THE human cost of council budget cuts will be laid bare in the weeks ahead, it has been claimed, as local authorities grudgingly sign up to the Scottish Government's controversial all-or-nothing finance deal.
Councils had been given until the end of Tuesday to agree a package of demands set out by John Swinney and by the close of play it is understood most had signed up.
But there have been warnings the starting pistol will be fired on thousands of job cuts and reductions to core services such as care and education as councils attempt to balance their books in light of the settlement.
The country's biggest council, Glasgow, said that while it had no option but the accept the deal it still had legal concerns over aspects of the package, while North Lanarkshire's leadership accused ministers of handing local government a "Hobson's Choice" which was "reminiscent of Mrs Thatcher's attacks via capping and poll tax".
Edinburgh formally accepted its deal on February 4, with leader of the Labour/SNP coalition authority Andrew Burns claiming "such punitive financial penalties make a mockery of any semblance of a belief in local democracy".
The Scottish Government confirmed every council to have responded has indicated they will accept the deal which comes on the back of £500million cuts to council budgets.
But senior local government figures have said any sense of victory in pushing the deal through would be shortlived as councils begin set trimmed budgets.
The source said: "Swinney has been under a huge amount of pressure on this issue. Today was only really a technical deadline which all councils had no option but to accept.
"But Swinney only has a very short window of a breathing space. Once councils set their budgets in the weeks ahead the cuts they make will be blamed on him. Council leaders will point the finger at him if they have to sack classroom assistants or home carers."
An internal document by council umbrella body Cosla said: "What member councils have been highlighting is that there will inevitably be a reduction in the services councils can provide and alongside this significant job losses.
"Of particular concern is the impact that this will have on the most vulnerable in our society as it is these individuals and families that are the most reliant on the services local government provides."
Mr Swinney previously warned that a failure to agree to both a council tax and teacher numbers freeze as well as new social care plans would see a council lose out on their share of the combined £400million to deliver the Government policies.
One authority, Inverclyde, has threatened a judicial review of the sanctions proposed by the Scottish Government.
The Herald understands several Labour-led council bosses did hold discussions about potential legal avenues to thwart the deal and some councils still support the threat of legal action.
But after failing to identify a legal route that would derail the settlement they have reluctantly agreed to sign up.
Glasgow leader Frank McAveety said: "I’ve had legal advice on that. I believe that the sanctions proposed by John Swinney could be illegal and if he goes beyond what we recognise to be legal sanctions we will be prepared to take him to court to preserve services for the people of Glasgow."
But the leader of the SNP group of councils on COSLA said not all member local authorities were opposed to the deal.
North Ayrshire's Willie Gibson said: "Around a third of councils on Cosla have not accepted the position being made public [by it] in increasingly extreme statements.
"There are elements within the SNP on Cosla very very unhappy with the financial situation but these are difficult times, there are more to come and we need to work together with the Government."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We recognise the pressures on budgets across the whole of the public sector, and in households throughout Scotland, which is why it is important to maintain the council tax freeze while we consider ways to replace it, as well as reimbursing local authorities to ensure they can continue to provide essential services.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel