Providing consistent service levels (ideally) – In principle, abolishing local government ought to result in service standards being set and delivered nationally. This ought to ensure the same levels of service across Wales without a “postcode lottery”.

Services such as education, social services, waste collection and highway maintenance can be harmonised, meaning any differences that exist between separate local councils at the moment will be gradually eliminated. For example, instead of having 22 different methods for collecting recycling, the same system can be adopted nationally, while any replacement/successor to council tax would be set nationally too.

The direction of travel is towards greater centralisation; it’s just more honest about it – The last century or so has seen local government giving up its responsibilities to, largely appointed, regional bodies and boards – whether through bureaucratic means (i.e. the creation of health boards and Police & Crime Commissioners) or through privatisation (i.e. the abolition of water, gas and electricity boards).

The benefit of having as many services controlled as locally as possible is that it compensates for issues such as poor transport links. Many of the services provided by local government in the 21st century, however, are now highly regulated and monitored, increasingly complex and expensive to deliver. All of this is in the age of the internet where geography and “place” increasingly matter less and less.

You could argue that many Welsh unitary authorities in Wales are now glorified local education authorities (education often makes up the vast majority of council spending each year) and social service departments with everything else either outsourced, understaffed or underresourced.

Meanwhile, it’s perfectly plausible that in light of pressures caused by delayed transfers from hospitals, social services and social care may in the future become a national service closely tied to the NHS.

It’s worth asking what local councils would be left to do in those circumstances and whether they need a separately elected body to deliver those services.

A single set of politicians and elections – If local government was hypothetically abolished then Members of the Senedd would take on responsibility for both national and local policy.

In a post-independence environment, that would mean being able to go to the same elected representative to ask for action on everything ranging from potholes right up to defence and foreign policy.

There could be area committees or alike where MSs effectively act as a county council within the Senedd. To compensate for the loss of local elections, Senedd elections could be held more frequently – possibly every three years rather than four or five.

Having one set of elected representatives would clear up any confusion over who does what, which means simplified decision-making, accountability and scrutiny.

Loss of local autonomy and local democracy – There’s a sentimental side to this argument; people may like the idea of having a local ward councillor/councillors as a voice for their neighbourhood but might not be too fond of their local council.

There’s a risk that by centralising all political power in a single legislature based in Cardiff, you turn all politics into a full-time profession (even though it’s gone a long way towards that anyway). You lose the community connection and civic-mindedness that local councils (particularly community councils) provide a platform for.

Handing too much power to the central government over daily life and budget-setting is also a risk for several reasons: local issues may end up falling down the pecking order or not be addressed in any meaningful way at all; the central government and political parties become too powerful; local decision-making may be hived off to appointed bureaucrats who owe their positions to toeing the central government’s line.

One size doesn’t fit all – The whole point of local government is to enable communities to set their own priorities and act on them based on local needs and local knowledge; a rural area is going to have very different needs from a city.

We already have an issue in Wales where it’s claimed some areas are more favoured than others – whether it’s capital spending on infrastructure or political influence. Can you imagine what would happen if there was little to no local decision-making whatsoever?

It’s likely that in such a scenario sparsely-populated rural areas wouldn’t get a look in at all, politically. It would all be about winning Senedd elections and setting priorities based on that. Services that a local council may have fought to retain or get the money for will just be another line on the spreadsheet that can be taken out willy-nilly.

It wouldn’t save that much money – You would expect “saving money” would probably be the top argument for abolishing local government or local councils but, on balance, it wouldn’t save that much.

The only money that would be saved is expenses relating to councillors – totalling perhaps £20-25million a year – or expenses relating to local democracy. As a share of total local government spending each year it’s a tiny fraction, probably less than 0.004%.

Even if local councils were consigned to the dustbin, the services they provide wouldn’t disappear: schools, rubbish collections, social care, planning, licensing, leisure services, highways etc. Frontline staff and managers would move from being employed by local councils to being employed by the Welsh Government; that raises a whole number of issues by itself (more on that later).

Additionally, while a bit of money would be saved by “getting rid of councillors”, it would probably be offset by the increased costs of having more Senedd members and more Senedd staff.