An experiment takes place at the office: close your eyes and think of Glasgow. Who is the first person who comes to mind? Be it from television, sport, politics or the arts. Anyone who in your mind represents the city.
In fact, I encourage you to do the same thing right now...
Eyes open, the answers are in.
Someone says Billy Connolly. Then Alex Ferguson. Connolly again. And of course, CSP senior client manager John Cumming.
Nobody chooses a politician.
Now do the same for Manchester. I suspect the answer is far more consistent.
Andy Burnham has become, for better or worse, synonymous with Manchester.
He is the city's most recognisable voice. And now that he is prime minister, the whole world hears that voice. But what's in a voice?
It is not always enough for a representative to say what you need them to say. To represent a city, they need to understand how it sees itself: what makes it tick, what it is proud of, what it sounds like, and what it should become.
Burnham was not just an appointed mascot. After years in office, he learnt how to speak the city – he sounds as though he belongs to Manchester.
I'm not necessarily talking about accent, though it does go a long way in creating connection. As a Yorkshireman in Edinburgh, I'm more than aware of the way your accent can be perceived. If Burnham comes across as the friendly chap you might bump into in the pub, there is a reason for that.
What it's really about is cadence, charisma and connection. It is someone who can read the city and then make it legible to everybody else.
But this isn't an argument for a mayor like Burnham, because a mayor is a representation of a city, and Burnham is a good representation of Manchester. Glasgow doesn't need Burnham; it needs the visibility and political heft that someone like Burnham provides. And it needs someone to embody the specific attributes of the city.
All of this is a big ask, and it comes with an obvious caveat.
The UK prime minister does not have the power to make local government changes in Scotland. The Scottish Government has no obligation to replicate the elected-mayoral system, and there is understandable resistance to the idea that Scotland should simply import another layer of government.
Nor is there really much public clamour for a mayor of the Glasgow City Region.
But the point is not whether Glasgow wants a “mayor”; it is that Glasgow needs stronger, more coordinated leadership. The city needs the things a mayor can provide: a long-term agenda, a democratic mandate, the ability to convene businesses and councils, to negotiate with Holyrood and Westminster. Someone who can really sell Glasgow to investors, visitors and governments abroad.
Call them a mayor, provost, commissioner or whatever you like. The constitutional label is less important than the functions.
Basically, someone to steer the ship. And if it doesn't work, someone who can ultimately be held responsible.
I think that is where representation needs to meet power. A representative without power is largely theatre.
I was reminded of this two years ago when I sent a postal vote from Edinburgh to North Yorkshire. For the first time, the region was electing a mayor, David Skaith. He was hardly a household name; I couldn't have told you much about him beyond the fact he was a local businessman.
Granted, he doesn't quite have Burnham's pizzazz. But I have come to understand what he does for the region. He has a mandate to speak for North Yorkshire. Seeing him at King Burnham's roundtable of Northern Knights, I certainly felt that representation met power.
That is the bit Glasgow region is missing. Not that it lacks politicians. Eight councils, MSPs, MPs, ministers from Scotland's focal point, all holding great interest in the city. The task is to find just one person who can connect political authority with personality.
Centre for Cities has made the case that Glasgow is now the only large UK metropolis without a devolution settlement or an elected leader. That a large city needs a recognisable voice, with the power to back it.
I agree, but my case is this: no further powers should simply be stripped from councils, whose own remits have already shrunk since the reconvening of the parliament. If we are serious about subsidiarity, power cannot only flow down from Westminster. Holyrood needs to be willing to trust the people closest to the city.
That means finding someone who can do more than occupy an office. Someone charismatic enough to command attention, local enough to understand the city, and powerful enough to turn that understanding into action.
A civic leader would not just represent Glasgow but embody it.
People make Glasgow. Sometimes a person can make others notice.
So, let's re-run the experiment five years down the road.
Close your eyes and think of Glasgow.
I wonder whose face will come to mind.