A fairy tale or an over-simplified history?

Once upon a time (well in the mid-1970s, actually) there was an economic development agency whose remit covered most of Scotland. It did the kind of things that economic development agencies did in those days: it developed land and built advance factories; it encouraged industrial investment; and it helped to promote new and existing businesses. The agency was based in Glasgow (Bothwell Street, actually), though it did have branch offices elsewhere. As far as could be determined, it seemed to be making a useful contribution to Scottish economic development, but nobody was terribly sure; in the big important cases, other organisations were involved and, anyway, it was difficult in those days to disentangle the impact of the agency's activities from what would probably have happened anyway. Nevertheless, the job creation figures always looked pretty good. Furthermore it was not enormously expensive and, occasionally, Ministers were able to perform industrial openings and take credit for the agency's efforts. (Industrial closures, on the other hand, were invariably down to macro-economic factors and were never anyone's fault.)

But fashions change, and by 1990, there were complaints that the agency was too centralised and top-down in its approach. So Ministers agreed to proposals from certain big businessmen that the agency should have a devolved structure whereby its functions and services should be delivered by independent local bodies which would be controlled by local businessmen. At the same time, as the separate bodies delivering industrial training in Scotland had degenerated into something of an administrative guddle, it was agreed that the agency should also take on the training function. Now you might think that these changes were more apparent than real, as the so-called independent local bodies invariably appointed former officials of the previous agency to be their chief executives, while the purse strings continued to be held (tightly) in Bothwell Street, the continued headquarters of the new agency. Furthermore, the training function was never properly integrated with the agency's other functions and in effect continued to be run as a separate operation. Nevertheless, the job creation figures continued to look pretty good, even though the vast bureaucratic efforts of Bothwell Street in seeking to monitor what the devolved organisation was achieving failed to come up with any definitive conclusions. And there were still the occasional industrial openings for Ministers to boast about, while the notion of Silicon Glen blossomed and then faded. Of course, the increased range of the agency's functions and the larger budget meant that the high heid-yins had to pay themselves rather more than previously.

As is the way of these things, another 15 years passed, leading to further demands for change. The latest proposals, announced today, involve detaching the training function from the agency and the establishment of fewer and bigger independent local bodies (although there is some doubt about the extent to which the previous myth of independence will be maintained). Will these further changes make the agency better? And, if they were to do so, how would we know?

I'm losing the will to live ...