THERE was a strange synchronicity between my letter on too many local authorities and another in the same edition (January 4) bemoaning the demise of Co-op retail in Dumbarton. From being an innovator in so many areas the Co-op of old has been in decline for many years. In my time as a supplier, the Co-op directory listed more than 90 independent societies, most of which were inefficient, slow-moving, asset-rich and cash-poor, and run by local committees and politicians – just because.
Rationalisation and mergers were inevitable but painfully slow. Yet the Co-op was the UK’s biggest producer of food and second only to the Crown and the Ministry of Defence in its estate.
The modern Co-op, with which I shop, bank and insure, retains its ethical stance but has repositioned itself as an efficient customer-facing organisation led in the large by trade professionals, although there is perhaps a way to go as we saw in the departure of Ewan Sutherland, a recent chief executive, and the Paul Flowers scandal. The Co-operative Party exists still but the days of politicians running operations of the Co-op for their own agenda hopefully has long passed.
So your correspondent, Brian McKenna, may yet see a “store” return to Dumbarton.
Largely we do not have a choice in who provides our public services. But like the Co-op of old, councils are run by committees and local politicians. We voted with our feet when the Co-op failed to modernise quickly enough. Sadly we cannot do the same with local authorities. Yet their debt is building as fast as their costs. The failure of a local authority may not be so far away.
Given their monopoly position, we surely must make modernisation of our local authority structures a priority to deliver a lean public sector run by operations specialists and no longer held back by politicians and ?their appointees. But who will make it happen? Holyrood thrives on, even desires, a weak, fragmented local authority sector to sustain itself. Others may claim that to reduce the number of local authorities would be a threat to local democracy. Given the low turnout at local elections, that concept died a long time ago. Who will lead on this?
John Dunlop,
19 Wellington Lane, Ayr.
THE Herald has carried stories about wages falling well behind inflation and deficiencies in public services. When a country experiences a large deflation of the currency, as has happened to the pound, the result is that that country becomes poorer. It takes a while to work through and that is what we are experiencing now.
We can moan, grumble and strike as much as we like but there is less wealth to go round and we are poorer and state services deteriorate. It is possible to work our way out of this situation but that takes time and much more. Meanwhile we have to suffer the effects of government policies that brought about the situation.
Hugh Boyd,
65 Antonine Road,
Bearsden, Glasgow.
I WOULD like to thank Brian Quail and David Purdie for their courteous replies to my letter on federalism (January 5). I would not like them to think my suggestion for federalism was from an advocate. I do not think it could ever happen; indeed that the opposite is the case: “more Union”, I think, is the cry of Ruth Davidson and London is circling the constitutional wagons, readying the UK for control after Brexit. Indeed if Ms Davidson is elected as First Minister would she do what Arlene Foster and the DUP have done to Northern Ireland’s devolved settlement?
Federalism is always in the background, to be dug up and trailed by Unionist pundits, as a lure and a trick for attracting voters in the event of another independence referendum. Remember the “promises” made by Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and others in 2014, when poll panic was in the air and sturdy men wept? Home Rule; federalism; devo max: all dust in the wind.
GR Weir,
17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel