The prime minister has invited the Scottish government to work together to put “power back in the hands” of regions – but insisted they must “move beyond” the constitutional question of Scottish independence.
Andy Burnham said he wanted to start work on a new deal for regional economic development in the next few months, including an offer of devolution from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Speaking at an event in Motherwell, Burnham called on first minister John Swinney to cede further powers from Holyrood to local areas before that happened.
SNP minister Stephen Flynn said the party had asked for increased devolution since the Smith Commission report was published in 2014.
The prime minister said devolution “was never supposed to stop at the doors of the Scottish Parliament” when Holyrood opened in 1999.
He said it was meant to be the “start of something deeper” where “communities had more of a say in their own future”.
However, he described Scotland as the most devolved nation in the UK but “one of the most centralised in Europe”.
“During my first week in office, I told the first minister that I wanted to work with him to spread opportunities to communities across Scotland’s regions and cities,” he said.
“Through No10 North, we are rewiring the state and I want to make sure regions in Scotland are fully part of this.
“This is me making an offer to the Scottish government. With us working together, there is no limit to what we can achieve for the Scottish people.”
The Scottish government set out plans for a radical rethink of the country’s regional authorities last month.
A new two-tiered system would see the 32 local authorities replaced with six new regional authorities.
They would have power over major issues such as economic growth and education.
Below that, between 120 and 160 community authorities would govern more local issues, such as licensing and town centre improvements.
It would be the most significant change to Scotland’s regional makeup since the current system was introduced by the UK government in 1996.
Burnham acknowledged that the Scottish government was working on local government reform, but said this had to “move faster”.
It is not clear exactly what powers might be exercised at regional level other than employment support.
Burnham appears to expect the Scottish government to devolve some of its own powers to regional authorities.
But he made clear that he will not impose a model of regional devolution like the metropolitan mayors that already operate in England.
Instead he wants to try and agree a way forward with further discussions when the prime minister sits down with all the devolved first ministers at the end of this month.
Burnham also called for an end to “tribal politics” between the Scottish and UK governments.
He said he and Swinney “agreed on some things” but “didn’t have to agree on everything”.
Swinney is expected to promote his renewed push for independence in his keynote speech at the SNP conference on Saturday.
He previously welcomed Burnham telling MPs that a border poll would be considered in both Scotland and Northern Ireland if there was a clear consensus and public opinion had changed.
But Burnham later pushed back on that by telling Swinney at a meeting in Glasgow that a second Scottish independence referendum remains “off limits”.
Asked whether devolving power more locally in Scotland would make independence more or less likely, the prime minister said: “I don’t want to be the last PM of the UK.
“I just feel we all have to move beyond the constitutional questions.
“In my view, people in Scotland are suffering from the cost of living crisis, like they are in England and everywhere else, and I think our job is to focus on the practicalities, to focus on solutions for people right now.”
He added: “Too much time is wasted on those dramas, it consumes too much energy.”
‘As many powers as possible’
Stephen Flynn – who was the SNP’s leader at Westminster before becoming the Transport Secretary at Holyrood – said the Scottish government would welcome the opportunity to be handed more power over the country’s economic prospects.
He said: “Interestingly the first minister sent a letter to the prime minister on Monday where he outlined a number of points he would like to see engagement on.
“This was number seven on that list, so we will of course engage with the prime minister fully in respect of his announcement today.”
Before Burnham’s speech, First Minister John Swinney said he was interested in “working constructively” with Westminster, adding he was “all for the Scottish Parliament having as many powers” as possible.
UK Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Burnham should be focusing on creating new opportunities in the energy sector.
She said: “This regional devolution plan is more jobs for the boys. What Andy Burnham should be doing is granting new oil and gas licences in the north sea.”
Burnham Invites Swinney to Work Together on Deeper Scottish Devolution
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has invited Scottish First Minister John Swinney to work together on a new era of devolution, promising to give communities across Scotland greater influence over the decisions that shape their economic future. The proposal marks an important moment in the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood, placing regional empowerment at the centre of a political debate that has long been dominated by Scottish independence.
During a visit to North Lanarkshire on October 16, Burnham presented what he described as a “serious and genuine offer” to the Scottish Government. He argued that politicians should move beyond years of constitutional confrontation and concentrate on practical measures that could improve people’s lives. His proposals include greater local influence over employment support, with the possibility of further devolution in areas such as transport, housing and economic investment. <Cite refs={[“turn372592search0″,”turn372592news8”]}/>
The initiative reflects Burnham’s experience as the former mayor of Greater Manchester, where he championed regional decision-making and greater local control over transport and economic development. Now in Downing Street, he wants to extend the principle of devolution beyond England and encourage Scotland’s political leaders to consider how powers could be distributed more effectively within their own country.
However, the proposal also raises difficult questions. How much authority should remain with the Scottish Government? Which decisions should be transferred to local councils and regional partnerships? And can greater devolution satisfy demands for local control while leaving the constitutional question of Scottish independence unresolved?
For Burnham and Swinney, the challenge will be to turn their stated willingness to cooperate into an agreement that produces practical results.
Burnham’s Offer to Scotland
Burnham’s central argument is that political power should be exercised as close as possible to the people affected by decisions. He believes that local authorities and regional organisations often understand the economic challenges facing their communities better than central government departments.
In his speech in Lanarkshire, the prime minister called for a different approach to governing, saying that politicians should place communities before party interests. He argued that Scotland should have the opportunity to benefit from the government’s wider programme of regional empowerment rather than remain outside an initiative designed to decentralise decision-making across the United Kingdom. <Cite refs={[“turn372592search0″,”turn372592search4”]}/>
One of the proposals concerns employment support. Burnham wants the UK Government and the Scottish Government to explore a model that would allow support for people seeking work to be shaped more closely around local circumstances.
Scotland has its own devolved institutions and responsibilities, but some important employment and welfare powers remain at Westminster. A coordinated arrangement could give Scottish institutions and local partners a greater role in tailoring services to the needs of particular communities, while recognising the responsibilities that remain with the UK Government.
The practical benefits would depend on the details. Different regions face different barriers to employment, including transport difficulties, skills shortages, health-related challenges and a lack of suitable vacancies. Localised support could help authorities coordinate training, employers and public services more effectively.
However, transferring responsibility does not automatically create better outcomes. Local institutions would need sufficient resources, clear responsibilities and reliable ways to measure progress. Without those safeguards, decentralisation could simply move administrative burdens from one level of government to another.
Burnham’s proposal is therefore likely to prompt discussions not only about where powers should sit, but also about how the institutions receiving those powers would be funded and held accountable.
Why John Swinney Is Open to Cooperation
John Swinney has indicated that he is willing to work with the prime minister on proposals that bring more decision-making powers to Scotland.
Before Burnham’s speech, the first minister said he would welcome the opportunity to cooperate, pointing to his long involvement in the development of Scottish devolution. Swinney has supported the establishment and expansion of the Scottish Parliament and argued that as many powers as possible should be exercised in Scotland. <Cite refs={[“turn372592search1″,”turn372592news7”]}/>
His response suggests that the two leaders may share common ground on the principle of decentralisation, even though they disagree on the future of the United Kingdom.
For the SNP, the key issue is not simply whether more power should be transferred away from Westminster. The party also argues that Scotland should have the right to determine its constitutional future, including whether another independence referendum should take place.
Burnham, by contrast, has emphasised working within the United Kingdom and has urged politicians to focus on immediate economic and social challenges rather than allowing the independence debate to dominate every discussion.
This creates an unusual political situation. A Labour prime minister and an SNP first minister could cooperate on giving local communities greater control, even as their parties continue to disagree over the ultimate constitutional settlement.
The success of the initiative will depend on whether both sides can separate areas where practical cooperation is possible from questions on which their positions remain fundamentally different.
Is Scotland Too Centralised?
Burnham has described Scotland as one of the most centralised nations in Europe, arguing that too much decision-making remains concentrated in the national government rather than being distributed among local communities. <Cite refs={[“turn372592search0″,”turn372592search3”]}/>
The claim has political significance because Scotland already possesses extensive devolved powers. The Scottish Parliament has responsibilities in areas including education, health, transport and several aspects of economic and social policy. Yet the existence of a national parliament does not necessarily mean that local authorities have enough freedom to respond to their own communities.
The debate is therefore about two different forms of decentralisation. The first involves transferring powers from Westminster to Holyrood. The second involves distributing some of those powers from Holyrood to councils, regional partnerships and local institutions.
Burnham is proposing to advance the second process alongside cooperation between the UK and Scottish governments.
Supporters of this approach argue that local decisions can be more responsive when they are informed by people who understand the needs of a particular area. A region experiencing industrial decline may require a different employment and training strategy from a city where demand for skilled workers is growing. Rural communities may face transport challenges that cannot be addressed effectively through policies designed primarily for major urban centres.
Nevertheless, the Scottish Government may be reluctant to transfer responsibilities to local authorities without guarantees about resources and accountability. National coordination can be important when ensuring that people in different parts of Scotland have access to comparable public services.
The question is not whether every decision should be local or national. It is which level of government is best placed to make each decision, and how those levels can cooperate without duplicating responsibilities.
Transport, Housing and Economic Growth
Burnham has suggested that employment support could be the beginning of a broader programme of deeper devolution. Drawing on experience in England, he has identified transport and housing as areas where greater local control could make a difference. <Cite refs={[“turn372592search0″,”turn372592news8”]}/>
Transport is a particularly important issue for regional economies. Reliable public transport can connect workers with jobs, improve access to education and training, and help businesses recruit from a wider area. Where services are fragmented or poorly coordinated, people can struggle to reach employment opportunities even when vacancies exist.
Housing policy is similarly connected to economic development. The availability and affordability of homes influence whether workers can live near their jobs, whether young people can remain in their communities and whether employers can attract the staff they need.
Greater local influence could help authorities align housing construction, transport investment and employment strategies. Instead of treating these issues as separate policy areas, regional partnerships could develop plans based on the economic needs of their communities.
Investment is another potential area for cooperation. Local leaders may be better placed to identify opportunities in manufacturing, renewable energy, tourism and other industries that are important to particular regions. However, the benefits would depend on access to funding, the availability of skilled workers and the willingness of private businesses to invest.
Devolution is not a substitute for national economic policy. Major infrastructure projects, national taxation and the overall distribution of public spending still require decisions at higher levels of government. The challenge is to establish a system in which local knowledge influences those decisions without undermining coordination across Scotland.
The Independence Question Remains Unresolved
Burnham’s offer comes at a sensitive time for Scottish politics. The SNP continues to campaign for independence, and its leaders argue that Scotland should have the opportunity to decide its future through another referendum.
The prime minister has emphasised that he wants to move beyond what he describes as the old politics of constitutional conflict. During his visit, he argued that too much political energy is consumed by repeated disputes over independence rather than by practical solutions to everyday problems. <Cite refs={[“turn372592search0″,”turn372592news7”]}/>
That position is unlikely to satisfy all SNP supporters. Some will welcome proposals that increase Scottish control over public services and economic development, while others may regard further devolution as insufficient if Scotland cannot determine its own constitutional future.
The SNP has also challenged the consistency of Burnham’s approach. The party argues that if the UK Government is willing to reopen discussions about Britain’s relationship with the European Union, it should explain why it opposes another Scottish independence referendum. This disagreement reflects different views about the authority of referendums and the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. <Cite refs={[“turn372592news7″,”turn372592news9”]}/>
Burnham’s approach is to focus on areas where agreement may be possible without reopening the independence question. Whether that approach can reduce political tension remains uncertain. Devolution may offer a route to practical cooperation, but it cannot by itself settle the competing visions of Scotland’s future held by unionists and nationalists.
Political Challenges for Labour and the SNP
The proposal also carries political risks for both governments.
For Labour, the initiative is an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to devolution extends beyond English regions and that the UK Government can work constructively with administrations led by other parties. But if the offer remains vague or fails to deliver visible improvements, critics could argue that the prime minister has promised more than his government can provide.
For the SNP, cooperation could bring additional powers or influence over policies that matter to Scottish communities. Yet the party will need to show that working with Westminster does not mean abandoning its commitment to independence. It may also need to explain why it supports decentralisation while retaining substantial decision-making responsibilities at Holyrood.
Conservative critics have questioned whether Scotland needs another devolution initiative when it already has a wide range of devolved responsibilities. Kemi Badenoch has argued that the Scottish Government possesses significant powers and should focus on using them effectively. <Cite refs={[“turn372592news7″,”turn372592search0”]}/>
This disagreement raises a legitimate policy question: should the priority be transferring additional powers, improving the performance of existing institutions, or doing both? The answer may differ across policy areas, depending on where the current arrangements create the greatest barriers to effective action.
What Happens Next?
The immediate task is for officials from both governments to identify areas where a practical agreement could be reached. Employment support appears to be one of the clearest starting points, while transport, housing and regional investment could form part of later discussions.
Any agreement would need to clarify which responsibilities remain with Westminster, which sit with Holyrood and which could be exercised by local authorities or regional partnerships. It would also need to establish funding arrangements, performance measures and mechanisms for resolving disagreements.
Local communities should be able to see what changes are being proposed and how those changes would affect their daily lives. More local authority over employment services, for example, would be meaningful only if it improved access to training, helped people find suitable work or made support easier to navigate.
The two governments will also need to ensure that decentralisation does not create a confusing patchwork of services. Different approaches can help reflect local needs, but people should still understand their rights and know which institution is responsible for providing support.
A New Chapter in Devolution?
Burnham’s invitation to Swinney represents an attempt to shift the debate towards how Scotland is governed, rather than allowing every discussion to become a confrontation over independence.
The proposal is based on the idea that power can be distributed more widely within the United Kingdom and within Scotland itself. It offers the possibility of closer cooperation between governments that disagree on constitutional questions but share an interest in improving employment, transport, housing and regional economic development.
Whether the initiative succeeds will depend on the details. More local decision-making could help communities shape policies around their circumstances, but only if responsibilities are clearly defined and supported by adequate resources. The Scottish Government will also need to decide how far it is prepared to share authority with local institutions.
For Swinney, the opportunity is to pursue greater Scottish control while testing whether cooperation with Westminster can deliver practical gains. For Burnham, it is a chance to demonstrate that devolution can be more than a constitutional argument and can instead become a means of changing how public services and regional economies operate.
The two leaders do not need to agree on Scotland’s ultimate constitutional future to begin that work. But they will need to turn broad promises into clear proposals, measurable improvements and an arrangement that respects the responsibilities of each government.
The next phase of Scottish devolution may therefore be shaped less by the speeches made in Lanarkshire than by the decisions taken afterwards. The central question is whether a shared commitment to local empowerment can produce results for communities while leaving the larger debate over Scotland’s future unresolved.