In light of our parliamentary debate on intergovernmental relations on Tuesday, it is probably worth recognising that we are at least seeing a draft of the documents and that it is an encouraging step in a direction that we have all been making some noise about to a lesser or greater extent.
I want to highlight two paragraphs in the draft MOU, the first of which is paragraph 20, which says:
“Both Governments commit to make the most efficient use possible of the seabed in Scotland”.
I would be interested to hear the definition of the word “efficient” in that paragraph, and I would be grateful if that could be looked at. Of course, that is probably more of a policy question than a legal one.
The second one is paragraph 16, which begins:
“Should there be further devolution of the Scottish functions within Scotland”.
To me, that is pretty weaselly language. Paragraph 33 of the Smith commission report, which I know rather well, is abundantly clear on what is going to happen to the islands in Scotland. I suggest that, as a policy question, the committee states to the UK that we are interested in words such as “may”, “can” and “will” instead of “should”. The one that I am going to get worked up about is the “should” in paragraph 16, which I think should be replaced by “when”. I would like to leave it with our policy and legal advisers to politely ask both Governments why they are not committing themselves to what the Smith commission actually agreed in paragraph 33 of its report.