I was talking about the Scottish parliament. As I read it, the article talks about both (as I read it). Feels like I'm derailing the discussion a bit but essentially:
Overall Scottish spending is not related to UK tax levels directly, but is directly related to spending in England and Wales[1]. So the argument is that there is little point in a party trying to get voted into Holyrood (the Scottish parliament) promising a smaller states and fewer taxes at the moment, because they have little proportionate control on the taxes (although again, on the spending they do in theory).
The reverse is not true for Westminister - the more they spend in England and Wales, the more is available for Scotland to spend, and vice versa.
Overall Scottish spending is not related to UK tax levels directly, but is directly related to spending in England and Wales[1]. So the argument is that there is little point in a party trying to get voted into Holyrood (the Scottish parliament) promising a smaller states and fewer taxes at the moment, because they have little proportionate control on the taxes (although again, on the spending they do in theory).
The reverse is not true for Westminister - the more they spend in England and Wales, the more is available for Scotland to spend, and vice versa.
Hope that clarifies what I was saying!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula