Devolution – it's a dirty word.

Especially now we all associate it with a bunch of grinning Scots waving the Scottish flag and giving their best Braveheart impressions.

We've spent the past 700 years drumming misery into those north of the border; why should we allow the dour Jocks to have a smile on their faces?

Is it not better to follow the lead of William the Conqueror, Edward I and the Duke of Cumberland and slap down this uprising, keeping those north of the border as subservient lap dogs?

After all, they'd be bankrupt without the support of England, right?

It's an argument that could be taken straight out of an 18th-century pamphlet at the time of Bonnie Prince Charlie 250 years after his crushing defeat at Culloden and the arrogant Westminster elite remain set in their ways – we know what works best for Scotland and everywhere else for that matter.

But it finally seems as if change is on the horizon.

Letting go of something is never easy; especially if you're a politician who has spent years working your way up to gain control of something, anything.

But after years of keeping power away from local people – it seems as though the Government finally gets it.

In his first speech after the election, Chancellor George Osborne has laid out plans to give English cities powers over housing, transport, planning and policing. In summary, he said that Manchester should become a blueprint for other large cities as he proceeds with his plans for a “Northern Powerhouse”.

On paper it looks like a good move.

Having grown up in Greater Manchester, I can tell you that even though it's made up of a series of towns and boroughs, no one knows where one bit starts and another ends. And surrounding it are natural barriers called the Pennines, Saddleworth Moor and the Peak District. Sound familiar?

That’s because it's not too dissimilar to the Greater Brighton area – that being the area from Arun to the Ouse, encompassing Worthing, Adur, Brighton, Hove and Newhaven (among others).

With transport links crossing borders, people freely move from area to area for education, employment or enjoyment.

For instance, up north I was born in Rochdale, went to school in Oldham and spent large amounts of my free time in the city or in Tameside.

So when asked where I’m from, my answer is the same – Manchester.

But despite this crossover being common, at the moment every town has its own decision makers to run things.

It’s complicated to understand, leads to a lot of duplication and, quite frankly, it's an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money.

So that's why the Chancellor's announcement has been greeted with such enthusiasm, especially at a time when town halls are facing unprecedented cuts to funding.

With one person or body in charge, the whole area should benefit from a more strategic top-down approach.

If they want a run-down area regenerated, then they just have to click their fingers; if they feel as though a new road is needed, then it will be put to the top of the list; if they want to declare a beauty spot as a conservation area, then their will shall be done.

Previously, these things took months, sometimes years of behind-the-scenes haggling to get people on board before they actually got going.

But now, there could be no excuse.

The sad thing is that it's taken so long to hand over power to our cities.

Ever since Waterloo, Britain has been focused on the urban.

In hindsight our cities should have been given greater powers when the Great Reform Act of 1832 gave the majority of men a vote and places like Manchester representation in Parliament.

But, as has been commonplace in the UK throughout the last 200 years, conservatism (with a small c) has ruled out any further radical change.

This means the UK is way behind many other powerhouse countries across the world. Our politicians’ obsession with Westminster and London is cringey.

Some believe what Boy George is actually doing is quite clever.

Hand over control of powers to local councils and giving them responsibility for big decisions; then provide them with little money to enact change.

If it fails then he can draw a line under it all and claim that everyone was better off under the original system. If it works, well then he's a political genius who can take all the credit while pointing to a reduction in public spending.

There's never been a better time to brush down the previously dirty word of devolution and give it a fresh try.