article: David Mundell argued that it was time for Holyrood to "end its dominance" over Scottish life. And he said Westminster was "setting the pace" in breaking up the "central government monolith". The Scottish government said it had a "dynamic agenda of shifting power". It also said Mr Mundell had "no credibility" when it came to devolution, given his opposition to amendments to the Scotland Bill. And it urged Mr Mundell to look at how Westminster was handling local authority affairs south of the border before criticising the situation in Scotland. Mr Mundell was speaking in Glasgow days after council leaders warned that Scottish finance secretary John Swinney's latest budget plans would be "catastrophic" for jobs and services in Scotland's local authorities. Mr Swinney has allocated Â£10.3bn for local government as part of his spending plans for 2016, which local government body Cosla said amounted to a Â£350m cut. There is almost an iron rule of local government - when in opposition people call for more decentralisation, and when in government they tend not to decentralise as much as they claimed they would. It strikes me that in their different ways, although both parties are in government, they are playing out that kind of line. Both Mr Mundell and Mr Swinney are, in a sense, talking up what they have done that they think fits with the agenda of localism. So David Mundell, and indeed the chancellor and the government in England, are talking about devolution to local authorities. But there was no mention of the requirement, for example, that Manchester should have a mayor before it got those accumulated authorities for Greater Manchester. That is throwing aside the democratic decision of people who lived in and around Manchester when they actually voted on having a mayor a while ago. Similarly, Mr Swinney is talking about about giving the power to local authorities to "vary" business rates. A more accurate word would have been giving them the power to "reduce". If you were genuinely giving power and authority and accountability to local authorities, you would enable them to reduce and/or increase business rates. So (both governments) tend to play up what they are doing well and be quiet about these areas where centralisation and control sits at the heart of what is going on. The Scottish secretary argued that councils' concerns about the future mean it is time for an "honest and frank" debate about the way forward for them. His proposals would see local authorities given greater control over areas such as health, transport and policing, with towns and cities also having more say over their own affairs. Mr Mundell said: "The interminable debate about Scotland's constitutional place within the UK has drowned out debate about how power and responsibility is distributed within Scotland. "The referendum was decisive and an obsession with independence can no longer be an excuse to ignore this issue. It's time for Holyrood to step up and send real powers to the people. "There is a revolution going on in local government across the rest of the United
summary: Scottish cities, towns and villages risk being left behind other parts of the UK unless they are given greater control over their own affairs, the Scottish secretary has claimed.