Valentine’s Day approaches with all the joy and anxiety we associate with love.
We celebrate amour but know the real trick is the enduring relationship; roses wrapped in the wrinkled paper of life.
The regular gatherings of Scotland’s Finance Minister with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must have all the spontaneity of a Valentine’s meal.
The two have been meeting not for love but to settle the Fiscal Framework. This is a part of the 2012 Scotland Act which was agreed in principle but not fine-tuned until now.
Had the meeting been a blind date, they would have been well matched.
John Swinney and the Tory MP at the Treasury, Greg Hands, are earnest family men with ambition and good manners. Neither appears overburdened with ideology and both seem to have pragmatic instincts.
Ideal, you would think, for the tricky task ahead.
Think of the fiscal framework as a set of scales. On one side are tax raising powers for Scotland, on the other the size of the cheque the Treasury gives to Edinburgh.
The aim is for the scale to be the level what’s cut from the cheque is raised by the new taxes.
Impossible balancing act
However, this is a balancing act impossible to pull off.
For sake of example, let’s say Edinburgh wants to raise £10 billion with its new taxes.
The logical thing is to then cut the cheque, the Scottish Block as it is known, by £10bn. In theory that’s simple.
Applying theory to reality is where we come unstuck.
In our example, Edinburgh may hope to raise £10bn but by the time the money has been collected let’s say it is £1bn short. Taxes never raise exactly what is estimated none of us know the future.
In the test case of a £1bn shortfall, or any loss, the Scottish Government doesn’t want to be left with a hole in the budget which is fair enough.
They are saying new tax powers should not penalise Scots in line with the principle of “no detriment”, which has been accepted by all sides.
However, it is also fair for the UK to say it is not its responsibility to fix the holes created by poor tax policies or a shrinking Scottish tax base.
In effect, tax payers in the rest of the UK would become liable to cover any losses. That would mean the Scottish Block could actually rise, at the expense of spending in the North of England, for example.
Remember, the tax powers are meant to make Scotland more responsible, not more dependent.
It is unhelpful to cast this row as plucky Scotland versus bad England it is simply an impossible problem to fix.
As soon as your budget becomes dependent on collecting money from taxpayers and not as a cheque from the Treasury, then you can’t guarantee what you will raise.
If you are locked into a system which is part-tax raising, part-grant there will be difficulties in making it work. That’s neither fair nor unfair that’s life.
The Scottish Government’s anxiety is partly based on a poor prognosis for Scotland’s economy we are not young enough or economically active enough for Edinburgh to feel confident about future revenues.
They will be arguing for more flexibility over borrowing powers to tide them over bad times. The Treasury, knowing any borrowing will go on its books, will be resisting a new hole opening up in the UK finances.
Nicola Sturgeon is spot on in cancelling the Valentine’s Day deadline and appealing for calm in what was being talked up into a Mexican stand-off.
A complicated future
Scotland has chosen a complicated future, to rebuild the UK in stages and should get used to complexity.
Ms Sturgeon and John Swinney know this is how things will be. It can become a spectator sport but it’s far more helpful to take time and get a workable solution.
As this is just the beginning of what will be years of complexity, both governments could move to make the process more democratic.
In the current negotiations, only a handful of people at the top of the two governments know what is going on.
This is inappropriate for a structural shift in the UK. There should be some mechanism to explain the talks to the wider public a rapporteur who could demonstrate the complexity of the issue and the sincerity of the objections.
This would allow think tanks and academics to provide the general public with a range of models it is, after all, our money that is at stake.
Secondly, all the main parties should be involved.
The consequences of this deal will affect all future governments in Edinburgh and London. Allow Ruth Davidson of the Tories and Kezia Dugdale to be briefed, with Jeremy Corbyn granted the same access.
The decision must rest with the negotiators and ultimately parliaments but informed commentaries from others would help.
The relationship between Edinburgh and London isn’t just for Valentine’s but for life.
Never mind the roses, this affair has to work.