It is difficult not to have some sympathy with the thrust of W Kenneth Gunn’s letter (May 19) in which he bemoans the loss of the “local” in local government following reorganisation in 1975. Many authorities pre 1975 were very local but almost to the point of being simply quaint. There was a range of authorities – small burghs, large burghs, county councils and cities – with the responsibilities of local government spread over them in a disparate manner. In addition, county councils had to cope with a plethora of district councils. Size of population was not properly reflected in the structure. For example, Cambuslang, with a population of more than 20,000, was a “village” and therefore not an authority in its own right unlike the burgh of Selkirk with its population of 6,000. In short the structure was not fit for purpose and was not allowing local government to carry out the functions expected of it. It was crying out for reorganisation.

The age-old dilemma in determining the optimum size of local authorities is that different functions require different sizes. Clearly education, economic development and strategic planning can only be carried out by authorities large enough to resource them – one could not have a director of education for Selkirk. On the other hand minor planning applications can best be decided at a very local level.

Local government structure is like voting systems or local government finance – easy to criticise the present system but difficult to identify another one which does not have deficiencies also. There are ways in which the present councils can localise certain functions and indeed the new administration in Scottish Borders Council is doing exactly that. The problems which Mr Gunn identifies are not the fault of the present structure, imperfect though it may be, but rather are due to a lack of financial resources.

David S W Williamson,

49 Pinnaclehill Park, Kelso, Roxburghshire.