As with most things in local politics, it comes down to money.

Whether Cosla will push threatening brown envelopes through the letterboxes of former colleagues in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire on April 1 remains to be seen, but the message is clear: disloyalty has a price. Cosla is prepared to put a cash figure, potentially running into millions of pounds, on what it deems to be betrayal.

The fact that the dissenting council quartet styling themselves the Scottish Local Government Partnership (SLGP) are Labour-controlled is no accident, of course. While they might not appreciate jokes about declarations of independence, their decision to break from Cosla has deep (if tangled) political roots. Nevertheless, the practical upshot is an impending turf war between a long-established association and a new rival. Emotions are running high. Scores are being settled. But before things get too far out of hand, a simple question: who really benefits?

Cosla might not care for a "competitor organisation". It might yet lodge a bill for services rendered and past benefits enjoyed. The SLGP, already out of patience with the association, might regard that as the last straw. If an attempt is then made to ease it out of meetings with government, it might be tempted to display its own muscle. Any chance of a rapprochement might evaporate for good. Then where will we be?

As the members of the partnership should know as well as anyone, local government is evolving fast, of necessity, in the face of central government demands. The SLGP members are already embedded in relationships with 28 other councils that cannot easily be severed, and nor should they be severed. A sharing of resources and expertise is required, not a civil war.

There is common ground, thus far, over the issue of collective bargaining with staff, but far bigger challenges await. As the Accounts Commission pointed out recently, Scotland's councils are dealing with the impact of welfare reform, with changes in health and social care, and with the needs of community planning. Then, always, there is the huge, punishing toll of austerity on finances and, if local authorities fail to work together, on services.

In whatever permutation, Scottish local government has faced and will face some tough times. Money is tight and destined to grow tighter. This is surely reason enough for councils to co-operate rather than stand at daggers drawn because of political differences. Few council taxpayers will understand those. In the present climate, very few are likely to forgive the combatants their self-indulgence.