We need to address the issue of boundary reform in a grown-up manner

AFTER being behind in the polls, a Conservative government wins a surprise majority in the General Election and embarks on a radical programme of reform.

No, not 2015, but 1992, when John Major’s administration implemented a range of controversial policies. One of these was the redrawing of the local government map in Scotland, the Regions and Districts swept away to be replaced by 32 single tier councils.

Local government reform had been a key focus of the Thatcher governments, with the Greater London Council and English Metropolitan Counties abolished in the 1980s. Nakedly ideological, abolition was designed both to remove powerful centres of opposition to the economic and social reforms being introduced by central government, but also reflected the Thatcher’s belief councils should be placed in competition with each other for residents and jobs so that they became more efficient and were made to reduce local taxes.

1992’s surprise election victory gave Major and then Scottish Secretary Ian Lang the opportunity to apply the same medicine to Scotland, with the structure of new single tier local authorities in the central belt established in 1996 very similar to those in the English conurbations.

He also tried to draw the boundaries of the new councils so that the Tories might win control of more authorities, but such was the depth of their electoral collapse he failed miserably in this regard.

As soon as New Labour was elected a year after the new councils were created, the vision for local government was turned on its head. Instead of market competition within and between local authorities, councils were encouraged to become more efficient without privatising their services, and to collaborate rather than compete with one another. The new councils were too small to run some important services effectively and so a complex web of joint arrangements evolved.

Successive devolved administrations developed reforms such as ‘Best Value’ and ‘Community Planning’ designed to stitch the system back together again into something altogether more cohesive and integrated than the competition-focused model inherited from Major’s government.

The current debate about the role, scope and fiscal framework for local government in Scotland is welcome and long overdue.

But it is simply impossible to have a proper exploration of which powers councils should have and how they should be funded without addressing the issue of a local government map designed for ideological reasons totally at odds with contemporary conditions and aspirations.

Despite what vested interests might say, geography and boundaries really matter because they determine the tax base of councils and the profile of the social services they need to provide.

Scottish Government Ministers are reticent to open up the issue of boundary reform because the politics of doing so are unbelievably toxic, bringing out the worst in just about everybody as deep-rooted local rivalries and prejudices get an airing.

But if we are serious in developing a system of local government that is structured to make a difference then we all need to be grown up enough to set these concerns aside and think how powers, taxes and the map need to change.