columnist backs repatriating income tax and welfare powers to Westminster
- Argues devolved control has led to high taxes and inadequate fraud safeguards
New here? Start with this
Scotland has its own parliament with powers over policy areas such as education, health and income tax. This arrangement, known as devolution and established through the Scotland Act in 1997, means certain decisions are made in Edinburgh rather than by the UK parliament in Westminster.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has suggested that if the Scottish government does not improve its performance, particularly on education, the UK government could change the Scotland Act and remove some of these powers. She has specifically mentioned income tax and welfare as areas that could be brought back under Westminster control.
This proposal is significant because it would represent a major reversal of the devolution settlement that has been in place for nearly 30 years. It raises questions about the future relationship between the UK government and Scotland, particularly as the Scottish government is currently led by the Scottish National Party.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The case for Westminster reassertion rests on both performance and capacity. If devolved governments fail their populations—particularly on education—accountability matters; consequences should follow underperformance. Additionally, the argument goes, Westminster's systems for fraud prevention and financial oversight are demonstrably superior, and income tax devolution has enabled the highest UK rates, deterring business investment that benefits Scotland's economy. From this view, certain powers are better exercised at UK level where mechanisms exist to prevent misuse and maximise efficiency, making repatriation both a governance improvement and a reasonable response to failure.
The case against
This threatens the constitutional fundamentals of devolution itself. The strongest objection is that devolution transferred democratic powers to Scottish voters; allowing Westminster to reclaim them based on disputed 'performance' judgements treats Scotland's autonomy as conditional and revocable. Who defines adequate performance? Different political philosophies produce different policy choices—what Westminster sees as failure, Scottish voters might see as legitimate democratic preference. Beyond principle, creating a threat of power withdrawal for poor performance incentivises political rather than good governance and treats Scotland as subject to Westminster oversight rather than as a partner with genuine democratic choice.