Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Local Government and Devolution: Mutual Respect and Parity of Esteem?

Document Cited authorities 2 Cited in Related
Vincent
Author
DOI10.3366/elr.2019.0581
Date01 September 2019
Pages428-434
Published date01 September 2019
INTRODUCTION

In early 1992, Jean McFadden, leader of Glasgow District Council contrasted the “present consensus in favour of constitutional change” with the “bitter divisions which characterised the local government response to the devolution proposals of the 1970s”. McFadden maintained that the “unremitting hostility of the present government at Westminster” along with a “rapidly changing European Community” had led many in Scottish local government to reassess their view of devolution. This erstwhile opponent of devolution welcomed the prospect of a Scottish Parliament and expected that the relationship with local government should be “based on co-operation and consensus, rather than conflict and centralisation”.1 Almost 90% of Scottish local authorities (fifty-eight out of sixty-five councils) worked within the Constitutional Convention. McFadden and other local council leaders were active participants, leading one review of the relationship to conclude that local government had been “central to the campaign to secure a Parliament… [w]ithout its support it is doubtful if the legislature could have been delivered so quickly or in such a consensual manner”.2

A Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament, chaired by former Strathclyde Regional Council chief executive Sir Neil McIntosh, was set up by Donald Dewar following the 1997 devolution referendum. McIntosh reported in June 1999.3 The report proposed a “quantum change in the character and quality of Scottish local government” with central-local relations based on “mutual respect and parity of esteem” and informed by the “principle of subsidiarity”. The “onus of proof must always be on those who propose centralisation, to demonstrate that it will bring greater benefit to the public at large”.4

In a package of recommendations, McIntosh envisaged a covenant setting out the relationship based on the European Charter of Local Self-Government with some “formal means of monitoring its application, advising each side on its working, and where necessary considering modifications”5 and an independent enquiry into local government finance. It was also envisaged that local government should always be considered in any review of other bodies delivering public services and when new services are being designed. It recommended electoral reform including the possibility of extending the vote to sixteen-year-olds to Community Councils and the reform of internal management structures. In essence, devolution would be a process of creating local self-government and not limited to creating a Parliament in Edinburgh.

 NATIONAL FRAMEWORK/IN THE SHADOW OF HOLYROOD

It was perhaps inevitable that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Executive would become the focus of much public and media attention, draining attention away from local government. The new Parliament sought an important and acknowledged role in policy-making. The Holyrood chamber became a stage on which Parliamentarians raised what was often referred to as the “postcode lottery” with different parts of Scotland having different levels of services or policies creating a demand for uniformity.

Elections to the Scottish Parliament over-shadowed local government elections held on the same day in 1999, 2003 and 2007. The Single Transferable Vote (“STV”) was introduced for local government elections6 in 2007 but the combination of the Additional Member System in the Holyrood election, with a new ballot paper design that combined both list and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT