Glasgow needs more devolution from Holyrood

Geography matters. Tourists visiting Scotland often note how geographically diverse our small country is, from the vibrant and dense central belt, to the majestic highlands, and romantic islands.

All of these geographically diverse places are governed through 32 local authorities, each with equal powers, competencies, and responsibilities. Yet in England, there are four different types of local authority, reflecting the country’s geographical diversity. Its unitary authorities of its smaller cities like Brighton, its multi-level Combined Authorities (CAs) like Greater Manchester and its district councils, its large multi-level rural counties like North Yorkshire and its district councils, and the Greater London Authority and its 32 London Boroughs like Camden and Southwark.

This partly reflects the gradual evolution of English governance over the centuries and includes the desire to have different governance arrangements for large metropolitan areas, originally introduced in the 1970s as ‘metropolitan counties’.

All of the former English metropolitan counties outside London are now Combined Authorities led by a Mayor, while new combined authorities have also been established, such as Tees Valley. These arrangements provide strategic powers for planning and transport, help to channel inward investment and champion the city-region to central Government.

Read more:

Unspun | The most fascinating thing about the election wasn't the landslide or collapse...

MCAs assume the role of an integrated transport authority and can borrow money for such purposes. Last week, all of England’s major metropolitan city mayors were invited to Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister to see how the Government can further develop the devolution to major English cities.

Scotland has no such arrangement for our cities and regions. For many years those in the Highlands and Islands have often critiqued a central belt bias in policy making perhaps feeling ignored and that their unique local challenges are poorly understood.

I would agree. The vast size, geographical distances and unique challenges faced such as land for renewable energy facilities, demand that decisions are made in the highlands by those who live there.

However, it may sound counter-intuitive, but Scotland’s cities also suffer from this one-size fits-all approach to local government geographies in Scotland. While the representatives of England’s major cities were in Downing Street, forging a new working relationship with Government, Glasgow was notably absent since there is no strategic authority for Greater Glasgow.

Mayoral representatives visited Downing St to build a working relationship with the wider UK government - Glasgow was notably absent (Image: Reuters)
That’s not to say there hasn’t been a relationship between Glasgow and Downing Street – the City Deals and Levelling Up funds was one such mechanism via the organisation ‘Glasgow City Region’, with representation for all local authorities in the Clyde valley. However, these funds and governance arrangements were for one-off infrastructure projects attached to the City Region deal, rather than being a formally constituted and permanent combined authority with same powers as the English counterparts.

The question over a ‘Greater Glasgow’ has waxed and waned in different forms over the years. The 1946 Clyde Valley Regional Plan by Sir Patrick Abercrombie, provided a vision of a Glasgow at the centre of city-region extending from Inverclyde to South Lanarkshire.

Later, in 1974, the behemoth of Strathclyde Regional Council was established, which was the higher tier authority over its component districts, including the City of Glasgow, which at the time included Rutherglen. Following Strathclyde’s abolition, in 1996, the contiguous urban area of the Clyde valley, was returned to a jigsaw of small unitary authorities to govern the urban region that stretches from Inverclyde to South Lanarkshire.

Today, Clydeplan is the closest formal policy document that reflects what we might call a plan for ‘metropolitan Glasgow’, which is a strategic planning document that covers Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire. Yet this plan is not strong and far reaching enough to meet the requirements of effectively governing a large metropolitan area like Greater Glasgow to the same extent as city-regions in England.

In terms of transport planning, Centre for Cities and Get Glasgow Moving recently published a report, Miles Better, that called for a regional transport authority for Glasgow. Such an arrangement enabled Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, to establish a publicly owned regional bus network there. The same situation is true for Merseyside (Liverpool), West Yorkshire (Leeds-Bradford), and the West Midlands (the Birmingham region) who now all have integrated transport authorities.

Similarly with planning and housing delivery, it makes sense to view a city-region in a holistic manner so that the whole city-region is moving in one direction, rather than smaller authorities in the same city-region trying to compete for business rates or inward investment. We see how this inter-authority competition has played out in Glasgow in the location of the Braehead Retail park on the border of Glasgow City and Renfrewshire.

Read more:

Unspun | Neil Mackay: ‘Stalin’ attack on Sturgeon reveals there’s no limit to SNP absurdity

It also means that more efficient land allocation decisions can be made at the scale of the whole urban region, thus prioritising denser housing developments in those authorities at the heart of the city region while improving transport connections for new medium density developments in more suburban authorities. These changes would help the Glasgow region to more easily meet many of the ambitions of newly adopted National Planning Framework 4.

The reluctance to devolve further within Scotland may be that it is seen as ‘double-devolution’ from Westminster, or perhaps there is a reluctance within Holyrood to cede power downwards for fear of losing power it has gained from London to other figureheads that may challenge it. It is after all convenient and simple to govern 32 local authorities that have equal status. But this is shortsighted and defensive governance.

Those calling for independence, who may worry about ceding power downwards from Holyrood, often note that Scotland can model itself on nearby small nations. They should therefore look to the Netherlands and Denmark who do in fact have metropolitan governance arrangements for Amsterdam and Copenhagen, and model their ideas on these examples.

Scotland’s cities, and Glasgow in particular, could be far better governed if they themselves were given greater powers of their cities and hinterlands. Therefore, as we enter a new era of Government in the UK, Scotland’s major cities should be given the same status as England’s, reflecting the economic importance that effective, well-governed cities provide for their respective nations.

Get Scotland's top politics newsletter straight to your inbox.

A Greater Glasgow Authority should appeal to those opposed to, and in favour of, Scottish independence. It would create closer ties and greater influence with Downing Street, placing it on an equal footing with cities like Manchester. At the same time, it could enable the city-region to have a stronger international reputation via improved infrastructure, transport, and inward investment opportunities, all very useful in an independence scenario.

Come the election of the Scottish Parliament in 2026, whichever administration is formed, they must consider creating a ‘Minister for Cities’ who truly understands that urban areas require unique governance arrangements owing to their specific social and material conditions, while devolving powers at the very least, to a new Greater Glasgow Authority.

Andrew Hoolachan is a Lecturer in Urban and Regional Planning at Glasgow University