IT is a tale of two worlds – as far apart as you can imagine. In one we have a single-bedroom, refurbished flat in Govanhill, Glasgow, with a price tag of offers over £49,500. In the other is a 775-room palace with 78 bathrooms which will be refurbished over the next 10 years at a cost to the taxpayer of £369 million.

The refurbishment of Buckingham Palace – which will start next April if Parliament approves the spending – has been described by officials as “essential”. Miles of electrical cabling and pipes will be replaced, along with enough flooring to cover more than three football pitches, 500 toilets and sinks, 1,500 doors and 6,500 electrical sockets.

Palace officials briefed journalists on Friday and were at pains to try to justify the spending, but when asked how they thought the public would react, one hoped “it will appeal to their sense of nationhood”.

The plan comes as austerity continues to blight many parts of the country, there is a national housing crisis and endemic problems in the NHS. By last night more than 51,000 people had signed an online petition calling for the royal family to pay for the renovations themselves.

Govanhill has some of the highest levels of deprivation in Scotland, with a highly-diverse population and where 42 languages are spoken. But the sense of community is strong. As head of the Govanhill Baths Community Trust, Jim Monaghan knows all too well the problems of trying to refurbish a dilapidated building in the midst of run-down housing.

“With that kind of money you could open a public swimming baths in every area that needs one, for a start,” he said. “I’m not averse to heritage buildings being maintained, but this seems extremely expensive for 775 rooms when they only live in a handful of them.

“You could probably solve the whole of Scotland’s homelessness crisis with the same money and worry about Buckingham Palace getting a bit ramshackle at a later date. It is a shocking figure at a time of austerity, when places like Govanhill and many other parts of the country are completely run down. People probably can’t afford to live in London yet they do the ordinary, everyday jobs that keep it going. The city has been virtually cleared out of social housing and it seems remarkable that this is a priority.

“We fight and fight for every penny we get at Govanhill Baths and it is miniscule amounts by comparison – and that’s to serve 15,000 people not an extended family of 50 or whatever.”

He added that what irritated him most was the suggestion that the work was required to prevent the need for “potential” repairs in the future.

“If you’re living in a flat in Govanhill and your electricity has gone out and you’ve got a dodgy landlord, you might have to wait weeks without hot water for somebody to come and fix it. But that was one striking thing when they announced it – that this was not about urgent repairs, it was all about what might become urgent repairs later.

“If the plumbing is dodgy in 40 of the bedrooms, or if you can’t switch the lights on in some of them, it doesn’t really matter because most of them aren’t used anyway.

“There is money spent on heritage projects and buildings, but public access is written in as part and parcel of it. People can go in and see what they’ve paid for, but Buckingham Palace isn’t available to the public – they can only see it from outside.”

Victoria Road, in Govanhill, is much like any other busy urban street in Scotland, with its fair share of convenience shops, bookies, hairdressers and solicitors’ offices.And last night there was little support for the palace’s refurbishment.

Jacqui Stockdale suggested the Queen offload some of her jewellery to pay for it: “It’s ridiculous spending all that money on what is a dilapidated, crumbling old building when the rest of the country’s in the state it’s in with people living in damp, uninhabitable conditions, and others completely without homes.

“The royal family should never have let it get into the state it’s in with leaking pipes, ancient plumbing and electrics. They should have been doing what the rest of us have to do and pay for repairs as they come along – I don’t see why we should have to pay for it.

“The Queen’s got more material possessions than she knows what to do with. Why can’t they take some of her crowns or other jewellery and raise money by putting them all on show?

“People are having to work at jobs without proper contracts, on low pay and with no pensions and this money would be better spent trying to correct some of that.”

Phil Murray described it as a waste of money: “The cash could probably do quite a bit in an area like this but it’s not going to be spent here. Of course she should be paying for it herself, but instead they’re putting her wages up for the 10 years it’ll take – the royals really are a waste of money.”

Daniel, who didn’t want to give his surname, suggested that priorities should be changed: “I don’t mind them spending that money on the palace, but I don’t think we should be paying for it and they should make sure they have their priorities right and spend an equal amount on other things too.

“It’s all about getting priorities right. There’s nothing wrong with spending money on Buckingham Palace – it’s a tourist attraction after all – but you obviously have to think about other people’s homes first.”

Allison Thewliss, SNP cities spokesperson, said: “For too long, too many people have been suffering from Tory welfare policy which hits the poorest the hardest. Many will find it difficult to grasp how, at a time of austerity and economic uncertainty, the Tory government has found £370 million to refurbish Buckingham Palace.”