Allan Massie: Provosts can reverse the erosion of democracy

OUR local authorities are losing power to central government and we need to follow London’s example to stop it, writes Allan Massie

We HAVE devolution, and we are likely to have more devolution, unless of course we vote for full independence. Yet at the same time we have centralisation. Powers have been devolved from Westminster to Holyrood, and Holyrood and the Scottish Government have extended their own powers at the expense of subsidiary authorities. Local government has been deprived of much of the autonomy it used to enjoy.

At the same time, the Scottish Government has set its face against the sort of measures being enacted in England to introduce choice and variety in the health service and schools. Universities which were once self-governing have been flatly told whom they may charge for education (students whose home is in England) and whom they may not (everybody else). Meanwhile, Mike Russell, the education minister, is assuming more powers with regard to colleges of further education, which were and should be the responsibility of local government.

Local authorities used to have a degree of financial autonomy. They have now lost this. A council tax freeze has been imposed on them. Should they choose to defy this order, their grant from central government will be reduced. Most of us are, of course, quite happy not to be required to pay more in council tax. Nevertheless, the consequence is another shift in the balance of power and responsibility, and the weakening of local democracy.

The government has decreed that we should have only one Scottish police force. This is very evidently another centralising measure. Whatever provision may be made for local authority representation, this will be less and less effective than it used to be. The chief objection is that a single police force is likely, no matter the safeguards that may be provided, to be more subject to political interference from government than is the case when there are several forces. The plans for a single Scottish police force are fundamentally undemocratic.

The purpose of devolution was to bring government closer to the people. Centralisation and the emasculation of local authorities take it further away. The process is gathering pace, and ought to be checked. Centralisation is a galloping disease.

There is one obvious remedy: to create other power structures that enjoy democratic legitimacy and popular approval. In the 19th century, when central government was comparatively weak, local government was strong. In Glasgow, the Corporation, forerunner of the city council, remodelled the city. As Michael Fry wrote in his political history of modern Scotland, Patronage and Principle, the principles of self-responsibility on which it worked “had a startling similarity to those of Scotland’s defunct ecclesiastical constitution, long vainly upheld by the Free Church”, which “accorded to the State” – let us say, to central government – “only the duty of providing the wherewithal to the institutions catering for the people’s welfare, which otherwise acted in the freedom they chose for themselves.”

Now local government suffers from a lack of prestige, which is the result of its subordination to central government. To restore its standing, it must become more independent and more directly responsible to its electorate. This can be made possible by providing for the direct election of lord provosts in the cities, and provosts in other local authority areas. This has been done in England – first in London – the example now being followed elsewhere.

The creation of directly elected mayors of London has weakened the grip of the party establishments. The first mayor, Ken Livingstone, ran in opposition to his own Labour Party, which indeed put up an approved candidate, the former Cabinet minister Frank Dobson, against him. The electorate rejected Dobson. The second mayor, Boris Johnson, is regarded as a rival to the leader of his own Conservative Party. Consequently, whatever one’s opinion of Livingstone and Johnson may be, it seems that London benefits from having a representative figure acting in what is perceived to be its interests, and detached from, often critical of, central government.

The advantages of having a directly elected lord provost or provost are obvious. Dissipation of power is a good thing in itself. Cities and local government areas need to have someone who speaks for them and is independent of central government. People then know who is responsible, whether they approve of the civic leader or blame him. They can re-elect him or kick him out. We all know that the Edinburgh trams scheme has been an expensive and shameful fiasco. But who is responsible? If Edinburgh had a directly elected lord provost, the answer would be clear. Indeed if there had been such a person, the project might either have been better managed or never embarked on.

For a long time central government in Scotland was very weak, but local government was comparatively strong. The opposite is now the case. The Scottish Government and parliament have drawn more powers to themselves at the expense of the cities and regional authorities. I do not believe this process is healthy, or that it makes for better government. It would be a good thing if it was to be put into reverse.

Further devolution of power from Westminster to Holyrood will tend to strengthen the grip of central government. The sort of devolution that is now urgently needed is devolution from Holyrood to local authorities. As things are now, they are deprived of initiative and independence and are little more than instruments employed to do whatever the Scottish Government says they should do. Devolution in its present form has weakened local democracy, has indeed made Scotland a less democratic country. Providing for the direct election of lord provosts and provosts would restore local accountability, and this is surely desirable.