April fool 1996 – Local Democracy was the Gowk.
Gowkin Day, Scots for April Fool, has become much less significant since Covid, social media, and Post Truth changed perceptions and behaviour. The lines between fact and fiction, truth and lies, humour and everything else have blurred.
Gowkin Day 1996 was not typical in Scotland for different reasons. The nation was coming to terms with the Dunblane massacre. Humour was hard to find and hardly appropriate. How ironic then that possibly the biggest April Fool ever played on a nation passed almost unnoticed; the implementation of local government reform. Hindsight shows that those predicting the demise of local democracy were justified. That may explain why the 30th anniversary will also pass unnoticed.
Thirty years on, the tale of local government reform in Scotland has been well documented by us1 and others, so it needs no re-telling. Simple facts about council numbers, boundaries and functions do not reveal the political intent that drove reform nor the impacts and consequences in terms of weakening local democracy. Immediate effects were obvious in fewer councils, councillors, and staff. Less obvious, though more critical in the long term, were the loss of corporate memory and capacity for strategic decision-making within councils. Add to those losses the range of functions transferred to non-elected bodies, and Gowkin Day ’96 can be seen as a tipping point when real powers were transferred from local to central government for political reasons.
The centralising trend accelerated after Devolution. Constitutional issues dominated public debate and political attention throughout the creation and establishment of the new councils to the detriment of local democracy. The arrival of the Scottish Parliament further focused public and political attention on Holyrood. New Ministers wanted to ‘run’ Scotland. New MSPs wanted changes. Above all, new Parliamentarians wanted to be seen to be ‘doing’ things. On arrival, they found ‘doing’ was harder than they had appreciated but being found wanting was much easier as a media circus encircled them.
From the tipping point of Gowkin Day ’96, the black hole of Holyrood steadily sucked in powers, functions, and above all, financial control from councils to Ministers and non-elected bodies. This created a ‘spaghetti of boundaries’ that makes joined-up thinking and coordinating public services nearly impossible. The most ironic outcome is how far the current reality differs from the vision and heady rhetoric of the Parliamentarians on Day One. Devolution was to be a project, not a terminus. Power was to be devolved further to councils and on to communities!
Gowkin Day 2026 sees the start of campaigning for the next Holyrood election. On current evidence, there is little prospect that restoring local democracy will figure in the manifestos or ambitions of those seeking election. International and UK events dominate 24/7/365 coverage by centralised media outlets, while personalities, conspiracies, and gossip dominate social media. Add the growing numbers of political parties focused on ‘winning’ at all costs, and the most likely scenario is another election of criticising opposition parties and offering blandishments and ‘sweeties’ to potentially critical voter groups. Another ‘confectionary’ campaign looks likely with minimal regard to Scotland’s fiscal, economic and social problems. “Win the Crowd” will be the aim, the Common Weal will be the loser.
27 years of experience show Scotland’s Parliament is unwilling to tackle ‘wicked issues’; problems that everyone acknowledges but cannot see how to resolve. Top of that list has to be the growing fiscal gap identified by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Second, and related, has to be the organisation and financing of public services, especially those provided by councils. The failure to revalue council tax since 1991 is arguably an abrogation of responsibility by Holyrood. The static economy, glacial progress in the improvement of the infrastructure, high cost and slow response of the NHS and declining Education standards call for strong government and tough decisions. Shirking to act collectively to address these issues is why trust and respect for politicians has declined dramatically in recent years. A decline that aligns with the absorption of power by Holyrood at the expense of local democracy.
The election on 7 May is a chance for aspiring politicians to show they understand these issues and how they will address them. It is also a chance for Scotland’s voters to have their say. Current polling suggests voter indifference is growing, with voters resorting to “Anyone but X“ – in short, using their votes for constituencies and the regional list to prevent certain candidates and parties from winning.
Such indifference is not surprising when voters increasingly recognise that manifestos and rhetoric are not good indicators of post-election behaviour. Good campaigns do not necessarily make for good Government. Indifference also increases the chance of a low turnout that may weaken the democratic mandate of the winners. The average turnout of the six Holyrood elections to date is below 60%. That means more than 1.5 million voters have failed to vote in every election. It is not a good advert for Scotland’s democracy.
Politicians are, of course, well aware of the issues. They read the news stories and opinion polls, appear on programmes and are questioned by voters. The frequency of the adjective ‘broken’ in political discourse and requests from voters that they stop bickering and act collegiately testifies to a demand for them to be team players, pragmatic and willing to make the decisions that will benefit the common weal. More of the same has had its day – no more top-down, centralising proposals that can only add to the circle of decline. Manifestos (party or individual) offer the chance to assess whether the lessons of the last 30 years have been learned. Will they?
Those aspiring to serve as MSPs in the next Parliament need to admit to the problems and show that they have learned the lessons of the last 30 years. Addressing the fundamental fiscal problems and reforming public services to make them fit for purpose can only be achieved with the commitment and involvement of ‘Civic Scotland’. Communities, businesses, and councils need to be part of the renaissance of Scotland’s democracy.
Bill Howat and Keith Yates are all members of The Mercat Group, an informal network of former chief executives of Scottish local authorities with over 220 years of public service between them, including 70 years as chief executives.
1. Previous articles for Enlighten on local government reform from The Mercat Group: https://www.enlighten.scot/devolvingscotland/improving-local-democracy-in-scotland-parliament-or-council-25-years-of-evidence/; https://www.enlighten.scot/devolvingscotland/restoring-local-democracy-in-scotland-a-call-for-action-bill-howat-george-thorley-gavin-whitefield-and-keith-yates/; https://www.enlighten.scot/devolvingscotland/why-improving-local-democracy-is-vital-bill-howat/