UofG Centre for Public Policy

17 July 2026: In this piece for the Academy of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow experts Dr David Waite and Professor Graeme Roy and co-authors explore what Andy Burnham as Prime Minister might mean for Scottish regional development. They argue the new PM will need to work closely with the devolved administration to meet the challenges of multi-level governance – including overlapping responsibilities and blurred lines of accountability.

Blog by Dr David Waite and Professor Graeme Roy (University of Glasgow), Professor James Mitchell (University of Edinburgh) and Professor Stuart McIntyre (University of Strathclyde) 

This blog was originally published by the Academy of Social Sciences on 17 July 2026. 

Andy Burnham is set to become the latest former mayor to serve as UK Prime Minister, after Boris Johnson. As Benjamin Barber famously titled his 2013 book – “If Mayors Ruled the World” – perhaps the rapid churn of UK politics is now giving that idea an unexpected form of expression.

Much has already been written on what Burnham-ism may imply for city-regional and regional development in England. In the English context, persistent centralisation, thorny and long-running spatial divides, coupled with the emergence of populist politics within a more fragmented political landscape, are fuelling concerns for how politics is conducted and who benefits.

Andy Burnham’s speech in Manchester in late June has fed optimism about a change of course, led by a devolution revolution and with directly elected mayors at the core. Sceptics may point out the parallels with the ‘Levelling Up’ agenda of recent memory. We will have to wait to see what, if any, substance may sit behind key initiatives that have been trailed, including a “Number 10 in the north”; “gimmick” or radical reorganisation of power?

There is an expectation, nevertheless, that as a former city-region mayor, Burnham will provide a doggedness and commitment to the regional devolution agenda that has been lacking to date. This may open promising new approaches to governance, yet there is much to work through in terms of how any further devolution rolls out. This includes: what risks are created at different governance levels; what levels of autonomy and control are brokered (and how much deviation from central government aims and standards is to be permitted); to what degree will an asymmetric approach to devolution continue; and what local capacity is there to apply devolution following periods of hollowing out? A devolution agenda is straightforward to pitch in a political speech, but thorny to implement in practice.

Burnham’s speech also touched on the Devolved Administrations, albeit faintly. In the Scottish context he claimed that citizens of Dundee feel as detached from Holyrood as English localities do from Westminster (Bangor and the Senedd was noted in the same terms for Wales). Devolution should be deepened and include devolution from Holyrood down to localities, he argued. As you might expect in a speech trying to secure the early confidence of multiple interests within the Labour Party, it was not overburdened with detail on how this deepening of devolution would occur. Similarly, how “good growth” will be sustained from Thurso to Perth, and from Glasgow to Stonehaven, was left for future specification.

What could Burnham’s regional and decentralising push in Scotland look like?

The Manchester model – or “Manchesterism” as it has been termed – looks likely to loom large and offer a template of sorts for other city-regions and regions. Though the outcomes of economic change in Greater Manchester are not altogether as clear-cut as some might want them to be, despite the enthusiastic rhetoric, a transformed central skyline, coupled with an emboldened mayor and combined authority, have captured policymakers’ imagination. The localism agenda – and a series of deals negotiated, including a flexible “trailblazer” arrangement – puts the city-region at the policy vanguard, nonetheless. Attempts to replicate Manchesterism reflect a broader objective to de-infantilise local government and consider how local bodies can serve and respond to local needs more effectively. A genuine regionalism must mean an acceptance of diversity in policy prescription and diagnosis.

Applying a city-regional and regional devolution impulse to the Scottish context is complicated by the tripartite governance arrangements in place. The UK Government, Scottish Government and localities all have a stake in designing and delivering regional change. This provides a fundamentally different governance architecture to what we see south of the border. This means that some of the changes Andy Burnham can make with localities in England (e.g. business rates) require co-operation with the Scottish Government if they are to be replicated in Scotland. All of which opens up a raft of difficult political negotiations, with competing party interests at play.

With these caveats on the table, there remain numerous opportunities, given the new Prime Minister’s stated inclinations, for a pivot to regionalism that could be productively considered.

First, it opens the door for city-region leaders to argue for policy packages which will fit their local contexts. The idea of place empowerment now has deep roots within the centre of UK Government (UKG) decision-making, and – despite no magic money trees appearing anytime soon – opportunities may be presented to link into evolving industrial strategy positions amongst other things. The Glasgow city-region released a devolution proposal in late-2025 covering areas including innovation funding, skills, child poverty, transport and the foundational economy. This provides one illustration of local intelligence supporting claims on what could usefully come next to address specific concerns in the city-region. Some of us have argued recently that coherent 10-15 year local growth plans – engaging both UKG and the Scottish Government (SG) – would usefully underpin such policy developments.

Second, there is an onus on localities and regional groupings in Scotland to move beyond just pleading for more policy tools and resource – in a “begging bowl” type manner – and to instead shape convincing arguments to both UKG and SG that delivery and implementation at a local level is more effective and generates better value. It is relatively simple to say that a first city-region deal was delivered effectively, so more is needed; a better logic shows why further decentralisation (in whatever form) will aid the achievement of key, mutually held objectives such as inclusive economic growth. In short, can localities start clearly answering the question: ‘competencies for what, why and to what end?’

Third, SG must step up to meet the moment on place empowerment too. The First Minister’s intimations of such a move last November in Glasgow signal a possible alignment with the UK Government. Furthermore, an ongoing Public Service Reform agenda led from Holyrood might prove a useful supporting vehicle to the extent that it promotes and accepts local variation (in delivery and, to some extent, outcomes). With the SG’s “Agenda for cities” now a decade old, and barely referenced, such steps are overdue.

Scotland hosts one of the largest city-regions in Glasgow. By several measures, Edinburgh is also the UK’s most economically dynamic second-tier city. At the same time, Aberdeen faces the sharp headwinds of sectoral change, whilst rural Scotland – from the Borders to the Highlands – draws attention to broader spatial settings where dedicated economic development capacity is in place. In the Scottish context, such issues and capacities have not been systematically considered despite the roll out of piecemeal and ad hoc regional policy measures since 2014 (city-region deals, investment zones, etc).

Having recently elevated Scottish regionalism as a political issue, Burnham will now need to work closely with the Devolved Administration (and vice versa) to navigate the challenges of multi-level governance. Responsibilities frequently overlap, lines of accountability are often blurred, and institutional incentives do not always align.

Working through those tensions will be essential if Burnham’s commitment to decentralisation in Scotland were to become more than rhetoric. The test is not whether more initiatives are announced, but whether it leads to a durable settlement in which power, resources and responsibility are genuinely redistributed, and in which Scotland’s cities and regions are trusted to shape their own economic futures.

Authors

Dr David Waite is a Senior Lecturer in the University of Glasgow's School of Social and Political Sciences. David's research focuses on the development of second-tier city-regions, with interest in the underpinning production systems at and the governance responses for these places. He is a Senior Fellow of the University of Glasgow Centre for Public Policy.

Graeme Roy is Professor of Economics, Deputy Head of the College of Social Sciences and Assistant Vice Principal at the University of Glasgow. Graeme is Chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Scotland’s official independent economic and fiscal forecaster. He is a Senior Fellow of the University of Glasgow Centre for Public Policy.

James Mitchell is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Edinburgh. He is a leading writer, thinker and commentator on Scottish political and constitutional affairs. He has frequently advised governments at Westminster and Holyrood, and numerous public sector organisations. James Mitchell was educated at the Universities of Aberdeen and Oxford.

Stuart McIntyre is a Professor of Economics at the University of Strathclyde. His research focuses on applied economics, regional economies, labour markets, and public policy. He is a Fellow of the Office for National Statistics and a Research Associate at the ONS-funded Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence.

This blog was originally published by the Academy of Social Sciences on 17 July 2026.

^{Photo Credit: Miraxh Tereziu on Unsplash}

---

First published: 17 July 2026