THE rancour in the civil war engulfing Scottish local government has been laid bare as moves to thwart a newly-formed council organisation at birth emerge.
Leaked plans show how the body representing the vast majority of councils intends to pursue four rebel authorities for seven-figure liabilities, bill it for hundreds of thousands of pounds for negotiating on its behalf and cold-shouldering it over areas of mutual interest.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) has also been lobbying civil servants to exclude the new Scottish Local Government Partnership (SLGP) from any forums where it would be speaking on behalf of its councils, adding: "We have been successful so far."
There are already indications the row will end up in legal action, with senior SLGP sources claiming it is prepared for court rather than pay.
In a paper to its leadership tomorrow, Cosla describes the SLGP as "a competitor organisation who will not always have the good of our members at the front of their minds" and lays bare its desire to hammer across the negatives on leaving its organisation.
Aberdeen, Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, all Labour-run, announced their intention to quit Cosla last year following rows over where the power lies within the organisation, how funding to local authorities is distributed and the overall effectiveness of the body.
The paper claims that by "portraying themselves as having parity of status with Cosla while encouraging other members to join them" the SLGP is undermining Cosla.
Plans of attack include chasing the four for contributions to Cosla's ongoing running costs, with a request for cash running into potentially millions lodged on April 1.
Predicting refusal to pay, it says chasing the money "is one of the ways in which Cosla must demonstrate that there is a real downside to leaving Cosla".
During collective bargaining with unions the paper recommends treating the breakaway group as still in the fold but charging them "a figure closer to hundreds of pounds rather than thousands of pounds" for use of their services.
It throws out working on areas of mutual interest, claiming "they should not have left", raising concerns of "passing on sensitive, valuable information" to organisations where representatives may also work with one of the four councils.
On the SLGP being treated as an equal, the paper states: "Leaders must to indicate whether they would be prepared to say to either the Westminster or Scottish Government or any other partner that they can either have Cosla representing 28 councils or the partnership representing four but they cannot have both."
A Cosla spokesman refused to comment on the report, claiming it was "private and confidential".
But he then added: "What else would the four who chose to leave expects us to do.
"It was them that decided to walk away, we have played ball throughout this whole episode and the door has always been left open for a return. All we are doing now is preparing our 28 members for life going forward without the four that have chosen to leave.
"I would be surprised if anyone was surprised at us doing what any professional membership organisation would do in such circumstances."
Jenny Laing, leader of the SLGP cabinet, said: "We will be playing a constructive role in local government in Scotland. By working in partnership with the UK and Scottish Governments, civic society and other councils we will grow Scotland's economy and make life better for the people we represent. For example we have already started working with Scotland's trade unions to ensure the collective bargaining will continue.
"We urge Cosla to stand together with us in representing Scottish local government. There is a place at the table for both organisations."
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 hereComments are closed on this article