17th August 2026
In my previous article I suggested that Highland Council could perhaps take an Andy Burnham-style approach to the cost of living — looking at what it can do to reduce the everyday costs facing households rather than simply concentrating on balancing its own books.
There is an obvious objection.
Highland Council could quite reasonably say: "We've been doing that for years." And it would have a point.
Highland has its Redesign of Highland Council programme, has been searching for efficiencies for years and has already delivered very substantial savings.
So I am not suggesting that Highland Council needs another committee to sit around a table and ask where it can save money.
What I am suggesting is slightly different.
Could Highland learn from what other rural councils are doing and put reducing the cost of living for Highland households at the centre of some of its spending decisions?
And when you look around Scotland, there are some interesting ideas. Highland isn't the only rural council under pressure. The financial problems facing councils aren't unique to Highland.
Argyll and Bute has described a budget gap of around £14 million for 2026/27 and says its geography creates additional demands that many other councils don't face, particularly because of air and sea transport. It had already identified £3.1 million of efficiency savings, with another £3 million of savings options considered as part of the budget process.
Aberdeenshire has also been going through the same process. Its 2026/27 budget identifies more than £9 million of savings, including procurement efficiencies, staffing and vacancy management, changes to grounds maintenance and cleaning, grant reductions and reviews of fees and charges.
At the same time, however, it found an additional £1.88 million for road repairs. That is an interesting approach. It shows that "finding savings" doesn't necessarily mean cutting everything. It can mean deciding where the money is most needed.
Argyll and Bute is probably the closest comparison with Highland. It has islands, remote communities, long distances, expensive transport and difficulty providing services over a huge geographical area.
In 2025 it produced a Manifesto for Rural Change, setting out a series of proposals for the Scottish and UK Governments.
Among its suggestions were:
greater investment in rural roads and transport;
better digital connectivity;
action on excessive rural delivery charges;
community benefits from renewable energy;
better energy pricing for households off the gas grid;
more investment in social and worker housing;
and long-term funding for lifeline transport.
Some of these are matters for Holyrood or Westminster rather than Highland Council. But that is precisely the point.
Highland doesn't have to tackle the cost of living entirely through its own budget. It could use its position as Scotland's largest local authority to campaign for changes that recognise the additional cost of living in remote areas.
The cost of remoteness matters as living in the Highlands isn't necessarily expensive because people choose an extravagant lifestyle. Sometimes it is expensive because everything has to travel further.
Fuel. Food. Building materials. Household goods.
Engineers. Tradespeople. Public services. And people themselves.
If you live in a city, there may be a bus every ten minutes, several supermarkets within a few miles and numerous competing businesses but in parts of Caithness and Sutherland, the choices can be very different.
The Scottish Government itself recognises that remote rural households face additional living costs, with transport being one of the most significant areas of additional expenditure.
That ought to influence how local government thinks about spending.
Aberdeenshire's approach is interesting because it isn't simply talking about "cuts". Its 2026/27 budget combines more than £9 million of savings with additional investment in roads, health and social care, digital connectivity, housing and energy and sustainability projects.
It also says that every pound spent must deliver real value. That sounds obvious but perhaps councils should be more explicit about what "value" actually means.
Value to whom? Value to the Council? Or value to the resident? There is a difference.
Suppose a Council saves £1 million by redesigning a service. That's a saving for the Council. But if the £1 million simply disappears into the general budget, a resident may never notice any benefit.
The more interesting question is Could some of the benefit eventually reach the household?
This is where my argument differs from simply "cut the council tax"
I don't think Highland should simply announce:
"We are going to cut council tax." Unless there is a corresponding reduction in expenditure, that isn't really a saving. It either creates a deficit or pushes the cost somewhere else.
Nor do I think the answer is simply to freeze council rents. Housing still needs to be repaired.
New houses need to be built. Loans have to be repaid. Services have to be provided.
A cheap policy announcement can become an expensive problem later.
What I am suggesting is more fundamental.
Make the cost to households one of the tests used when deciding how Council money is spent.
Imagine a Highland Household Cost Test and before a major new spending commitment, a Council report could ask "Will this increase or reduce the cost of living for Highland households?"
Then:
Could the same objective be achieved more cheaply?
And: Does this decision have a disproportionate effect on remote and rural households?
That would change the emphasis.
It wouldn't prevent the Council from spending money.
It would make councillors think harder about the consequences.
Moray has been trying to close its own financial gap while protecting essential services.
Its 2026/27 budget identified savings of around £4.4 million after a £4.446 million shortfall remained following the council-tax decision. Its approach includes service redesign, efficiencies, income generation and reviews of fees and charges.
There is nothing particularly revolutionary about that.
But there is an important lesson for Highland.
Fees and charges deserve the same scrutiny as expenditure.
A Council can save money by reducing what it spends.
But it can also make life more expensive by increasing charges.
Those two things should be considered together.
If a proposed charge raises £500,000 for the Council but costs thousands of residents more money, is that necessarily good policy?
Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't.
But the question should be asked.
Aberdeenshire is also doing something very practical as its cost-of-living support brings together information about money, food, fuel, housing, benefits, council tax and other help. It explicitly points out that people don't necessarily have to be unemployed or receiving benefits to qualify for some assistance.
Highland could potentially go further. Rather than residents having to discover different sources of help themselves, why not create a single Highland household cost-of-living service?
One place where people could check:
council tax support;
housing assistance;
energy-efficiency schemes;
benefits they may be missing;
transport concessions;
school-related assistance;
local food support;
debt and financial advice;
and grants or schemes for which they might qualify.
That doesn't necessarily require huge amounts of new money.
It could be about making better use of information that already exists.
And if the service helped people claim money they were already entitled to, it could pay for itself many times over.
Argyll and Bute has also recognised the importance of energy and its rural manifesto calls for a more progressive social energy tariff for people off the gas grid and greater investment in local energy systems.
That is particularly relevant to Highland because there are plenty of households outside the mains-gas network.
For those households, heating isn't simply an energy-policy question. It is a household-budget question. The Council cannot determine national energy prices. But it can potentially influence thinks like energy efficiency, insulation, council housing standards, local renewable-energy schemes, advice and the use of Council buildings and land.
And it can campaign for national policies that recognise the particular problems of rural households.
Roads are part of the cost of living too
This is an area where I think Highland should be more ambitious.
If someone living in Caithness has to drive considerable distances because there is no practical public transport alternative, fuel is effectively part of the household tax.
If roads are poorly maintained, vehicles face greater wear and tear. If public transport is unreliable, people need cars. If a road closes, the alternative journey may be many miles longer.
So when we talk about reducing the cost of living, we shouldn't restrict the discussion to council tax and rents.
The cost of getting to work, school, hospital and the shops matters too.
Aberdeenshire's decision to put an additional £1.88 million into road repairs is therefore worth noting.
For a rural council, roads are not simply an engineering service.
They are economic infrastructure.
But there is an important warning from Argyll and Bute. Argyll and Bute's budget discussions demonstrate just how difficult this becomes.
The Council has warned that its financial pressures could mean reductions in winter road maintenance, street sweeping, customer service points and other services. It also faces substantial transport and social-care costs.
This demonstrates something important.
There is no magic pot of money.
If a Council spends more on one thing, it generally has less available for another.
That means a serious cost-of-living strategy cannot simply be a list of things residents would like to receive.
It has to include the other side of the equation:
What are we prepared to stop doing, delay or do differently?
That is where politics becomes difficult.
Perhaps Highland should ask residents
One idea I particularly like is the concept of asking people directly where they think savings could be made.
Rather than councillors and officials assuming they know where every efficiency lies, Highland could ask residents:
If Highland Council had to save £10 million without reducing essential services, where would you look first?
Give people the opportunity to submit ideas.
Some would undoubtedly be impractical.
Some would be politically impossible.
Some would be unpopular.
But I suspect there would also be some very good suggestions.
And the Council could publish them.
That would turn the budget from something done to people into something done with them.
I know I has been tried but there is nothing like trying again. Highland already has the machinery
And this brings us back to the obvious response from Highland Council.
"We already do all this."
It has had the Redesign of Highland Council.
It has transformation programmes.
It has financial scrutiny.
It has savings programmes.
It has officers examining expenditure.
It has been making savings for years.
I accept that and the Council shouldn't need another committee called the "Cost of Living Committee".
That isn't the point.
The question is whether it should change the test applied to the savings and efficiencies it is already making. At present the principal question is understandably - How do we balance the Council's budget?
Perhaps another question should sit alongside it:
How do we reduce the financial burden on Highland households?
Those aren't necessarily the same thing.
What if the savings were partly returned to households?
Imagine Highland finds another £10 million of recurring savings.
Instead of automatically absorbing the entire amount into the Council's finances, councillors could consider whether part of it could be used to:
restrain council-tax increases;
reduce selected fees and charges;
support rural transport;
improve energy efficiency;
increase housing supply;
or provide some other measurable household benefit.
That would create a very different political conversation.
It would allow councillors to say, "We saved £10 million, and here is how residents benefited."
Rather than simply, "We saved £10 million, so the budget balances."
And perhaps this is where Andy Burnham comes back into the story - I don't think Highland should copy Greater Manchester.
It couldn't. The geography is completely different.
But Burnham's political approach raises a useful question.
Can government demonstrate its value through things people notice in their everyday lives?
For Highland, that might not mean a £2 bus fare.
It might mean a road that doesn't destroy your suspension.
A council house that costs less to heat.
A bus that actually gets you to work.
A parking charge that doesn't discourage you from visiting the town centre.
A house that a local worker can afford.
A council tax increase that is smaller because the Council found a genuine saving elsewhere.
These may sound like relatively small things.
But add them together and they become the cost of living.
Bill's view
I don't think Highland Council needs another committee to tell it that money is tight.
It already knows.
Nor do I think councillors can simply promise lower rents, lower council tax and cheaper services without explaining where the money will come from.
That would be irresponsible.
What I would like to see is something more challenging.
Take the work Highland Council is already doing on redesign and savings and put a household test alongside it.
Ask not only:
"Does this save the Council money?"
but also, "Does this make life cheaper, better or more secure for the people who live here?"
Other rural councils are already trying different approaches.
Argyll and Bute is campaigning for a much stronger rural settlement and better infrastructure.
Aberdeenshire is combining savings with additional road investment.
Moray is using service redesign, efficiency and fee reviews to deal with financial pressures.
Other rural and island authorities are making the case that remoteness itself creates additional costs that need to be recognised.
Highland can learn from all of them.
But perhaps it can go one step further.
What if Highland Council became the first Scottish council to make the cost of living an explicit test of its spending decisions?
Not: "How much can we cut?"
Not: "How much more can we charge?"
But: "How can we get the greatest possible benefit from every pound of public money while leaving Highland households with as much money as possible in their own pockets?"
That, to me, would be a genuine Highland version of the Andy Burnham approach.
And perhaps it is an idea worth discussing before the next council budget is written in stone.
Bill Fernie