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.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel