IN 2023 Keir Starmer pledged that Labour would launch a “Take Back Control” bill aimed at devolving sweeping powers to local communities in the first term if it wins the next election. We now learn that the Labour government in waiting has already drafted 20 bills and the first intended bill is the “Take Back Control Act” on devolution.
Tellingly, in announcing his initiative to devolve sweeping powers to local communities Starmer made a passing reference to Scottish independence and the Brexit vote. He said “it is not unreasonable for us to recognise the desire for communities to stand on their own feet”.
To set this in its historical context, the Labour government in 1998 enacted the respective legislation to establish the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Stormont in Northern Ireland.
READ MORE: Expect changes to the devolution settlement if the SNP are overpowered
In 2002 John Prescott, Blair’s Deputy PM, published a white paper – “Your Region, Your Choice” – with the aim of creating regional assemblies in England. However, this was ditched when a campaign involving Dominic Cummings killed the idea by falsely claiming that this additional layer of government would bring additional costs to taxpayers and divert money from the NHS. Cummings, as we all know, went on to perfect his campaign playbook in the Brexit Vote Leave campaign, peddling even bigger lies.
This left England with no effective forms of devolved governance, other than the Westminster government and more recently a limited number of city region mayoralties.
So Starmer now intends to revisit this democratic deficit. Ironically, he is using the Conservative slogan “Take Back Control”, the defining rationale for exiting the EU.
In the lead-up to the 1998 Scottish Devolution Act, Charlie Gray, the then leader of Strathclyde Regional Council and an active advocate of the Scottish Parliament, pronounced that a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh could not sit harmoniously with a regional authority responsible for the provision of a range of key services for 2.3 million citizens in the west of Scotland.
READ MORE: General Election polls point to serious concern for Labour
Ultimately it was a recognition of the political realities, and the challenge of determining and reconciling the separation of powers and responsibilities between local government and a newly established Scottish Parliament with powers devolved from Westminster. This, given the significant majority vote for devolution in 1997, was a prize too great to jeopardise.
Even in its current limited description, it’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that Starmer’s concept of devolution may represent an existential threat to the Scottish Parliament in that devolving more powers to regional/sub-regional bodies will not sit easily with a Scottish Parliament and may come into conflict with the present range of devolved powers. Indeed he may attempt to exploit the political tensions between Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Government by transferring full control over services currently devolved to the Scottish Government such as planning, housing and economic development, to local government. Charlie Gray’s very prescient assessment in 1997 may be a timely warning for all who fought for and support devolution as we currently are privileged to enjoy in Scotland. Perhaps this is Starmer’s strategy to further stymie Scottish independence by undermining the status and powers of the Scottish Government.
READ MORE: Labour and media can't keep avoiding Brexit after General Election, expert says
You have to question why this legislation is a first priority for a prospective Labour government given the cost of living crisis and their apparent inability to abolish the two-child benefit cap. So where will all the funding come from for this additional community empowerment? It may come as no surprise that Starmer is invoking the financial mechanism Public Private Partnerships. PPP and its predecessor the PFI (Private Finance Initiative) is typically used to finance public-sector infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. However, as with the PFI it is structurally more expensive than publicly financed projects. There is also an ongoing debate over to what extent are PPP is a form of creeping privatisation.
If we truly value the role and importance of the Scottish Parliament we should not welcome these further devolution measures but view them as a threat from a prospective Labour government determined to continue the efforts of the Tory party in reducing and constraining Holyrood’s powers.
Gordon McLaren
via email
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here