I HESITATE to intervene on the universally unpopular decision [now reversed] by Labour-controlled North Lanarkshire Council to close 39 facilities across the authority, but perhaps the injection of a small dose of financial reality is required.

I suspect this may be the first of several more very unpleasant announcements from some of the other 31 Scottish local authorities, some SNP-controlled, as the annual round of budget meetings approaches. I have no love for any Unionist councillors, Labour or Tory, but the fact of the matter is that this local authority is apparently facing a £64 million revenue budget gap over the next three years, and this gap legally has to be bridged in some fashion either by savings or increases in income, possibly even via job losses and or council tax rises.

READ MORE: Labour council bosses blocked bid to prevent leisure centre cuts

Especially with a by-election about to take place nearby, I am fairly sure that its Labour leader Councillor Jim Logue (I have never met the man) was indeed facing an “unpalatable decision” and it was one that “no councillor would wish to take.” However I would not be surprised if the number of facilities to be closed is somehow reduced in the coming months.

SNP MSP Neil Gray called the plans “completely unacceptable”, but did Mr Gray not vote for the allocation of finance to our 32 local authorities? Will he be voting for a large increase in this allocation in the next financial year which would allow these facilities and many others across the country to remain open? Surely it falls on the councillors, MPs and MSPs who oppose this closure programme to suggest where else the £64m is to come from. I did not notice any suggestions forthcoming from any of them except Mr Gray himself, who said “North Lanarkshire should use the tens of millions due to them over the coming years from the Strathclyde Pension Fund surplus to embark on a programme of repair and upgrade to bring facilities up to standard”.

READ MORE: Labour councillor slams party over facility closures in North Lanarkshire

As someone in receipt of a small pension from the Strathclyde Pension Fund I am absolutely fascinated to know why a welcome surplus in the fund, presumably resulting in reduced employer contributions being required from North Lanarkshire Council, should be used to “repair and upgrade” leisure facilities which the council clearly cannot afford to keep open in the longer term.

Glenda Burns
Glasgow

MICHAEL Gove, UK “levelling up” minister, announces a bung of £1.5 billion to 55 cities and towns in the UK. Creating another route for funding of local government, creating wedges, divisions and no doubt confusions with local councils on how to increase their funds, to provide the services for which they are responsible.

Transparency is important, as it is key to delivering expectations of democracy, to which we all have become accustomed. The method and processes that the UK Government uses to assess these cities and towns and divide up the “levelling up” pie is unknown by the great unwashed.

How the “levelling up” fund is created and which UK budget pocket or pockets are being picked is also unclear, if not shrouded in the swirling clouds of the UK Treasury.

To be very clear, the monies will be welcomed by the cities and towns, as we can all see the effects of the financial crash in 2008, the 2010 Osborne austerity Budget, Covid, Brexit and the 2022 Truss Budget debacle.

However, £1.5bn is pretty small beer as it is spread over 10 years. That’s £20m for each location and results in £2m each year for each, and I wonder if Sir Keir Starmer will step up to the plate and support this funding methodology if, as is predicted, he moves into Downing Street next year.

With the number of U-Turns that Sunak as deployed and Starmer has mimicked, I do not hold out any hope that either will hold to these “levelling up” methods.

Alistair Ballantyne
Angus

IN Saturday’s National Michael Russell sought to give Fergus Ewing some advice (Fergus is a formidable politician but here’s what he needs to remember, Sep 30). He stated: “What is really at issue here is not the right to express an opinion, nor to seek conscience or constituency-interest special voting dispensations ... Fergus simply has a general but increasingly deep-rooted dislike of the direction of the party and how that direction is expressed in policy and legislative terms, even though the party itself has indicated, by a sizeable majority, that it approves of such progress.”

On the same page you report that both Kate Forbes and Ash Regan voted against suspending Fergus, which suggests to this observer that almost half of the membership (48%) have sympathy with Fergus’s opinions and have a dislike of the direction of travel of the party.

It has been reported in The Herald that Fergus said his reason for voting against Lorna Slater had to do with “policies on the Deposit Return Scheme, on fishing, on transport, tourism and small businesses, and on boiler replacement”.

This is a view with which I can concur. Indeed other policies could be added to this list. Examples include the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, the outright hostility to hydrocarbon extraction (even although it will be required in the transition away from a carbon-based economy), the delay in dualling the A9 and the First Minister effectively reneging on dualling the A96 between Nairn and Inverurie last week in Holyrood.

Might I humbly suggest that it is not Fergus who is out of step with the direction of travel but the Scottish Government itself. Indeed, it may be that unless it changes the direction of travel and is seen to be putting independence at the heart of government, it may well be in for a very nasty shock at the next Westminster or Holyrood election when most of the 48% mentioned above decide not to bother to vote.

Mike Power
Kemnay, Aberdeenshire