Comment:Should local Scots referendums be revived?

One of the most embarrassing failures for Glasgow's leadership was sustained resistance to taxation for free libraries. Picture: Getty

At a time when he was distancing himself from Margaret Thatcher’s legacy, it was a direct riposte to her claim that “there’s no such thing as society”. But the Big Society failed to capture the public imagination. Among many criticisms, the more expansive slogan of “Big Society, not big government” came across as nothing different at all.

Local referendums giving voice to the “wee society” have been held in Scotland since the 19th century. In some cases, they were held within a legislative framework; for example, on decisions to finance free libraries or the controversial “veto poll”, which could lead to localised prohibition of alcohol. Other referendums have been more informal; for example, the 2005 Edinburgh vote on congestion charges or the 2012 Aberdeen vote on restructuring Union Terrace Gardens.

By the early 19th century, the 66 Scottish royal burghs, safeguarded by the Act of Union, had become known for cronyism, conservatism and non-accountability. Recurring episodes of sharp practice and corruption fuelled calls for reform, and a vocal movement emerged across Scotland to campaign for local democracy. Legislative change was achieved in 1833, although the right to vote was restricted to relatively wealthy male property holders and the secret ballot was not introduced until 1872. That said, elections were held annually when a poll elected one-third of representatives on a rotating basis.

An element of direct democracy was thus built into Scottish local government until reorganisation in 1975, although at times extraordinary measures were needed to elicit public support for specific policies. One of the most embarrassing failures for local leadership in Glasgow was sustained resistance to local taxation for free libraries. Under Scottish-wide legislation of 1853 the service could be introduced only if ratepayers voted for it. A show of hands at a meeting initially sufficed, but with the extended municipal franchise in 1868 the debate became complex. In 1876 a meeting in Glasgow rejected claims that the measure would be a moral and cultural boon for the city. As a result of this experience the law was amended to allow for plebiscites.

The free libraries controversy reflected the changing political climate of the times. Local referendums would not only be far more representative, but could accommodate a new force in burgh government. In 1881 Scottish women householders had been enfranchised, and referendums were viewed as suited to their sensibilities; after all, they would not have to endure hard-edged and scurrilous debate at open meetings. Indeed, a small army of female volunteers reinforced the “yes” side in Glasgow’s 1888 libraries plebiscite. Despite their efforts, however, the free libraries campaigners still lost the vote. Eventually, civic leaders were forced to pursue a back-door strategy, and in 1898 special parliamentary sanction was given to inaugurate the city’s branch library network.

Resistance to free libraries was not simply based on the cost factor; it was also seen as part of a drive by middle-class Liberals to reshape working-class leisure habits. From the 1830s, Liberals had dominated elected office in the Scottish burghs, although challenges were emerging by the turn of the century, especially from independent Labour. The Liberal “rational recreation” agenda was wide-ranging, and at its most controversial called for drastic action to reduce alcohol consumption. The temperance movement had a solid base within the Scottish party, successfully exerting pressure to adopt the local veto as part of its programme. Using American precedents, the idea was that communities could requisition polls for a localised ban on the sale of alcohol.

After the landslide return of a Liberal government in 1906, 61 out of 72 Scottish MPs supported the local veto, and the Scottish legislation was passed in 1913. Fierce opposition to the measure, headed by the drinks lobby, led to compromise; to achieve the temperance goal of “no licence”, 35 per cent of those on the electoral register had to vote, with at least 55 per cent in favour. The local veto thus had limitations; only 40 “no licence” districts were approved in the first elections of 1920, out of nearly 600 polled. The localised solution to temperance reform was further discredited by the failure of American prohibition during the 1920s. Yet veto polls lingered on in Scotland until their abolition in 1976 – a faded reminder of the debate about devolved democracy some 70 years previously.

Of course, by the 1970s calls for devolution had taken on a very different tenor. The Scottish Office, especially in the context of post-1945 economic planning, was focusing attention on the efficiency of small-scale government. The 1969 Wheatley Commission had already sounded the death knell of Scotland’s 201 burghs. A more streamlined system emerged in 1975, with 65 authorities divided on a two-tier system according to regional and district functions. Out of these, Strathclyde Region was the largest, covering 5,400 square miles and accommodating 2.5 million people.

Critics claimed that local democracy and civic identity had been lost somewhere in the maw of this administrative monster. Yet ironically, one of the most celebrated of all Scotland’s local referendums was held across Strathclyde in March 1994. The stimulus was yet more local government reorganisation; John Major’s Conservative government was intent on reducing Scotland’s 65 local authorities. Dismantling the regions, and especially Labour-controlled Strathclyde, raised the spectre of water privatisation, effected in 1989 for England and Wales.

For Victorian Scots, abundant water represented regeneration and community wellbeing; moreover, this essential resource fell into the category of “natural monopoly” and was thus beyond the vagaries of free market forces. The argument was resurrected in 1993 as anti-privatisation activism gained ground. Not surprisingly, throughout 1993 an overwhelmingly negative response to privatisation was conveyed by those consulted about the water issue. Perhaps fearing a repeat of anti-poll tax protests, the Scottish Office instead opted to transfer ownership to three public water authorities. But few were convinced that the administration intended water to stay in public hands for long.

Strathclyde councillors, in response, sanctioned a “referendum by mail” early in 1994. Despite Scottish Office accusations of scaremongering, an incredible 71.5 per cent of eligible Strathclyders recorded their vote, with just over 97 per cent against the transfer of water out of local government control. Even Labour politicians were taken aback by the result, not least because it was soon interpreted as a displaced vote for home rule.

The success of the Strathclyde campaign stopped neither the water reforms getting Westminster approval nor the region’s abolition in 1996. In 2002 the centralisation of water services in one corporate entity, accountable to the Scottish Government, continued a trend apparent since the 1920s. In order to secure better financial and resource management, provision of local services has steadily become less local. Indeed, the establishment of Scotland’s parliament has raised questions about the future of local government itself.

Big Society enthusiasm for referenda is located in the blurry, shape-shifting territory of what actually constitutes a community. As this brief history has shown, while referendums may have demonstrated quirks and contradictions in voter preferences, they could still galvanise opinion and reflect local democracy within the wider framework of civic Scotland.

• Dr Irene Maver is an honourary research fellow in history at the University of Glasgow. Dr Maver’s seminar is open to the public and takes place at 5:30pm today at the University of Glasgow. For more details see www.gla.ac.uk/events/voxpopuli