SCOTLAND'S most senior local government official has accused some councils of feathering their nests at the expense of tackling deprivation, calling for their role in how Government cash is distributed to be axed.
George Black, the departing chief executive of Glasgow City Council, said there had been no movement in the lifespan of the Scottish Parliament to change how finances were given to local authorities, claiming Glasgow was "no further forward in getting a fair share (to tackle inequalities) than we were 15 years ago".
In an unprecedented attack on how local government is funded, Mr Black, who officially steps down this month, said Scotland had more affluent authorities than poorer ones, giving them a veto which skews the distribution of Government cash in their favour.
He called for an independent body to be set up to advise the Government on where financial resources should go, effectively neutering the role of all authorities and their umbrella body Cosla in the annual process.
But the Scottish Government said the funding formula was kept under "constant review", insisting Glasgow received more per head of population than any other mainland council.
Speaking on the eve of his exit, Mr Black said: "There is a mismatch of the ambitions of the civic country and the reality of the way (funding) is distributed.
"What is required is for Cosla to remove itself from grant distribution and for an independent panel to be set up advising the Government on grant distribution and the Government would accept, or not, the recommendations of that panel.
"The 32 councils presently consult with the government and vote on any changes to the distribution system. And there are more affluent parts of the country than there are deprived.
"The 600,000 people of Glasgow have one vote, the same as Clackmannanshire. So change is unlikely in that scenario.The 32 councils would never agree to that. Why would they. They're doing well at the moment."
Earlier this year, Glasgow's political leadership, along with several other Labour-led councils, walked out of Cosla over changes to voting structures and accusing the Scottish Government of unacceptable intervention.
Mr Black also said the seven-year council tax freeze had given authorities stark choices and had cost Glasgow around £30million in recent years.
He said: "Glasgow would be able to put more emphasis on the areas of deprivation in the city, increasing the quantity and quality of nurture classes in our schools, would be able to prioritise social issues coming out of drugs and alcohol where evidence is that we need to be more targeted at a local level."
But one senior local government source said: "These comments are extremely disappointing from a man that has taken an extraordinary amount of money out of the system. He could have at least waited to get his backside out of the door before voicing his ill thought through ideas."
A Cosla spokesman said: "The problem with distribution is not who runs it, the problem is the actual system. "Local Government should be raising 50 plus per cent of its money so that distribution becomes way less important.
"Deprivation is important and we recognise that deprived people require costly services to support them. However people suffering from deprivation don't just live in Glasgow and at the moment Glasgow is well rewarded by the distribution system for the size of its population because population is the biggest single factor in the distribution system."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Glasgow receives the highest revenue funding per head of any wholly mainland council through a funding formula agreed with Cosla. The needs based distribution formula is kept under constant review by the Scottish Government and Cosla."
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