Why Glasgow City Council's £1m golden goodbyes to senior staff are more than a financial scandal

When the Commission released its findings, headlines focused on the exit payments. But the real issue runs deeper. It is about how decisions are taken, who is allowed to challenge them, and whether local democracy is weakened.

At Thursday’s full council meeting, voices from across the chamber spoke of “a culture of secrecy and lack of transparency”. It reflected unease that those elected to scrutinise decisions are being shut out. The council has promised reforms, but the test will be whether scrutiny is restored.

No minor flaw

The Commission’s finding was blunt: councillors were excluded from decisions on extraordinary payments. Put plainly, those chosen by the public to protect the purse were sidelined. That is no minor flaw; it directly challenges the principle that accountability belongs to elected representatives.

I know this first-hand. I am under investigation by the Ethical Standards Commissioner after a complaint was made by a senior officer. I will not comment on details while that process is ongoing nor the allegations themselves. What the experience reinforces for me is the place of scrutiny in public life.

Education funding shows why scrutiny matters. In 2024, £16.5m of Scottish Government support for Glasgow depended on maintaining teacher numbers. Internal emails released under Freedom of Information law advised using wording that would “avoid a reaction from SG” and steer clear of “pure teacher reductions”. Over £30m of savings, including the loss of 450 teaching posts, were presented in a way that didn’t make their impact obvious.

This was more than poor drafting. It reframed cuts and had the effect of obscuring reductions in education, making it harder for councillors and ministers to judge the funding risk. The council looked compliant while decisions carried consequences for classrooms and Glasgow’s financial settlement from the government.

No clear decision trail

The Accounts Commission report recorded a 2021 email from a finance director saying he was “fully supportive” of senior officer exit packages and considered them within policy. The review also records there was no clear decision trail; approvals appeared only implicit in correspondence. That gap in accountability raises serious questions.

The review also found the former chief executive’s early retirement was not lawfully approved under the council’s scheme of delegation, and the Commission judged the efficiency rationale unclear.

Glasgow’s new chief executive, Suzanne Miller, has inherited this situation. She deserves credit for opening the books and pledging a paper on reform. That is welcome, though culture change takes time.

Nor is this only a Glasgow problem. In Dundee and Perth, councillors have warned of the chilling effect of complaints on their ability to scrutinise officers. These are not isolated rows but signals that scrutiny is under pressure across Scotland.

The stakes are high. When scrutiny is obstructed, democracy weakens and public money is at risk. Glasgow’s exit payments prove the point: if councillors are denied sight of financial decisions, oversight vanishes and trust collapses.

Scrutiny is not a nuisance. It is democracy’s safeguard. Scotland must protect the right of councillors to ask difficult questions – especially when answers are uncomfortable.

Fiona Higgins is a Scottish Labour councillor for Glasgow City Council’s Canal ward