It’s good to agree to disagree with politicians in a respectful manner - Carl Les

In contrast the commemorative service held last week for Alex Salmond, former First Minister of Scotland was not so respectful, at least not outside the cathedral. He was not a man whose views I could agree with often, but for sure he was an effective debater, and as holder of a major office of state he deserved respect.

When living in Scotland five decades ago, I would have supported independence as there was no doubt that the Act of Union was misinterpreted and misused by the larger partner, with ways and language similar to race and gender issues that are no longer acceptable today. However, the Devolution Bill and the creation of the Scottish Parliament has gone a long way to address such iniquities, and now the breaking up of the Union would be an economic and social disaster.

Two other politicians who did not always agree were also in the news recently. There were many tributes paid to John Prescott, who rose from a humble background to become a major political figure in New Labour, and is the longest serving Deputy Prime Minister to date. Again not a person whose views I would agree with often, but still worthy of respect.

I listened with interest to Lord Heseltine’s piece on Radio 4 where he commented on many of the disagreements he had with John Prescott, but as importantly where they agreed. In particular, and this resonates with me, they were both keen supporters of devolution.

We live in a country with the most centralised form of government in Western Europe. Both Prescott and Heseltine, in government and in opposition, wanted to see decision-making moved from Whitehall to County Hall, with elected Mayors and county-sized unitary councils working together in combined authorities. We have achieved the start of a devolution process in North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull will follow next year and we will continue to catch up with the other parts of Yorkshire, importantly West Yorkshire, and Tees Valley and Greater Manchester who were able to start the journey before us.

The soon to be published White Paper on local government is likely to reveal offers for many other parts of the country to start that journey – Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire. Norfolk and Suffolk are all being trailed as likely areas. I wish them well and if asked we will offer them the benefit of our experience, the same way as we learnt from Cornwall and Buckinghamshire.

Of course there are doubters, even nay-sayers, but the fundamental point is that most of the country already exists with unitary councils being in place for the last 50 years. The Minister, Jim McMahon, a former council leader himself, has said that all council leaders should be “on the same mission, delivery and agenda” i.e. to put our residents' interests first. In North Yorkshire we have made significant savings in the first 18 months of the transition and it`s just as well we have as we have a huge savings challenge to meet.

So respect is due process, and challenge should be respectful, but where we disagree we must say so. The announcement this week of the new policy for local government funding is critically unhelpful and unwelcome. Nobody can disagree that deprivation needs to be addressed, but deprivation is a spectrum, and can be hidden in rurality as well as highly visible in inner cities.

The costs of providing services in rural areas is often greater per head than in populous areas. To take away the rural services grant and “repurpose” it to redirect funding towards more deprived areas is wrong. Our challenge has become £14m more acute overnight, and will have a serious impact on the communities we represent.

The Secretary of State Angela Rayner states that is “fairer”. I fail to see how. She says that this is “ensuring every penny is spent on the services so many people rely on every day”. Not in North Yorkshire. This one-off reduction has moved us from a budget where we have continued to find efficiencies, even if some come with difficult changes to policy as in home to school transport, to one where we will have to consider stopping some services.

Rural Support Grant (RSG) will go, to be replaced with a highly targeted recovery grant which means not all councils will receive a share.

A rising tide floats all boats so rather than remove our financial lifeline of RSG based on recognised increased delivery costs, more effort could be put into removing unnecessary inefficiencies and costs in structures.

Carl Les is the leader of North Yorkshire Council.