Briefing

Pride in Place: the scale of the challenge in Scotland

The Government’s Pride in Place programme has now allocated £480 million to high-need neighbourhoods across Scotland, over the next decade, but coordinated investment is needed to address the scale of need.

You are currently reading:

1. Introduction

Scotland’s geography, history and politics mean that postcodes are a powerful determinant of poverty. The conditions for a decent life can be much harder to access, depending on where you live. Poverty can happen anywhere, but it thrives in towns and villages with industries destroyed by remote economic forces, rural communities facing depopulation, and inner cities and new towns hamstrung by decades of disastrous urban planning and political failure.

That is why interventions to regenerate places and create good jobs, delivered well and grounded in a mission to improve the lives of people living in an area, can be so impactful. They have the potential to solve specific problems that hold whole communities back and unlock new opportunities for people living in poverty. The UK Government’s Pride in Place Programme (PiPP) is its flagship regeneration policy which will see 24 towns and neighbourhoods across Scotland receive £20 million to spend over 10 years¹.

We have explored the allocation methodology for PiPP as a route to help us understand where deprivation and low levels of social infrastructure are concentrated in Scotland. Our findings illustrate the scale of the challenge facing policymakers in Westminster, Holyrood, and councils who want to deliver visible, meaningful change in these communities. We have found that:

While PiPP funding is welcome, this investment is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of need. Using the UK Government’s allocation methodology, which combines traditional deprivation measures with metrics on social infrastructure, we identified the 256 most high-need intermediate zones in Scotland. 1.1 million people — around 20% of the population — live in these deprived zones with limited access to community spaces, activities and services that help people feel secure and connected to their local community.
PiPP funds neighbourhoods, each of which contain multiple intermediate zones. Funding to 24 neighbourhoods will support 60 of these intermediate zones. This means that 196 zones with deprivation and community need scores in the bottom 20% in Scotland, home to approximately 860,000 people, will not receive dedicated funding through PiPP. This includes several zones that have lower scores on the combined measure than those that have received funding.
High-need intermediate zones are found in 27 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities, with particularly high concentrations in Glasgow and North Ayrshire. Areas in Inverclyde, South Ayrshire and Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar are also facing significant challenges.
There is an urgent need for further investment and better strategic coordination across local, Westminster, and Holyrood governments.

Families in every place in Scotland want to be proud of where they live and feel positive about their local area. We would like to see our analysis inform implementation of PiPP, which has the potential to make a difference for a limited number of communities, and any future phases of the programme for Scotland.

But we also want the UK Government, Scottish Government and councils to get serious about coordinated investment in regeneration at scale. There are more and more initiatives, whether city/region deals, local growth deals, Regional Economic Partnerships and now Pride in Place that are being layered on top of each other, with little obvious analysis of what their collective impact is or whether they are cognisant of each other.

2. Prioritising community need in deprived areas

From 2025/26, in Phase 1 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025a) of the Pride in Place Programme (previously the Plan for Neighbourhoods), £1.5 billion was made available for regeneration in 75 towns across the UK (58 in England, 10 in Scotland, 5 in Wales, and 2 in Northern Ireland). This funding delivers on commitments made under the previous Government’s Long-Term Plan for Towns.

From 2026/27, Phase 2 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025b) will fund an additional 169 neighbourhoods (£20 million each over 10 years) to deliver a wide range of regeneration projects (146 in England, 14 in Scotland and 9 in Wales).

Phase 2 funding in Scotland is allocated by the UK Government through multiple stages, with the first stage scoring intermediate zones² (areas of around 2,500 to 6,000 people) using a combined measure of socio-economic deprivation and community need, derived from the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and the Scottish Community Needs Index (SCNI).

In the calculation, community need is given greater weight (75:25 relative to SIMD), reflecting the programme’s focus on strengthening social infrastructure. Each local authority area is then ranked based on their combined score. Neighbourhoods (which consist of multiple intermediate zones) within these authorities are then selected, provided they do not already benefit from Phase 1 funding.³ Selection is limited to 1 place per any UK parliamentary constituency⁴ and is informed by evidence from local stakeholders.

Compared to the methodology used in England, we welcome this broader focus on social infrastructure. Some places that are deprived by traditional area-based measures (such as the SIMD) have a vibrant community spirit, beloved civic assets, and a flourishing third sector which acts as a critical safety net and delivers locally-grown solutions to mitigate some of the worst effects of poverty.

But the odds have been stacked against these efforts during austerity. Poverty is deeper and more entrenched where social infrastructure is weakest (Local Trust, 2026), and the same infrastructure can be a lifeline for economic security (Ibison and Hunter, 2026). Too often, places without these resources can fall through the cracks of regeneration efforts.

This 75:25 weighting also broadens the focus beyond traditional deprivation metrics, which are often concentrated in urban areas, and increases the likelihood that rural areas with weaker social infrastructure are captured.

Using the combined need measure, we identify the 256 most high-need intermediate zones in Scotland which cover 1.1 million people — around 20% of the population. High-need intermediate zones are found in 27 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities demonstrating the scale of need across the country. At least 1 of these intermediate zones are present in 82% (47 out of 57) of UK parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. A full list of intermediate zones, their combined need rankings and supporting information can be found below.

Replicating the UK Government’s methodology shows us that need is concentrated in certain local authorities. For example, 47 (35%) of Glasgow City’s intermediate zones rank highly on both deprivation and weak social infrastructure. Key examples include built up urban areas like Govanhill, Ibrox, and Easterhouse. The vast majority of deprived intermediate zones in North Ayrshire (28 out of 32 or 84%) also have weak social infrastructure, including rural communities such as Springside and Dalry East.

Only 6 local authorities contain only one high-need intermediate zone, and Argyll and Bute, The Shetland Islands, East Renfrewshire, Scottish Borders and East Lothian contain none.

When considering UK parliamentary constituencies, there are several that stand out as needing urgent support: ‘North Ayrshire and Arran’, Central Ayrshire , Renfrewshire West, and ‘Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock’. Despite being a relatively small constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar in the Western Isles also sticks out, with 5 of its 9 (56%) intermediate zones ranking highly.

Overall, these different geographical patterns demonstrate that high-need areas can be found across the country but there is a stark geographical divide, with intermediate zones in the old Strathclyde region tending to experience more combined need compared to the Highlands and Islands, the North East, Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders.

While the combined index is useful for identifying intermediate zones that may face certain challenges, it is important to consider the limitations of how need is being measured. As with every index, SIMD and SCNI ranks do not tell you the absolute level of need in any one place. Geography-based measures can easily hide deprivation if the next street within the same boundary is less deprived — especially given the relatively large size of neighbourhoods used by the UK Government. Smaller units would provide more local context, as pockets of need might remain unseen within more wealthier areas, and vice versa.

Taking Dundee City — with the third highest child poverty rate in Scotland — as an example, local context and existing evidence would suggest there are many small areas of deprivation throughout the local authority that have not been captured by the measure (only 3 intermediate zones in Dundee City fell within the bottom 20% of need and no funding has been provided).

These limitations notwithstanding, the Government has used this combined index as the basis for allocating funding with some additional steps that go some way towards addressing these gaps.

Phase 2 funding coverage

Phase 2 funding has been allocated to 14 neighbourhoods, consisting of 53 intermediate zones. These neighbourhoods have been selected based on their level of combined need and qualitative evidence presented by local stakeholders, while also excluding places already benefiting from earlier Phase 1 town-level funding. We identify an intermediate zone as high need if it fell within the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of the combined measure.

Funding among high-need areas:

of the 256 high-need intermediate zones, 33 (13%) received Phase 2 funding, covering roughly 130,000 people
an additional 27 intermediate zones (11%) are associated with towns that received Phase 1 funding with around 120,000 people
this leaves 196 intermediate zones (77%), home to approximately 860,000 people, without any dedicated funding, despite being among the places with the highest levels of combined community need and deprivation in the country.

Funding outwith the highest-need areas:

20 intermediate zones will receive Phase 2 funding despite not falling within the most deprived quintile of intermediate zones (IZs)
most of these (12) are in the second quintile, 3 are in the third, 4 in the fourth and 1 in the fifth and least deprived quintile.

Variation across local authorities:

In almost every local authority in Scotland (excluding Aberdeen City), fewer than half of all high-need intermediate zones have received Phase 1 or Phase 2 funding, meaning the majority remain unsupported.
Highest coverage: Aberdeen City (3 out of 4, 75%), East Ayrshire (8 out of 18, 44%), both Na h‑Eileanan Siar and Highland (2 out of 5, 40% respectively), and North Ayrshire (12 out of 32, 38%).
Lowest coverage: Glasgow City (5 out of 47, 11%), Dumfries and Galloway and South Lanarkshire (both 1 out of 8, 13%), and Falkirk (2 out of 14, 14%) have the lowest proportions funded. Notably, Glasgow City has the largest number of high-need intermediate zones overall, yet only around 1 in 10 have received funding. This reflects the SCNI weighting’s intentional redistribution of investment away from urban concentrations and towards need across a broader range of communities.

3. Merits of methodology and delivery challenges

The allocation methodology broadly follows the approach used in England, but distinct design choices have been made to adapt it to a Scottish context, such as the additional weighting for social infrastructure outlined above. The allocation methodology for Scotland has therefore avoided some of the pitfalls that have been identified in England (Hunter and Ibison, 2026).

A particular strength is the inclusion of engagement with local stakeholders within the allocation process, which was not part of the process in England. Alongside the quantitative ranking process, local MPs and MSPs, the Scottish Government and community organisations were invited to provide evidence to inform neighbourhood selection. Stakeholders were asked to highlight factors such as industrial decline, legislative impacts, community-led regeneration activity, and existing government programmes targeting regeneration.

This qualitative evidence was considered alongside the combined need rankings when identifying neighbourhoods for funding. Incorporating stakeholder input helps provide important hyperlocal context that may not be capture with national datasets and need matrices. However, it does not fully resolve the limitations associated with relying on composite indices such as the SCNI. These indices combined a wide range of indicators into a single metric, which can hide important differences between places and make it more difficult to identify solutions that respond to the distinct need of individual communities.

Because PiPP was originally designed around Middle Super Output Area (MSOA)-sized neighbourhoods, Scottish neighbourhoods have been constructed by combining multiple contiguous IZs in order to approximate a similar population size.

In more urban areas, such as Glasgow and Aberdeen, this makes relatively little difference, as the selected neighbourhoods still closely resemble recognisable communities (such as walkable areas of around 15 minutes, or areas aligned with electoral wards or school catchment areas).

In rural areas, however, neighbourhoods can cover much larger geographic areas. For example, the Pride in Place neighbourhood in Highland stretches across an area that would take approximately 1.5-2 hours to drive from coast to coast, despite having a population of only 7,723.

Given the tight timescales for initial planning in the 24 selected communities, there are risks to successful delivery of the programme, particularly in ensuring that plans are genuinely community led. This takes significant local time, skills and capacity, and the large geographies selected in Na h-Eileanan Siar and Highland, may make coordination more challenging.

More broadly, the scale of need identified in this analysis — and the limited impact of the Pride in Place programme in this context — clearly demonstrates the need for further regeneration investment in Scotland. Our recent report (Evans, 2026) on understanding local labour markets across Scotland has also highlighted the stark challenges in specific areas, with much more effort needed to create good jobs locally, and design employment support and investment accordingly.

Regeneration and economic development needs to be strengthened and simplified. There should be a clear mandate to consolidate and agree what each agency is ultimately responsible for, what outcomes they are measured against, and what happens if those outcomes are not met. Clearly high-quality quantitative data will be required, but it is equally important that plans are directly shaped by people living in communities with high levels of deprivation.

This more strategic approach should simplify the funding landscape for regeneration, and give local government more freedom to identify priorities, work with the communities they serve, collaborate across council boundaries, and drive progress at scale.

The obvious truth is that delivering change will require much more, and much better, coordination between the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local authorities. The administration of PiPP, and the parallel Local Growth Fund, have been examples of a dysfunctional dynamic between Westminster, Holyrood and local government in this space. This dysfunction serves no one, not least the people living in the communities who need support the most.

People living in Scotland’s poorest communities deserve a more serious effort from the governments that represent them, which will help ensure that every penny of desperately needed extra funding is spent well, and that all of Scotland’s places have the chance to thrive. Devolution is 27 years old, it is about time all tiers of government in Scotland put aside differences, concentrate on what they agree on, and work much more closely together to the benefit of the communities that they are all elected to serve.

Notes

Through PiPP Phase 1 (previously the Plan for Neighbourhoods), £200 million has been made available for regeneration in 10 Scottish towns over 10 years, beginning in 2025/26. From 2026/27, Phase 2 will see up to £280 million shared among 14 neighbourhoods in 12 Scottish local authorities over the next decade. A further £12 million has also been made available through the Pride in Place Impact Fund for 8 local authorities over 2 years, starting in 2025/26. Decision making in each selected community will be steered by a neighbourhood board including residents, the local MP, the council, businesses and community organisations.
For the purposes of identifying high-need areas and allocating funding, the Government has defined ‘neighbourhoods’ as consisting of multiple mid-level statistical geographies known as Intermediate Zone (IZs). IZs contain around 2,500-6,000 people and there are 1,279 IZs in total across Scotland (2011 boundaries). IZs are widely used in spatial analysis for identifying neighbourhood-level influences, including those related to deprivation and poverty. Conceptually, IZs are similar to MSOAs in England, broadly comparable in scale to electoral wards and align with how people think about a neighbourhood: an area that can typically be walked across in 15 minutes, with the exception of very rural settings. Their similarity to electoral wards also has practical relevance, reflecting the areas people recognise through things like school catchments and political representation. IZs are typically smaller and less densely populated than MSOAS. Because PiPP was originally designed around MSOA-sized neighbourhoods, Scottish neighbourhoods have been constructed by combining multiple adjacent IZs in order to approximate a similar population size.
Phase 2 is directed at local neighbourhoods within towns and so encompasses much smaller populations between (5,000 to 15,000 people). By contrast, Phase 1 distributed a similar allocation (£20 million) across a broader set of towns with larger populations (between 5,000 and 75,000 people).
However, one exception is the neighbourhood in West Lothian, which spans both the Bathgate and Linlithgow and the Livingston constituencies.