The SNP’s opportunism is naked when it comes to Andy Burnham’s decentralising agenda
This week’s In Common looks at the SNP’s response to Andy Burnham’s decentralising agenda, arguing that their criticism of English devolution sits uneasily alongside their own record on local government in Scotland. It explores the gap between rhetorical support for empowering communities and a system that continues to concentrate power in Holyrood while under-resourcing councils.
On Monday, Andy Burnham set out in broad terms his prospective agenda should he become Prime Minister and at the heart of it was a place-based agenda.
The SNP and others in the pro-independence camp have been quick to criticise Burnham for lacking substance in his speech, whilst arguing that Scotland needs the full powers of independence rather than an improved devolution settlement.
I, too, would welcome the powers of full fiscal autonomy, not least because it would remove an excuse for inaction from the SNP’s arsenal of defences. However, it would appear as if the SNP and those near to the party see decentralisation and independence as mutually exclusive.
In The National earlier this week, columnist Kelly Given argued, “While his rallying cry to decentralise power may well appeal to voters in Manchester, for those of us in Scotland – it's the answer to a question we're just not asking.”
I think it takes quite some gall to argue that the people of Scotland should be content for democracy to stop at Holyrood.
And this, for me, belies a broader contempt for local government within the SNP. Last year it was reported that £7.8 billion has been cut from core council budgets between 2013-14 and 2024-26, and last December, COSLA made a plea ahead of Shona Robison’s budget to invest a further £16 billion in council services for fear of them being lost for good. This led to a budget shortfall of around £530 million reported just this month.
That’s a lot of numbers to say the SNP loves to call for devolution to Holyrood, but the constitutional sieve is unsympathetic when it comes to supporting local government in Scotland. Indeed, Public Service Reform Secretary Ivan McKee appeared to baulk at the idea that the Scottish Government wouldn’t be able to get its hands on cash being directed directly into the hands of communities when presented with an admittedly protracted scenario on BBC Radio Scotland this week.
And don’t get me wrong, I agree with Dave Doogan when he says “If Andy Burnham was serious about devolution, then he should start by devolving energy powers”. But the SNP’s hypocrisy becomes naked when he argues that Andy Burnham would “block people in Scotland from having […] more control over their future”. So long as the SNP hoards power and resources in Holyrood, the ability of people across Scotland to shape the places they live in is stifled.
That said, in instances where responsibility for service deliver is devolved to local authorities, for example in care or education, councils are forced into a scenario where policy is dumped on them without the resources needed to properly deliver them.
In a tale as old as time, the SNP outsources blame to hamstrung local officials who are ultimately the ones that have to clean up the mess.
“So long as the SNP hoards power and resources in Holyrood, the ability of people across Scotland to shape the places they live in is stifled.”
The answer to this?
Imposing a top-down system of Provosts or Mayors does not fix the democratic deficit in Scotland, nor does it fix the funding problem.
Indeed, Kelly Given writes, “Scotland isn't looking for a glorified mayoral system,” but the only other option is not simply, as she continues that, “we chose something else decades ago and it was a democratically elected national Parliament of our own.”
There can and must be a middle ground between the vast and yet under-resourced local authorities that serve Scotland and a devolved or even independent national parliament where policy is governed by ministerial diktat.
A Scottish local council is ten times bigger than the European average. In other words, Scotland’s lowest level of government serves around 169,525 people, while the average European population size of the most local level of democracy is 17,241. This structure hasn’t been reformed since the early 1990s when unitary authorities were created – we sure as hell could start here.
The system of local government in Scotland cannot be reformed, however, without the scrapping of council tax. The introduction of two new tax bands at properties over £1 million and £2 million merely tinkers at the top end, and as long as a banded system continues ordinary people will continue to pay for a discount handed up to the wealthiest.
Places like Govan or Torry should not be running cap in hand to beg for cash from local authorities. This scramble for funding not only creates unnecessary competition between places but it strips communities of their own agency and any ability to produce value themselves.
Anyone who’s spoken to community practitioners and third sector leaders knows that without the means to produce value themselves, all local government and civil society can do is run around putting out fires.
The Manchester model may not be a silver bullet but if the SNP want to talk about meaningful devolution, they could start with their own back yard.