6 Conclusion
114. We have been aware for some time of the successful
'Our Islands-Our Future' campaign, run by the local authorities
in the Highlands and Islands.[174]
We were surprised by the absence of any similar campaign in the
south of Scotland. Indeed, in our launch Report, we suggested
that 'Our Islands, Our Future' could be used as a potential model
for a co-ordinated approach in the Borderlands - between local
authorities in the south of Scotland, to raise the profile
of the area and to jointly lobby both the UK and Scottish Government's
to recognise the distinct challenges faced by the region.[175]
115. While the south of Scotland is not a homogenous
region, we identified key social, economic and infrastructure
issues which were common across the region. Moreover, and to a
greater extent than expected, we found that the challenges and
opportunities faced by those in the south of Scotland were held
in common with those on the English side of the border. Michael
Moore described the Borderlands as "debatable lands, where
the writs of kings and queens did not run south from Edinburgh
or north from London, and it was a large area that just governed
or did not govern itself."[176]
116. While many of the issues outlined in our Report
are common to post-industrial rural and peripheral communities,
they have been brought into sharp focus post-devolution, where
both the policies of the UK Government and Scottish Government
have a direct impact on the Borderlands, and where policy divergence,
north and south of the border, has to an extent exacerbated the
challenges faced and made them more difficult to address. Throughout
this Report we have repeatedly called for more collaboration,
both between local authorities across the Scotland-England border,
and between the UK and Scottish Governments, specifically in delivering
major infrastructure projects which are crucial to the future
prosperity of the region.
117. The challenges faced were further complicated
by two countervailing tendencies. The first was the instinct of
the Scottish Government to centralise power and functions in Edinburgh.
The negative consequences of this were particularly evident for
the south of Scotland in the scrapping of Local Enterprise bodies
in favour of the creation of a centralised Scottish Enterprise.
At the same time, the UK Government's capacity to deliver its
responsibilities in Scotland has reduced. It has been too easy
for Whitehall Departments to assume that their major functions
are devolved, and to not give adequate attention and priority
to administering their reserved functions north of the border.
Both of these trends have had a tangible, negative impact on the
daily lives of people in the south of Scotland.
118. That said, as illustrated throughout this Report,
we identified a number of positive activities and developments
in the south of Scotland, which are serving to increase the profile
of the area and establishing structures to improve collaborative
and cross-border working for the economic benefit of the whole
area. Political leadership, at all levels, is crucial to the success
of these initiatives. Throughout this Report, we have therefore
challenged both the UK and Scottish Governments to work together
to deliver tangible results. How they achieve this is one of the
central issues in the post-devolution landscape, and one which
will become more important during the course of the next Parliament
as the Smith Agreement is implemented.
174 Orkney Islands Council, Our Islands - Our Future,
accessed 21 January 2015. 'Our Islands - Our Future' is a joint
vision drawn up by the Orkney Island Council, Shetland Island
Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. It was launched on 17 June
2013, and its intention was that the UK and Scottish Government
should recognise the special position of the UK's three largest
island groups. Back
175
Scottish Affairs Committee, Second Report of session 2014-2015,
Our Borderlands, Our Future, HC 556 Back
176
Q36 Back
|
