JONATHAN BROCKLEBANK: I have defended it for decades but even I can’t deny my dear Glasgow has become a drug den, a neglected midden…
In this opinion piece, Daily Mail columnist Jonathan Brocklebank reflects on Glasgow's decline, admitting that despite decades of defending the city against its critics, he can no longer deny that it has deteriorated into what he describes as a "drug den" and a "neglected midden". The piece reads as a personal reckoning from a long-standing champion of the city, suggesting that visible drug use, disorder and civic neglect have become too pronounced to overlook or excuse any longer.
The full text of the article was not available beyond its headline and introduction, so further specific details, statistics or examples cited by the author could not be confirmed. The piece appears to be a personal, opinion-led commentary rather than a straight news report, reflecting the columnist's own observations and feelings about changes in Glasgow's streets and public spaces.
- Columnist says he can no longer defend Glasgow's decline
- Describes city as a "drug den" and "neglected midden"
- Opinion piece reflects a personal change of heart
New here? Start with this
Glasgow has long had a reputation as a city that inspires fierce loyalty in those who live there, even as it grapples with well-documented social problems including drug use, poverty and urban decay in parts of the city centre and beyond. Scotland has for years recorded some of the highest drug death rates in Europe, and Glasgow has often been at the centre of that public health issue, with visible signs of addiction and disorder in certain streets and public spaces.
This piece comes from a newspaper columnist who has written in defence of Glasgow over many years, responding to criticism of the city from outsiders. The article marks a personal shift in tone, with the writer suggesting that problems they had previously played down or excused now feel too significant to ignore.
Pieces like this reflect one individual's opinion and experience rather than official statistics or new findings, but they matter because they can shape and reflect wider public conversation about how a major UK city is perceived, and about the state of urban decline, drug policy and civic investment in Scotland.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who share the columnist's bleak assessment argue that visible drug use, street homelessness, boarded-up shopfronts and litter-strewn public spaces in parts of Glasgow are simply too widespread to be waved away as media exaggeration or unfair stereotyping. They would say that acknowledging hard truths, however painful for civic pride, is the first step towards demanding better from councils and government, and that continuing to defend the city uncritically only lets those responsible for public services off the hook. For them, honesty about decline is an act of care for the city, not an attack on it.
The case against
Those who resist this framing would argue that reducing a complex, historic city of over half a million people to a single columnist's gloomy impression risks unfairly stigmatising residents, businesses and communities who are working hard and living ordinary, decent lives. They would point out that visible drug and poverty issues are heavily concentrated in specific areas and are symptoms of deep-rooted austerity, deindustrialisation and health inequalities rather than evidence of the city's essential character, and that sweeping narratives of decay can deter investment, tourism and civic confidence in a self-fulfilling way. For them, defending Glasgow's resilience and cultural vibrancy is not denial but a necessary counterweight to reductive caricature.