HARRY Reid is correct to call for reform in the governance of Scotland's cities; however, it is less certain whether his proposal to do so solely through the creation of directly elected mayors is the right way to go about it ("Case for elected mayors in our cities", The Herald, January 29).
Before considering such a step, it would be essential to examine the powers and responsibilities which the municipality should have, on the basis that the greater the mayor's authority is, the better the quality of individual who would be attracted to stand for election. In the cases quoted by Harry Reid, it is unlikely that Boris Johnson would have suspended his parliamentary ambitions to replace David Cameron to be mayor of Henley-on-Thames, or that Michael Bloomberg, pictured, would have stood for mayor of New York City had the post been a figurehead only.
It would therefore be a prerequisite of such a reform to repatriate to city councils those powers which have been centralised to the Scottish Government, including the right to set taxation for the people who elected them, and to retain the non-domestic rates which their businesses generate.
It is worthwhile to look at Nuremberg, Glasgow's twin city in Germany, where the very popular and successful Social Democrat Oberbürgermeister Uli Maly resists calls to step up to the Bundesland (federal state) level as he can be much more effective with the considerable local powers he already possesses. To expand the German model, it is also quite reasonable to envisage a Greater Glasgow on the same scale as the Hansastädte of Bremen and Hamburg, which are self-governing city-regions constitutionally equal to the Bundesländer.
This would also be a useful counterweight to the tendency of the Scottish Parliament to centralise the rest of Scotland into a kind of Greater Edinburgh; I am sure that any proposal to cut it down to size would be welcomed by most people beyond the Holyrood bubble.
Peter A Russell,
87 Munro Road,
Jordanhill,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article