Was there a London effect in last year's referendum?

In the final weeks of the campaign, the former First Minister Alex Salmond referred to the city as a dark star sucking resources and people from the rest of the UK. Vote yes, he said, and an independent Scotland could be an alternative northern light to rebalance the economy.

His argument may not have secured a Yes vote, but there is widespread political agreement with Mr Salmond's analysis of the London effect. Using another colourful metaphor, the Business Secretary Vince Cable has called London a great suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country; the Labour leader Ed Miliband says the UK builds too much of its prosperity on London; and even the Chancellor George Osborne appears to agree and has put some of his money where his mouth is with £500m of extra funding for Glasgow through the City Deal scheme and plans for more money and devolution for greater Manchester.

So far, though, this political consensus has not achieved very many practical effects; indeed, the latest Cities Outlook report from the Centre for Cities think-tank concludes that, with a few exceptions, the divide between cities in the south of England and those in the north of England and Scotland, is becoming increasingly entrenched; it also dismisses government action in the area as tinkering.

The figures in the report are striking. In 2004-13, southern cities added 11 per cent to their population, 27 per cent more businesses and 12 per cent more jobs, compared with six per cent, 14 per cent and one per cent respectively in non-southern cities. There are some exceptions, the most obvious in Scotland being Aberdeen, which has displayed some of the same micro-economy tendencies as London; the Scottish cities also performed well above the UK average for business growth. But the Cities Outlook report concludes that the overall gap will only be narrowed with economic and political devolution to UK cities.

Not so long ago, the issue of regional devolution was thought to be dead and gone after the former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's plans for assemblies came to nothing, but the Scottish referendum appears to have awakened an appetite for increased powers for the cities and regions. The political leaders of Newcastle have said it must have devolution if it is to avoid economic disaster and in Glasgow, the council leader Gordon Matheson has also long been a supporter of greater powers for the cities.

The economic and political case for such devolution is strong. Cities drive national economies and devolving powers and resources, particularly in areas such as economic development and job creation, can allow the cities to maximise that drive and direct resources at a city's particular problems. Regional devolution could also help revive local democracy, which has been moribund.

The idea will probably have to be sold to the people of some cities, who may be wary about the cost. The Scottish Government has also looked less than keen on the idea of city devolution (and was accused of only supporting the City Deal for Glasgow when the UK Government declared its support). But devolution should mean much more than the transfer of power from one parliament to another. It should mean the creation of autonomous cities and regions led by locally-elected leaders with strong economic and political powers. Quite simply, our cities should enjoy greater autonomy and responsibility for their own success.