TWO leaders from Scotland’s largest city regions have demanded that the UK Government deliver a “second stage devolution” settlement for the Central Belt in a letter to the Prime Minister, with Douglas Alexander also coming under fire.
The SNP chair of the Glasgow City Region, Susan Aitken, and her Edinburgh and South East Scotland counterpart, Labour's Norman Hampshire, have said there was a disparity in funding which was “an inequity that only the UK government has the ability to put right,” according to The Herald.
The two city leaders have written to Andy Burnham after he set out plans to give England's metro mayors a share of the income tax and business rates collected in their areas.
Aitken outlined that the UK Government’s position on devolved administrations in Scotland is “not tenable” by claiming it has “nothing to do with them” and that it is “just for the Scottish Government to deal with”.
The UK Government has long insisted that because local government is a devolved matter, further devolution within Scotland is purely a matter for the Scottish Government, a position the two council leaders are calling on Burnham to change.
The councillors argued there is a disparity in funding which is an inequity that only the UK Government has the “ability to put right”, since integrated settlements and capital funding for English mayoral regions have “not generated Barnett Formula consequential funding for the devolved nations”.
Speaking to The Herald, Aitken said: “We're all clear that there's a big bit missing for the cities, the city regions and the devolved administrations, and that's the UK Government.
“Ironically, I think we were possibly in a slightly better position under the Tories on this.
“In the early days [of the Labour government], when Ian Murray was Secretary of State for Scotland, he was really engaged, really interested, and we had really good conversations with him.
“Then it ground to a halt, and the position was taken that this was nothing to do with them, that it's just for the Scottish Government to deal with. That's just not true, and it's not tenable.
“It's not just Glasgow saying this, and it's not just Scotland saying this. All of the Celtic city regions are saying to the UK Government yes, it is something to do with you, and you need to be part of this.
“You need to be providing the kind of capital resource, in real cash terms, that has gone in really significant quantums to the metropolitan regions and combined authorities in England — and of course Greater Manchester is the one that has done best out of all of them.”
The SNP councillor also raised concerns over the Secretary of State for Scotland’s briefing of the Prime Minister claiming that city regions have “nothing to do with him” is not true and that the UK Government can provide more vital funding.
Cllr Aitken added: “I'm slightly concerned that the Secretary of State for Scotland continues with his position, and that he's briefing the Prime Minister that this has nothing to do with him. I'd hope that the facts speak for themselves.”
She continued: “It's not the case that this is Nat Glasgow arguing this.
Adding: “That's not it at all. Equally, the leader of Cardiff city council is a Labour councillor, as is the chair of that city region.
“So none of us are making this case on a party political basis. If anything, it's very much about place above politics. Within the Glasgow city region there's currently a majority of Labour-led administrations, but we are as one. We've got a very clear view on this.”
Kevin Rush, Glasgow's Director of Regional Economic Growth, insisted that the region was in a good place to do more, as he said: “There's been a bit of frustration for some of us with the public discourse around this.
“It's presented as if the leap from Glasgow to Manchester is a quantum leap, but the reality is that where we are as a region, the work we've done, we're not as advanced as Greater Manchester, there's no point pretending otherwise, in terms of collaboration and regional working, because they've been empowered to do this, but actually, in terms of our capacity, capability and coherence, we're up there with the other combined authorities.
“We just need that next step, and funding from the UK level would make the big difference.
“But we're not bumpkins. We're not sitting here as some kind of poor Glasgow who doesn't know what it's doing.
“We're far more advanced, and the feedback we've been getting from the English combined authorities is that we're ahead of a lot of them on a lot of this stuff.”
Chancellor John Healey has told the Cabinet they must be prepared to make cuts to finance Burnham’s new spending pledges.
On Friday, Healey announced the date of his first budget as Chancellor as October 28, and promised the plans would be “built on fiscal discipline”.
Burnham’s premiership has seen a succession of announcements likely to require additional spending.
These include cost-of-living measures such as a cut in VAT on energy bills and reduced business rates for pubs, along with plans for radical devolution in England and an expansion of technical training in schools.
However, ministers have been told there is no new money to pay for these moves in a joint letter from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
Economists at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research warned earlier this week that the Iran conflict would fuel more persistent inflation and higher interest rates, leaving little room for extra borrowing.
Stephen Millard, Niesr’s deputy director for macroeconomics, suggested Healey should look at the welfare bill or the pensions triple lock as areas for potential cuts.
He also suggested Healey should consider raising income tax, which would break Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledge not to raise that levy, national insurance or VAT.
That pledge, along with the fiscal rules set by former chancellor Rachel Reeves on borrowing, are likely to constrain Healey’s room for manoeuvre.
