Greater local control of politics would be hugely popular, but the arch-centralisers of the SNP are unlikely to surrender any of their powers
Published 17th Oct 2026, 06:00 BST
For some rallying in Aberdeen this weekend, Andy Burnham’s charge that Scotland is the most centralised devolved government in Europe will sound more like an accolade than an indictment.
As one leading oracle put it: “Scotland is our localism.” Accordingly, for 20 years, the Scottish civil service has been politicised, the quango statelet has burgeoned and local government has shrivelled. Control has been the consistent objective with accountability sucked away.
An ideology has become a mindset. Putting ‘Scotland’ into a quango title precludes the possibility that lived experience and accountability should be respected, where localism or regionalism make more sense than the tentacles of central control.
If the purpose of public sector reform was to disperse powers within Scotland, it could be an exciting and positive exercise. That will not come from bureaucratic shuffling or quango mergers. The verdict will lie in where decisions end up being made and with what degree of accountability.
‘Islanders’ in need of ‘mentoring’?
I listened this week to excruciating evidence to a Holyrood committee from Alison Irvine, chief executive of Transport Scotland, which has been central to some of most egregious policy failures of recent times. She was being pressed on why no resident of the entire region has been appointed to the board of Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd for at least a decade, with predictable consequences.
Neither, throughout the evolution of the ferries scandal, was there a single island resident on boards of the two quangos, CMAL and Caledonian MacBrayne. The cost of their serial mishaps has been incalculable in human terms and hundreds of millions in hard cash. It is difficult to imagine governance structure doing worse.
Yet Ms Irvine explained to MSPs how the work of these boards is “complex” so that “islanders” would need “mentoring and training” to be “board ready”. The lack of self-awareness was as impressive as her remarks were ignorant and offensive. But there is no doubt Ms Irvine is her political masters’ voice which doubtless explains her otherwise inexplicable elevation.
That example implies the key question at the heart of any public sector reform agenda. Is there any intention of dispersing powers and decision-making within Scotland or is it an over-hyped exercise to save money, which probably won’t even do that?
Time to think big
The approach to local government reorganisation is a joke. After two decades of taking powers and money away from councils, a three-month consultation on what to do next is pointless unless accompanied by a commitment to return some of both to the ‘new’ authorities. In other words, a complete reversal of established practice. Does that exist? Maybe the faithful in Aberdeen will be told.
There are plenty instances where genuine, open-minded reform would produce better outcomes and are not primarily about money. Housing is critical to the health of communities and the need for creativity and flexibility is obvious. One size most definitely does not fit all.
So why not give serious powers to councils to secure land where necessary and intervene to prevent dereliction of town and city centres? That kind of ‘reform’ depends on political will, rather than structural tinkering. Think big, for goodness sake.
On drivers of economic development, it would be interesting to have some reflection on what the Scottish National Investment Bank is about, other than an assumption that every nation should have one.
At present, it is costing £200 million a year of direct subvention from the Scottish government and is managing to make an annual loss – of £117m in the most recent accounts. Of course, it is important to separate the principle of public intervention from the labels attached to organisations.
There is nothing the Scottish National Investment Bank does that regional development agencies could not. Risk is inherent in their roles with nothing so far to suggest that the bankers exercise a superior form of judgment or are more independent of political influence.
The three development bodies have seen sustained funding cuts so why not split the difference – give them an extra £100m to do their work better with regional knowledge and input while saving the other £100m. Job done, Ivan McKee.
Democratic deficits
Then how about Crown Estate Scotland? Its devolution was the product of a Smith Commission recommendation in 2014 and should have made sense. The ‘marine estate’ developed mainly in Scotland with revenue from fish farming and, more recently, offshore wind.
The perceived intention was to further devolve revenues and decisions to coastal communities in the front line. But this is Scotland, so the opposite happened. Crown Estate Scotland became an adjunct of the Scottish government, with revenues centralised. There is no more local accountability than when the show was run from Belgravia. Maybe less. Will public sector reform address such democratic deficits?
So far the only actual proposal I’ve seen is to merge NatureScot (which used to get by as Scottish Natural Heritage) with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and maybe a couple of others, to form a super-quango. But is there any intention to devolve powers downwards to communities at the sharp end? I doubt it.
Particularly with NatureScot, many of its interventions would be more appropriately determined at local levels, where there is an understanding of impacts upon local economies and indeed the environment. But why would the centre trust elected councils to make decisions when a quango could do it for them?
The list of possible, positive, money-saving, democracy-enhancing public sector reforms is lengthy. But all of them would involve the yielding of centralised controls by Edinburgh. So will any of them happen?
If there was a referendum round the question “should powers held within Scotland be devolved to the most relevant and accountable level of government?”, I guess there would be a 95 per cent ‘yes’ vote – and the Scottish government would hate it.