Thoughts from our Chief Exec on a new path for Scottish councils

This piece is a written version of Jonathan’s speech at the recent Solace conference.

We know that Scotland’s councils face an unprecedented convergence of challenges, and the way we respond will shape not just the future of local government, but the wellbeing of communities across the country. As local leaders, we are, by definition, professional optimists; if we confronted the full scale of the task each morning, we might never get going. Yet optimism must not slide into complacency. We need to face up squarely to the pressures we are under, without despair but with clarity.

The financial picture is stark. LGIU’s annual finance survey shows Scottish councils are squeezed between rising demand and dwindling flexibility, with 70% expecting to be unable to balance their budgets within five years.

One of the biggest financial pressures is, of course, care. Scotland’s demographic profile is shifting rapidly. Since 2011, its population aged over 65 has grown by more than 22%, with people living longer, often with complex care needs. That trend is set to continue, straining health and social care systems already stretched to the point of collapse.

Equally concerning is the decline in public trust. Surveys show distrust in local government has risen to 35% and to 45% in the Scottish Government. A striking poll of young Scots found that, while most still prefer democracy, nearly two-thirds believe that democracy in the UK is “in trouble.” Without reforms that strengthen local government and give citizens a stronger voice, this trust deficit will only deepen. And of course, we could add the global disruptors of climate breakdown, AI, and geopolitical volatility. In this context, place-based integration of services is a vital part of our response.

Across the UK and beyond, there are examples of councils leading the way. Kirklees has reorganised services around communities rather than silos, using ward-based democracy and neighbourhood partnerships to ensure delivery is shaped by local voices. Greater Manchester has integrated health and social care budgets under devolution, allowing more responsive interventions linked to housing and employment. Cornwall has pioneered single-pot approaches to public spending, coordinating investment in transport, skills, and housing to reflect the realities of a dispersed rural geography. Scotland has its own examples, but progress has often been partial or disappointing.

What lessons can we take from this? I would offer four insights.

First, place and public voice must remain at the centre. Back in 2011, the Christie Commission was clear that empowering communities should be the foundation of reform, but delivery has too often reverted to central control.

Second, we must harness the wealth of data now available, but break down silos that keep it fragmented and unusable locally.

Third, clarity of purpose is essential: integration can mean efficiency, effectiveness, bureaucracy reduction, or better outcomes — but unless we are explicit about which we seek, initiatives risk drifting, as shown by the patchy results of Integration Joint Boards and the collapse of the proposed National Care Service.

Finally, we must accept that integration alone is not enough. Without prevention, stable funding, and bold political leadership, it risks being little more than rearranging silos while services decline under pressure.

Other countries offer models and hope. Denmark’s integrated health and social care system has reduced treatable mortality. New Zealand’s Investment Fund has invested $190 million into early intervention and data to build accountability and better outcomes. These are models not only of structure but of prevention and investment, and they deliver results.

Scotland has been talking about Christie’s principles for 14 years. We have had IJBs, CPPs, and proposals for an NCS. We have become really good at acronyms – but outcomes have not shifted as they should. The challenge for today’s leaders is to break this cycle. Integration is necessary, but never sufficient. Only if we root it in place and public voice, deploy data intelligently, define its true purpose, and pair it with prevention, funding, and leadership, can we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past decade.