Whatever the result in Scotland, devolution must remain on the agenda

As we enter the final week of the Scottish Referendum campaign, when it seems everyone both sides of the border has fully woken up to the momentous decision facing people in Scotland on the 18^th September, the Decentralisation Decade report from IPPR North is timely to say the least.

The question for next Thursday is will the Scots choose to end the 300 year union? Whether the answer is yes or no (and I hope it’s a no), further devolution north of the border is not in doubt. The question for the 19^th September onwards is therefore one in which we should all have a say in answering: what does devolution look like? While there will be focus on what next for Scotland, those of us south of the border cannot be shut out of a discussion about how we should be governed.

In England there is particular urgency. It cannot be right that one of the last vestiges of the British Empire, the bureaucratic Whitehall monolith which was invented to administer it, remains intact and with its top-heavy capacity focussed solely on one nation. Yet this is not just a question for the English – for Scotland and Wales devolution too often simply stops at Holyrood or the Senedd, without progressing further beyond. Cities and counties across Great Britain are united by their common experience of grappling with centralising forces sucking power and authority towards national parliaments and assemblies, away from communities. We must understand decentralisation, not simply devolution, as a core part of the answer for our future renewal.

This report from IPPR North, focussing on England, is the latest of many recently (including the RSA City Growth Commission and Local Government Innovation Taskforce) which contribute to an increasingly powerful evidence base charting a clear route towards decentralisation. It rightly identifies the toxic combination of centralisation economically, on public services and politically. The economic potential of the main cities outside London is stifled and our national economy is fundamentally unbalanced. Top-down targets and performance management regimes from Whitehall departments have stifled the potential for local innovation and adaptation in public services to meet people’s needs. And politically public discontent with the Westminster bubble is simmering barely beneath the surface – the rise of populist parties is a clear symptom of this.

For Labour we ignore these threats at our peril. It is no longer sustainable to maintain such distance between government and the governed – we need to blur these distinctions as far as possible. Pushing power down to the local level, closest to people, will mean that decision-making can be truly shared and accountability effectively secured. We need to understand over-centralisation as a cause of inequality, stifling the capacity of local areas to meet their particular needs, rather than as some would argue a response to inequality.

The report offers a detailed prospectus for decentralisation – the length and depth of it probably necessary to quell the fears of centralisers at the prospect of loosening their grip on control. We do need a clear agenda for reform, but in the end we need to accept that letting go involves just that. Nonetheless, the report adds a powerful chunk of evidence and analysis to the increasingly weighty case for radical reform of our state.

The days following the Scottish Referendum – whatever the result – will be dominated by the next phase of devolution north of the border – whether this is outright independence or some form of effective home rule. For the rest of us, we need to ensure our voice is now heard in a discussion about what self-determination looks like everywhere and for everyone. The evidence for decentralisation is there; the rhetorical commitment from national politicians has been made; the momentum is gathering – all that is left is to put it into practice.

Cllr Jim McMahon is Leader of LGA Labour Group