Nothing stirs more local agitation in the public mind than threats to interfere from on high with local identities and familiar structures. The place we come from, or which we have adopted as our home, is part of us and gives an element of stability in a fast-changing modern world.
So, unless Henry McLeish rules the council boundary issue out now, it will fester and destroy the Cities Review - which can and should be an innovative and imaginative project.
We have had two local government boundary reviews in a generation. In the first in 1974, the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen - the oldest in Scotland - was abolished, and Rutherglen absorbed into the new City of Glasgow District along with its Lanarkshire neighbour, Cambuslang, itself with a long independent community identity. After 20 years' experience of being in Glasgow, the citizens of Rutherglen and Cambuslang voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to come out of the city, and became part of Lanarkshire again in the new South Lanarkshire Council.
By no stretch of the imagination could Rutherglen and Cambuslang be described as the ''wealthy suburbs'' beloved of headline writers in The Herald and other newspapers. They have a spread of housing not dissimilar to the city, although on a smaller scale. The Cambuslang SIP area is not there as a gesture but because there are significant areas of deprivation as serious as anything to be found in Glasgow. There is well-founded pressure to extend the SIP boundaries substantially.
Is there really any good reason to think that a bigger and more impersonal council is the answer for either Glasgow or Rutherglen and Cambuslang when it was not in the 20 years before 1995?
The Cities Review should be looking at how Glasgow is run, whether the success stories like the housing associations can be given a wider role, how the wealth created by the city's attractions can be harnessed to solve the deprivation problems, whether the education community formed by the three universities, the FE colleges, and the major hospitals can stimulate economic opportunities for those left behind by industrial change, whether a city structure giving more power to the local communities within Glasgow would be the way forward.
Surely these issues are more relevant than the well-trodden cul-de-sac of yet another council boundary review with its legacy of confusion, lengthy stagnation, and expensive staff
pay-offs?
Robert Brown, MSP,
1 Douglas Avenue, Rutherglen.
JOHN Young, MSP, points out that Glasgow's population is at its lowest since 1891 (Letters, September 1). However, although the population has fallen from over one million in the 1960s to marginally over half a million today the number of elected representatives has unsurprisingly not fallen in the same proportion.
With 79 councillors, 17 MSPs, 10 MPs, and a share of eight MEPs I reckon Glasgow has more elected representatives than it has doctors in general practice. Despite this over-representation it is fast becoming the most derelict city in Europe.
On a recent visit to the Sighthill area John Swinney, SNP leader, rightly expressed his disgust at the level of deprivation there. But, sadly, compared to many other districts within the city, Sighthill, it has to be said, is not too bad. At least 40% of Glaswegians are now living in the worst social conditions within the EU. Glasgow's East End, which once was Scotland's industrial powerhouse, has declined to such an extent that the biggest employers there are now Celtic PLC, Barr's Irn Bru, and Calderpark Zoo. Despite this, Glasgow's European funding has been drastically cut and diverted to modernise the economies of those Eastern European countries who are to form part of the enlarged EU. These funds were finessed from Glasgow without as much as a whimper from its all too numerous politicians.
If Glasgow's representatives don't waken up and lend support to John Swinney in his outrage then they deserve to be thrown on to the scrapheap in the forthcoming Boundary Review. To Glasgow's 114 elected politicians can I say, ''There is something the matter with Glesca fur it's going doon and doon''?
Tom Brady,
35 Fishescoates Gardens,
Burnside, Rutherglen.
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