Writing in The Herald last month, Pat McFadden, the Minister at Westminster for Postal Affairs, sought to explain the thinking behind the government's plans to close 2500 post office branches. He wrote that the government valued the social and community role of post offices, which was why ministers wanted to create a stable network of outlets within reasonable access of people living in urban and rural areas.

Writing in The Herald last month, Pat McFadden, the Minister at Westminster for Postal Affairs, sought to explain the thinking behind the government's plans to close 2500 post office branches. He wrote that the government valued the social and community role of post offices, which was why ministers wanted to create a stable network of outlets within reasonable access of people living in urban and rural areas.

It is reasonable to infer that Mr McFadden's words will appear hollow to the residents of the village of Thornhill, near Stirling, whose post office is one of three in the area slated for closure. Their replacement would be an "outreach" service, probably a mobile unit visiting their village for two hours each weekday. All politics is local, as Tip O'Neill, the legendary American politician, noted; protests also often have humble beginnings. Thornhill villagers have formed a group to fight the planned closure but this is more than a local issue. It has a resonance throughout Scotland and, indeed, Britain as the closure programme is intended to be sweetened by the pill of 500 "outreach" branches.

There is a particular relevance for Scotland, given the extent of the rural hinterland and the arguably disproportionate reliance of its communities on post offices for a range of services (the same could be said for poorer urban areas, where closures are also planned). The residents of Thornhill anticipate that the government pill will leave a bitter aftertaste for several reasons. They maintain they have not been properly consulted and, in the absence of financial detail from the Royal Mail, dispute that their branch is not viable (they say low usage has been cited as the reason for closure).

Perhaps the biggest indictment of the proposal, part of one of five area plans that will affect Scotland, and the element that is potentially of greatest concern across the country, is the suspicion that Thornhill is a microcosm for a programme of branch closures by stealth. Villagers say that, should their branch close, they will be left with a service that is only some 25% of that on offer at present. They point out that there are no direct public transport links between Thornhill and the nearest surviving branches.

The subpostmaster worries about the impact of closure on business in his shop. In addition, an internet-based businesswoman has concerns about the effect of a limited service on the viability of her company, which depends on frequent daily use of the post office. Local concerns, it is true, but if replicated across Scotland in areas where the government panacea of "outreach" services were to apply, the effect would be to pose serious questions of ministerial commitments to protect the social and community role of post offices by creating a network of outlets within reasonable access of the public. How fine is the line between protecting a community asset and closing it down by stealth?