Councils have argued that a decade of SNP rule at Holyrood has not been kind to local authorities.
They say the nine-year council tax freeze, which the Scottish Government made sure was enacted, put unprecedented pressure on town hall budgets.
Pain certainly was to be found in Glasgow City Council, which serves around 593,000 people, a large proportion of whom are far from well-off.
And last week’s Holyrood budget was seen as another punishing settlement for councils, which will have to make do with a real-terms cut.
Frank McAveety, the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council, said: “The truth of the matter is that local government services will have less money this year again and that’s an ongoing thing for Glasgow.”
However, complaints about cuts only sound credible if a council ensures sound management of its own budget.
As we reveal today, the McAveety administration decided to be represented at a high-profile property event in March in Cannes on the French Riviera.
Attending such an event can be defended, even when times are tough. A harder sell is explaining why twelve people had to be there making the case for Glasgow.
Not only did McAveety and his council allies jet out to Cannes, but the chief executive of the local authority and other figures were also part of the team.
Such a presence seems excessive, particularly when the council had just made difficult budget decisions. Surely, sending a smaller contingent would have been a wiser, and equally productive, measure.
Glasgow council has been under Labour control for decades and the perception is that the party has mismanaged the city.
Squealing about being squeezed by the government in Holyrood looks slightly odd when set against spending decisions such as the Cannes trip.
The jaunt looks like an unnecessary extravagance and something that could easily be exploited by political opponents. There's more than a little irony in crying over your pocket money being cut, if you've been spending cash like a drunken sailor.
Labour’s chances of holding Glasgow next year are remote, and more own goals like the Cannes trip will do nothing to improve the party’s image in a city it once dominated.
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 here