Power and localism .

[Mibbes Aye]

This starts from a post on another thread and a couple of PMs.

I am a great believer in the power and importance of local votes.

What are other people views? Does it matter?

[Ozyhibby]

I think most things should be devolved as far as possible but the problem you always face is when one area of the country makes a different decision of the provision of any service then people start screaming about a postcode lottery rather than holding their local leaders to account.
For there to be true localism then there needs to be local tax raising powers and the ability to vary them. The current set up where most local govt funding is in the form of a grant distributed from above leaves no incentive to look at different ways of doing things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

This starts from a post on another thread and a couple of PMs.

I am a great believer in the power and importance of local votes.

What are other people views? Does it matter?

It’s not something I’m knowledgable about in the slightest but does England not still have Parish Councils that tend to represent small groups / communities? I think they may even have some tax and spend powers?

For all I’m naturally against large top down government I do wonder as to the fragmentation that would exist in a totally localised world.

In an era where pooled resources and common IT systems etc seem to provide significant synergies localism would surely have to be part of some sort of co-ordinated larger framework.

A bit like how the worlds best companies deliver products and services tailored to their local market but supported by a global or national infrastructure. But that immediately leads me to the thoughts of the hell of department cost codes and internal billing!

So in summary I like the concept but struggle to see how it could work effectively.

[Moulin Yarns]

Well done MA for starters. Your post on the 'other' thread got a good reaction.

I think you are possibly talking about the Norwegian model, Leslie Riddoch did some good films about the Scandinavian countries. I'll find links to the information and put it up when I get time.

[marinello59]

This starts from a post on another thread and a couple of PMs.

I am a great believer in the power and importance of local votes.

What are other people views? Does it matter?

It matters a lot. How things are run at a local level has the most impact on our day to day lives. Our quality of life and general sense of well being is mainly dependent on how well run our schools, hospitals, libraries, community centres,etc are run at a local level.
Independence will be a complete waste of time if all we do is shift the levers of power from Westminster to Holyrood and fail to devolve those powers down to local communities.
There's currently a real disconnect between the population and their local council's They are simply too big. The only time most of us have any interaction with our Council is when we pay our Council tax or vote. (I could go off on a tangent about the undue influence of party politics at a local level but that's probably a whole new topic.:greengrin) Each one of our 'local' Councils represents, on average , around 115 000 people. In Sweden it's 15 000. Germany, around 7000, Norway around 4500. it's a similar case all over Europe, they bring Government much further down to the communities it is supposed to serve. It makes people much more engaged, something reflected in the turnout for local elections. It's around 39% across the UK. In Scotland it's better at 54%. In Germany it's 60%, in Italy a whopping 75%.
Moulin mentioned Lesley Riddoch. She pointed out that Wick's local Government comes from Inverness, almost three hours away. You can get to Westminster from the Central belt quicker than that. If it makes sense to bring power back to Holyrood then it surely has to follow that we have to bring back local councils for towns such as Wick.

[Just Alf]

It matters a lot. How things are run at a local level has the most impact on our day to day lives. Our quality of life and general sense of well being is mainly dependent on how well run our schools, hospitals, libraries, community centres,etc are run at a local level.
Independence will be a complete waste of time if all we do is shift the levers of power from Westminster to Holyrood and fail to devolve those powers down to local communities.
There's currently a real disconnect between the population and their local council's They are simply too big. The only time most of us have any interaction with our Council is when we pay our Council tax or vote. (I could go off on a tangent about the undue influence of party politics at a local level but that's probably a whole new topic.:greengrin) Each one of our 'local' Councils represents, on average , around 115 000 people. In Sweden it's 15 000. Germany, around 7000, Norway around 4500. it's a similar case all over Europe, they bring Government much further down to the communities it is supposed to serve. It makes people much more engaged, something reflected in the turnout for local elections. It's around 39% across the UK. In Scotland it's better at 54%. In Germany it's 60%, in Italy a whopping 75%.
Moulin mentioned Lesley Riddoch. She pointed out that Wick's local Government comes from Inverness, almost three hours away. You can get to Westminster from the Central belt quicker than that. If it makes sense to bring power back to Holyrood then it surely has to follow that we have to bring back local councils for towns such as Wick.Another good post, this place is going up in the world!

I wonder how any future indepdence referendum campaign would fare if 'maximising localisim' was a key element?

Personally it would remove a few qualms I have about it all, but would enough people even think about or even consider it an issue?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

It matters a lot. How things are run at a local level has the most impact on our day to day lives. Our quality of life and general sense of well being is mainly dependent on how well run our schools, hospitals, libraries, community centres,etc are run at a local level.
Independence will be a complete waste of time if all we do is shift the levers of power from Westminster to Holyrood and fail to devolve those powers down to local communities.
There's currently a real disconnect between the population and their local council's They are simply too big. The only time most of us have any interaction with our Council is when we pay our Council tax or vote. (I could go off on a tangent about the undue influence of party politics at a local level but that's probably a whole new topic.:greengrin) Each one of our 'local' Councils represents, on average , around 115 000 people. In Sweden it's 15 000. Germany, around 7000, Norway around 4500. it's a similar case all over Europe, they bring Government much further down to the communities it is supposed to serve. It makes people much more engaged, something reflected in the turnout for local elections. It's around 39% across the UK. In Scotland it's better at 54%. In Germany it's 60%, in Italy a whopping 75%.
Moulin mentioned Lesley Riddoch. She pointed out that Wick's local Government comes from Inverness, almost three hours away. You can get to Westminster from the Central belt quicker than that. If it makes sense to bring power back to Holyrood then it surely has to follow that we have to bring back local councils for towns such as Wick.

Couldn't agree more. I've harped on about Switzerland before but ... population 8.5M, 26 cantons made up of 2300 communes arranged in a relatively loose federation. It manages to achieve stable, prosperous government of a country with stark rural/urban, language and religious divides. I'm not altogether quite so keen on the referendums but they do mean that Swiss politicians are always constrained in having to move public opinion along with them. Which can be good and bad I suppose.

[Mibbes Aye]

Well done MA for starters. Your post on the 'other' thread got a good reaction.

I think you are possibly talking about the Norwegian model, Leslie Riddoch did some good films about the Scandinavian countries. I'll find links to the information and put it up when I get time.

Funnily enough, a few years ago, through work, I got the chance to meet some Norwegian academics who were in Scotland on a research trip looking at personalisation in health and social care - Scotland is seen as one of the most progressive environments for personal outcomes approaches and person-centred practice in health and social care.

Anyway, I was curious about governance over there and they explained that while they were the same population size as Scotland, and while some things were centralised, a lot was decentralised to somewhere between 400 and 500 municipalities or local authorities. We have 32.

[Mibbes Aye]

It matters a lot. How things are run at a local level has the most impact on our day to day lives. Our quality of life and general sense of well being is mainly dependent on how well run our schools, hospitals, libraries, community centres,etc are run at a local level.
Independence will be a complete waste of time if all we do is shift the levers of power from Westminster to Holyrood and fail to devolve those powers down to local communities.
There's currently a real disconnect between the population and their local council's They are simply too big. The only time most of us have any interaction with our Council is when we pay our Council tax or vote. (I could go off on a tangent about the undue influence of party politics at a local level but that's probably a whole new topic.:greengrin) Each one of our 'local' Councils represents, on average , around 115 000 people. In Sweden it's 15 000. Germany, around 7000, Norway around 4500. it's a similar case all over Europe, they bring Government much further down to the communities it is supposed to serve. It makes people much more engaged, something reflected in the turnout for local elections. It's around 39% across the UK. In Scotland it's better at 54%. In Germany it's 60%, in Italy a whopping 75%.
Moulin mentioned Lesley Riddoch. She pointed out that Wick's local Government comes from Inverness, almost three hours away. You can get to Westminster from the Central belt quicker than that. If it makes sense to bring power back to Holyrood then it surely has to follow that we have to bring back local councils for towns such as Wick.

Good post and good stats, they are telling. I can only agree with your point and the comparison Moulin Yarns suggests with Norway.

I haven’t read Darroch’s comments on Wick (I’m not a huge fan of her to be honest) but I actually know Wick well. There is genuine resentment in Caithness about how decision-making is seen as Inverness-centric to the extent that they elected councillors solely on single-issue tickets such as the downgrading of Caithness General Hospital, the loss of a maternity department etc. The problem is thorny - even if NHS Highland had the money to maintain a maternity department in Wick, there is no guarantee they could recruit to it, quite the opposite, but one suspects that for the people of Wick and its environs, they feel genuinely disenfranchised.

[Mibbes Aye]

Another good post, this place is going up in the world!

I wonder how any future indepdence referendum campaign would fare if 'maximising localisim' was a key element?

Personally it would remove a few qualms I have about it all, but would enough people even think about or even consider it an issue?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

This isn’t a dig at the SNP, honest, but they made a big deal about promoting localism and the report from the Christie Commission made a big deal about localism but when you are actually in power it is very hard to let go.

For me the prime example was the council tax freeze. The government said it was funding the gap from freezing it. COSLA said the funding was nowhere near enough and the evidence of cuts in local authorities backs that up. Government said that councils could increase the tax if they wanted but the consequence would be a reduction in the block grant to local authorities on a bigger scale than they could make up from an increase in council tax.

This isn’t a dig at the SNP. New Labour, especially with GB at the Treasury, were micro-managers in practice, while talking aspirationally about localism.

It is very hard to give up power, resource, trust and control. Innately every institution will be resistant.

[Ozyhibby]

This isn’t a dig at the SNP, honest, but they made a big deal about promoting localism and the report from the Christie Commission made a big deal about localism but when you are actually in power it is very hard to let go.

For me the prime example was the council tax freeze. The government said it was funding the gap from freezing it. COSLA said the funding was nowhere near enough and the evidence of cuts in local authorities backs that up. Government said that councils could increase the tax if they wanted but the consequence would be a reduction in the block grant to local authorities on a bigger scale than they could make up from an increase in council tax.

This isn’t a dig at the SNP. New Labour, especially with GB at the Treasury, were micro-managers in practice, while talking aspirationally about localism.

It is very hard to give up power, resource, trust and control. Innately every institution will be resistant.

The reason it’s hard to let go, and this applies everywhere, is that the media is national. If you hand out control to individual authorities and one of them starts hiking taxes, the national media will blame the central govt. Talk of post code lotteries will be constant.
Also, giving away power is very hard to do for anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

This isn’t a dig at the SNP, honest, but they made a big deal about promoting localism and the report from the Christie Commission made a big deal about localism but when you are actually in power it is very hard to let go.

For me the prime example was the council tax freeze. The government said it was funding the gap from freezing it. COSLA said the funding was nowhere near enough and the evidence of cuts in local authorities backs that up. Government said that councils could increase the tax if they wanted but the consequence would be a reduction in the block grant to local authorities on a bigger scale than they could make up from an increase in council tax.

This isn’t a dig at the SNP. New Labour, especially with GB at the Treasury, were micro-managers in practice, while talking aspirationally about localism.

It is very hard to give up power, resource, trust and control. Innately every institution will be resistant.

The loss to local councils through the tax freeze was 100% covered from Holyrood. They gave back exactly what these councils would have raised had it not been for the freeze. So what did some of these councils do? They deliberately miss managed funds in order to generate the claim that they weren't recieving the full amount, when all along, they were.

[Fife-Hibee]

The reason it’s hard to let go, and this applies everywhere, is that the media is national. If you hand out control to individual authorities and one of them starts hiking taxes, the national media will blame the central govt. Talk of post code lotteries will be constant.
Also, giving away power is very hard to do for anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is correct. Take the car park tax for example. People are already hounding central government for this, despite it's usage being devolved to local councils.

[Just Alf]

This isn’t a dig at the SNP, honest, but they made a big deal about promoting localism and the report from the Christie Commission made a big deal about localism but when you are actually in power it is very hard to let go.

For me the prime example was the council tax freeze. The government said it was funding the gap from freezing it. COSLA said the funding was nowhere near enough and the evidence of cuts in local authorities backs that up. Government said that councils could increase the tax if they wanted but the consequence would be a reduction in the block grant to local authorities on a bigger scale than they could make up from an increase in council tax.

This isn’t a dig at the SNP. New Labour, especially with GB at the Treasury, were micro-managers in practice, while talking aspirationally about localism.

It is very hard to give up power, resource, trust and control. Innately every institution will be resistant.Don't worry about 'digs at the SNP'... Personally I see them as a means to provide independence (a step on the way to localisim), I'm not sure I'd vote for them in an independent Scotland.

Re the council tax freeze, initially I was all for it as I benefited, you did, however, win me around in the end. :-)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The loss to local councils through the tax freeze was 100% covered from Holyrood. They gave back exactly what these councils would have raised had it not been for the freeze. So what did some of these councils do? They deliberately miss managed funds in order to generate the claim that they weren't recieving the full amount, when all along, they were.

That’s simply untrue.

The funding gap was running at £350m towards the end or a 5.2% real terms cut.

Scottish Government pulled a smoke and mirrors exercise by giving a small amount of ringfenced funding and then claiming that £250m was transferring from health budgets to the budgets of the integrated health and social care partnerships. That money didn’t go into council coffers, it was spent on primary and secondary health care, same as it always was.

[Mibbes Aye]

Don't worry about 'digs at the SNP'... Personally I see them as a means to provide independence (a step on the way to localisim), I'm not sure I'd vote for them in an independent Scotland.

Re the council tax freeze, initially I was all for it as I benefited, you did, however, win me around in the end. :-)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yay! :greengrin

[Fife-Hibee]

That’s simply untrue.

The funding gap was running at £350m towards the end or a 5.2% real terms cut.

Scottish Government pulled a smoke and mirrors exercise by giving a small amount of ringfenced funding and then claiming that £250m was transferring from health budgets to the budgets of the integrated health and social care partnerships. That money didn’t go into council coffers, it was spent on primary and secondary health care, same as it always was.

Can you provide the figures for this? I'd be genuinely interested to see.

[Smartie]

Another good post, this place is going up in the world!

I wonder how any future indepdence referendum campaign would fare if 'maximising localisim' was a key element?

Personally it would remove a few qualms I have about it all, but would enough people even think about or even consider it an issue?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Probably badly.

There is a very sensible debate going on here amongst people who are being open to suggestion and putting a bit of thought into constructive posts.

The trouble we have is that we do have a wave of anti-intellectualism going on at the moment, and the phrase itself sounds a bit clumsy and difficult to understand.

At the end of the day the nationalism card (and by that I mean British or Scottish nationalism) tugs harder on people's heart strings, and the vast majority of people vote more with their hearts than their heads.

People care about twirly flags, people care about the flag they fought under during the second world war, people's very definition of self often comes with national identity. Not everyone obviously, but a huge number of people.

Debate is all well and good, but at the end of the day, the nice men in suits coming up from Westminster telling us that if we change anything (it might be a change towards maximised localism, it might be Scottish independence) then we're going to be poorer, or if it threatens people's very sense of identity then it will fail. These things hit folk in the heart.

The electorate at large is too stupid to engage their brains (a common suggestion on the "unpopular opinions" thread) and effect meaningful change.

[Fife-Hibee]

Probably badly.

There is a very sensible debate going on here amongst people who are being open to suggestion and putting a bit of thought into constructive posts.

The trouble we have is that we do have a wave of anti-intellectualism going on at the moment, and the phrase itself sounds a bit clumsy and difficult to understand.

At the end of the day the nationalism card (and by that I mean British or Scottish nationalism) tugs harder on people's heart strings, and the vast majority of people vote more with their hearts than their heads.

People care about twirly flags, people care about the flag they fought under during the second world war, people's very definition of self often comes with national identity. Not everyone obviously, but a huge number of people.

Debate is all well and good, but at the end of the day, the nice men in suits coming up from Westminster telling us that if we change anything (it might be a change towards maximised localism, it might be Scottish independence) then we're going to be poorer, or if it threatens people's very sense of identity then it will fail. These things hit folk in the heart.

The electorate at large is too stupid to engage their brains (a common suggestion on the "unpopular opinions" thread) and effect meaningful change.

"If they don't agree with my point of view, then it's because they're simply too anti-intellectual and stupid to understand it."

[Mibbes Aye]

Can you provide the figures for this? I'd be genuinely interested to see.

I just did :confused:

Most of the ringfenced funding was in relation to meeting their statutory requirement on teacher numbers IIRC. That was a good £80m or so on top of the £250m that never really moved.

[Fife-Hibee]

I just did :confused:

Most of the ringfenced funding was in relation to meeting their statutory requirement on teacher numbers IIRC. That was a good £80m or so on top of the £250m that never really moved.

I would like to see the accounts. Presumably you've looked at the accounts yourself if you're so confident of these numbers? :dunno:

[Moulin Yarns]

Funnily enough, a few years ago, through work, I got the chance to meet some Norwegian academics who were in Scotland on a research trip looking at personalisation in health and social care - Scotland is seen as one of the most progressive environments for personal outcomes approaches and person-centred practice in health and social care.

Anyway, I was curious about governance over there and they explained that while they were the same population size as Scotland, and while some things were centralised, a lot was decentralised to somewhere between 400 and 500 municipalities or local authorities. We have 32.

That's what is covered in the documentaries by lesley Riddoch. Search for phantom power on YouTube and you should find them. Norway, Iceland and the faroe islands.

[Mibbes Aye]

I would like to see the accounts. Presumably you've looked at the accounts yourself if you're so confident of these numbers? :dunno:

Go and Google, I’m not your researcher. And what accounts?

The ringfenced money was announced by government, it is on their website. That’s both the teaching money and the integration money.

COSLA defined the shortfall based on reporting from their members. Again, it is all on their website.

[Mixu62]

Probably badly.



I was going to agree but more from the point of view that the media would portray more localised power as a "tartan tax" or similar. Going down the Norway route would see a doubling or trebling of the number of council organisations, even if there were no increase to the number of councillors. Can you just imagine The Scotsman comment section?! "How much is this going to cost?", "It's the "Absolutely" Stoneybridge council sketch" etc. I now live in Aussie where we have a city council, a state government and a federal government and people complain about the cost of over-representation. One commentator recently stated that you could replace most of the elected officials with an app to judge the public mood and save a fortune.

[Moulin Yarns]

As promised here are the links to the videos about the small Scandinavian countries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qinWJqgGMw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fyI1V9D5Jw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUbMAFO6kA4

Now, this is going to seem radical but following on from Maybe Aye's thoughts and ideas here is a possible way forward. Get rid of politicians!!

Bear with me, a lot of the problems, and divisions are because we are all blinkered to other views by following political parties.

Here is how the 3 tier system might work based around what we already have in Scotland.

A national council based on the Scottish Parliament at the top, Regional councils similar to the existing 32 local authorities and local councils similar to existing wards.

At the lowest level we currently have around 3 councillors for each ward, I would increase that to nine or eleven, but here is where it becomes radical, they are local people from a range of backgrounds and are not associated with political parties. You could have a bank manager, school headmaster, GP, shopkeeper hotelier, etc who could be nominated or put themselves forward for election. Because political parties are not involved the nominees would be given a campaign budget to produce election materials to explain what they could bring to the community. Those elected would be compensated for the time they spend on local council business based on their existing pay plus expenses and would meet possibly weekly to agree what is required at a local level.

At the middle level three of those councillors would attend the regional councils, and it wouldn't need to be the same three every time, it would be those that have expertise or interest in the business that ws on the agenda for fortnightly meetings at the regional level. Again, they would be compensated for the time they spend on regional council business based on their existing pay plus expenses and would meet possibly every two weeks to agree what is required at a regional level.

When we get to the national council ten of the regional councillors will attend to debate and legislate on national issues. These would probably have to be the same ten for continuity. Again, they would be compensated for the time they spend on national council business based on their existing pay plus expenses and would meet possibly once a month to agree what is required at a national level and legislate.

Using the Norway model of what is decided at which level should be the template for this and back-office is provided from the national level to the lower levels. By keeping party politics out of each level loose groupings would form naturally around the left, centre and right leanings of the individuals involved.

Will it work? I have no idea, but it makes local people accountable and would possibly empower local communities in a way that isn't happening just now.

Feel free to tear the idea apart, it was just an opinion that I formed while I couldn't get to sleep last night.

[Moulin Yarns]

Funny what pops up on your twitter feed


Every SNP supporter should read this and ask themselves, and their party, why the SNP parliamentary group at Holyrood have sided with the Tories against local communities.


“When it comes to giving communities more control over their own place, over assets and land, we have seen a pattern emerge where policy ambition is stated, then watered down, then apparently abandoned.”

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotland-just-missed-a-chance-for-scandinavian-style-land-reform-andy-wightman-1-4965241

[Fife-Hibee]

Genuine question. What do people think would happen if an SNP led government devolved increasingly more powers to local authorities. Including authorities controlled by the Tories and Labour?

Do you think they would use these additional powers to make their areas better off? Or do you think they would abuse these powers to generate a coup against central government?

[Moulin Yarns]

Genuine question. What do people think would happen if an SNP led government devolved increasingly more powers to local authorities. Including authorities controlled by the Tories and Labour?

Do you think they would use these additional powers to make their areas better off? Or do you think they would abuse these powers to generate a coup against central government?

As elected representatives, with a limited shelf life if they mess things up, they would be daft to do anything that threatened their personal money tree. In simple terms they would try to improve things for the local population.

I should add, the centralisation of Police and Fire and Rescue services shows that the SNP are not a party that wants to give up much control.

[Fife-Hibee]

As elected representatives, with a limited shelf life if they mess things up, they would be daft to do anything that threatened their personal money tree. In simple terms they would try to improve things for the local population.

I should add, the centralisation of Police and Fire and Rescue services shows that the SNP are not a party that wants to give up much control.

That's the problem though. A local council could effectively use powers to hike up taxes for example, when it is already recieving a reasonable level of funding from central government, just so they can claim that they're being starved by central government. They can then use the additional funding they raise to trigger a propaganda campaign in their local community against central government.

You may think that seems far fetched. But it clearly isn't a far fetched prospect to those in central government that as you say, don't really want to give up too much control. Which doesn't only apply to the SNP, but virtually every central government.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's the problem though. A local council could effectively use powers to hike up taxes for example, when it is already recieving a reasonable level of funding from central government, just so they can claim that they're being starved by central government. They can then use the additional funding they raise to trigger a propaganda campaign in their local community against central government.

You may think that seems far fetched. But it clearly isn't a far fetched prospect to those in central government that as you say, don't really want to give up too much control. Which doesn't only apply to the SNP, but virtually every central government.

Was that scenario not gone over somewhere else in the last couple of days with regard to the old Council Tax Freeze? or am I imagining it?

[Fife-Hibee]

Was that scenario not gone over somewhere else in the last couple of days with regard to the old Council Tax Freeze? or am I imagining it?

Depends what you mean by "gone over". I'm still waiting for a source to the claims made.

[Ozyhibby]

That's the problem though. A local council could effectively use powers to hike up taxes for example, when it is already recieving a reasonable level of funding from central government, just so they can claim that they're being starved by central government. They can then use the additional funding they raise to trigger a propaganda campaign in their local community against central government.

You may think that seems far fetched. But it clearly isn't a far fetched prospect to those in central government that as you say, don't really want to give up too much control. Which doesn't only apply to the SNP, but virtually every central government.

If you want proper localism the all the spending has to be raised locally. No more central grants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Genuine question. What do people think would happen if an SNP led government devolved increasingly more powers to local authorities. Including authorities controlled by the Tories and Labour?

Do you think they would use these additional powers to make their areas better off? Or do you think they would abuse these powers to generate a coup against central government?

They would clearly mount a coup.

Use the money raised locally to buy red and blue tanks and then roll down the high street in them...a physical and metaphorical race to the bottom to see who could over throw the SNP.

I mean what else would local Tory and Labour councils do?

[Moulin Yarns]

Depends what you mean by "gone over". I'm still waiting for a source to the claims made.

You said


The loss to local councils through the tax freeze was 100% covered from Holyrood. They gave back exactly what these councils would have raised had it not been for the freeze. So what did some of these councils do? They deliberately miss managed funds in order to generate the claim that they weren't recieving the full amount, when all along, they were.

MA suggested it wasn't true and gave an example how it wasn't true.

MA suggested google, but he also suggested checking the Scotgov website. It will be there if it happened.



Go and Google, I’m not your researcher. And what accounts?

The ringfenced money was announced by government, it is on their website. That’s both the teaching money and the integration money.

COSLA defined the shortfall based on reporting from their members. Again, it is all on their website.

I wonder if you can give a link to prove your assertion that The loss to local councils through the tax freeze was 100% covered from Holyrood.



Now, back to the topic of this thread rather than the usual bickering. do you have any positive ideas as to how power can be in the hands of local communities I, and I'm sure others, would like to hear them

[Fife-Hibee]

If you want proper localism the all the spending has to be raised locally. No more central grants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not that easy. Although what you say appears to be ideologically sound on the surface. Implementing such a system in practice isn't without it's complications. Somethings have to be overseen nationally to maintain consistency where it's required. Could you imagine trying to adjust to a system where laws and regulations change every several miles you travel?

[Moulin Yarns]

It's not that easy. Although what you say appears to be ideologically sound on the surface. Implementing such a system in practice isn't without it's complications. Somethings have to be overseen nationally to maintain consistency where it's required. Could you imagine trying to adjust to a system where laws and regulations change every several miles you travel?

Watch the youtube links and come back once you understand how it already works in other small countries. Oh aye, and read my fantasy ideal structure posted this morning and see if you can come up with an alternative vision.

[Fife-Hibee]

You said

MA suggested it wasn't true and gave an example how it wasn't true.

MA suggested google, but he also suggested checking the Scotgov website. It will be there if it happened.

I wonder if you can give a link to prove your assertion that The loss to local councils through the tax freeze was 100% covered from Holyrood.

Now, back to the topic of this thread rather than the usual bickering. do you have any positive ideas as to how power can be in the hands of local communities I, and I'm sure others, would like to hear them

I'm trying to find you definitive figures rather than just articles. Although here is an interesting one from 2015 where Labour were attacking the SNP Government for apparently "overfunding" the freeze - https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/607256/Row-as-report-says-Scotlands-council-tax-freeze-overfunded

[Fife-Hibee]

Watch the youtube links and come back once you understand how it already works in other small countries. Oh aye, and read my fantasy ideal structure posted this morning and see if you can come up with an alternative vision.

Even in these small scandinavian paradises, not everything is localized. There is still a central tier of government that over sees laws that must remain consistent throughout the entirety of the country..

[Moulin Yarns]

Even in these small scandinavian paradises, not everything is localized. There is still a central tier of government that over sees laws that must remain consistent throughout the entirety of the country..

Where did I imply they were?

If you read my totally fictional vision of shangri-la you would realise that decision making starts at the bottom (local) then up to regional and finally at national level, I envisage tax raising at the local level, bigger than Maybe Aye's suggestion of 500-700, but at something like existing LA wards, some tax goes to the region to cover their function and some to the national council for major infrastructure and legislation, which is what I said this morning.


You will also see from my model of government that there is a continuity that currently doesn't exist. a number of local representatives also take part at regional level and some at regional level also take part in decision making at the national level. And costs of my model are kept to a sustainable level by only recovering lost earnings/income plus expenses meaning you need to want to make a difference rather than milk the cash cow as it sometimes appears at the moment.



It's funny that among independence support Norway is seen as a decent model to follow, but you are a bit dismissive.


Now, back to the council tax figures, perhaps you will stop demanding evidence that contradicts your opinion, when you now realise how difficult it is to find anything concrete to back up your claim. Before jumping in, find facts to support your case first. That will make your case stronger.

[Fife-Hibee]

Where did I imply they were?

If you read my totally fictional vision of shangri-la you would realise that decision making starts at the bottom (local) then up to regional and finally at national level, I envisage tax raising at the local level, bigger than Maybe Aye's suggestion of 500-700, but at something like existing LA wards, some tax goes to the region to cover their function and some to the national council for major infrastructure and legislation, which is what I said this morning.


You will also see from my model of government that there is a continuity that currently doesn't exist. a number of local representatives also take part at regional level and some at regional level also take part in decision making at the national level. And costs of my model are kept to a sustainable level by only recovering lost earnings/income plus expenses meaning you need to want to make a difference rather than milk the cash cow as it sometimes appears at the moment.



It's funny that among independence support Norway is seen as a decent model to follow, but you are a bit dismissive.


Now, back to the council tax figures, perhaps you will stop demanding evidence that contradicts your opinion, when you now realise how difficult it is to find anything concrete to back up your claim. Before jumping in, find facts to support your case first. That will make your case stronger.

Difference is, i'm actually trying to find figures. Instead of expecting people to meekly accept the utterance of a news article.

[Moulin Yarns]

Difference is, i'm actually trying to find figures. Instead of expecting people to meekly accept the utterance of a news article.

My point is to do the research first before you post then you can sit back with a self satisfying smirk 😉


And anything to say about the other points I made? It is the topic of the thread after all. 😁

[Ozyhibby]

It's not that easy. Although what you say appears to be ideologically sound on the surface. Implementing such a system in practice isn't without it's complications. Somethings have to be overseen nationally to maintain consistency where it's required. Could you imagine trying to adjust to a system where laws and regulations change every several miles you travel?

There would still be a national govt. but for there to be true localism then every penny spent by a local authority should be raised by that authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ballengeich]

If you want proper localism the all the spending has to be raised locally. No more central grants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There would still be a national govt. but for there to be true localism then every penny spent by a local authority should be raised by that authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I agree with the general drift of your thought I believe that the block grant from central government was originally intended to assist poorer communities to provide the same level of local services as richer ones. For that reason I'd keep an element of central distribution of funds to improve equality between areas.

[Ozyhibby]

While I agree with the general drift of your thought I believe that the block grant from central government was originally intended to assist poorer communities to provide the same level of local services as richer ones. For that reason I'd keep an element of central distribution of funds to improve equality between areas.

Or less well off areas compete harder for Jobs, making it easier for companies to relocate there etc?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Or less well off areas compete harder for Jobs, making it easier for companies to relocate there etc?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, the old capitalist myth. "If everybody just tries harder, we'll all be better off". (Except for those who arent).