You're evil if you're not a socialist after reading legendary trilogy
In his day, wrongs to be righted were clearer, more elemental. The ruling peeps, the economic elite, were transparently bad. All the brainy bods were on the Left, marrying morality to intellect, seeking to tip the balance towards equality, to equilibrium, and not – as now – past it to perpetual disharmony.
Today, with a ruling elite more left-wing than the workers, no one knows what socialism means beyond something to do with minority rights and yonder environment. Among the proletariat in the schemes it's about as popular as Viz magazine's Leo Tolstoy action figures.
As economic theory, i.e. more then mere cultural complaint, it prevails only among boomers, like the present writer, too embarrassed to revisit the certainties of their youth and still insistent, when drunk, that it could work if it weren't for human nature, bad people, lazy people, greedy people. Ye ken: real life.
But here we're talking fiction, as set out in three beautifully lyrical volumes. We're talking about a pivotal work of 20th century Scottish literature, one whose first volume has not unnaturally been dropped as a set text in the school curriculum.
Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described it as 'one of the first books that had me utterly captivated by the lyricism of language and the power of place'. Its heroine, Chris Guthrie 'spoke to, and helped me make sense of, the girl I was'. That was back in the day when she knew what a girl was.
On 13 February 1901, a boy was born into a farming family at Hillhead of Seggat, Auchterless, Aberdeenshire. From the age of seven, that boy, James Leslie Mitchell – Grassic Gibbon's real name – was raised in Arbuthnott, in the former county of Kincardineshire.
Educated at the parish school and at Mackie Academy in Stonehaven, he departed the latter precipitately after arguing with a teacher.
h
Novel approach
Outside school, he upset the Mearns folk with opinions deemed inappropriate to their way of life. He'd stick his head in a book than into the soil.
In 1917, aged 16, he ran away to Aberdeen, became a cub reporter on a local paper, and tried to make the city a soviet in solidarity with the Russian Revolution.
Moving to Glasgow, he got a job on Farmers Weekly, where presumably he kept his doubts about agricultural work hidden, while the city's slums and Red Clydeside movement only intensified his zeal. This got him sacked – for fiddling expenses to make donations to the British Socialist Party.
Attempted suicide followed, so his family took him back in, hoping rural life might steady him. It did not. In 1919, more for food and lodgings than patriotic duty, he joined the Royal Army Service Corps, serving in Iran, India and Egypt before enlisting as a clerk in the Royal Air Force in 1923, leading to more time in the Middle East.
In 1925, Mitchell returned to Arbuthnott to marry local girl Rebecca (Ray or Rhea) Middleton. The couple moved to cheap lodgings in London, where the going was tough until they moved to Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, several million miles from the Mearns.
Here, James began writing full time, producing 4,000-odd words a day, including journalism and travel literature. His first book, Hanno: or the Future of Exploration, was published in 1928.
Drawing heavily on diffusionism – aye – it investigated the origin of cultural traits, contending that the North-East was full of Picts.
READ MORE
Rab McNeil: Get your Boots on, we're going shopping for unicorn hair gel
Rab McNeil: No wonder the whole Scottish nation loves Nicola (no, not that one)
Scottish Icons: William McGonagall - The poet who right bad verses wrote still floats some folk's vessel or boat
Scottish Icons: There is a lot of tripe talked about haggis – so here's the truth
Going ape
In 1932, he used the pseudonym Lewis Grassic Gibbon, from his maternal grandmother's name Lilias Grassick Gibbon, for the first time, when Sunset Song was published.
It was the first, and best, in A Scots Quair, which made Gibbon's name. Written in earthy dialect, Sunset Song begins the story of Chris Guthrie, described by Paul Foot in never popular magazine Socialist Review as 'more remarkable than any female character in Jane Austen, George Eliot or even the Brontes'.
Her common sense, good nature and level head steer her through life's enervating tragedies, with a narrative matching her progress to the Mearns farming year.
The First World War ruins everything, a way of life, the actual lives of young men, even the soil-securing trees (cut down for the war effort). On top of that, the economy had already been moving from rural agriculture to urban manufacturing, from past to future.
Not that the old way of life was perfect, in a community riddled with lust, feuds and gossip. Grassic Gibbon was, to put it mildly, ambivalent about agricultural and rural life. Chris shares that ambivalence, drawn towards education and away from the drudgery and narrow horizons of a farming community.
She has first to escape the clutches of her father, an ill-tempered, bullying, pious, hypocritical fellow. Men, eh? She marries one, Ewan Tavendale, but the War sees him off too: shot as a deserter.
Sunset Song has a political message, but one shot through with humour: ' … Ellison said he was a Bolshevik, one of those awful creatures, coarse tinks, that made such a spleiter in Russia. They'd shot their King-creature, the Tsar they called him, and they bedded all over the place, folk said, a man would go home and find his wife commandeered any bit night and Lenin and Trotsky lying with her.'
Grey outlook
A Scots Quair moves from village to town to city. Often seen as Sunset Song's poorer companions, Cloud Howe and Grey Granite contrast the Christian socialism of Robert Colquhoun (Chris's second husband) with the hardline Communism of her son.
Chris, a grounded quine, focuses more on the eternal verities, where only the land endures, however much subject to change. 'Change … whose right hand was Death and whose left hand Life might be stayed by none of the dreams of men …'
Life's trancience ever haunts her: "Their play was done and they were gone …'
Life was cruelly transient for Lewis Grassic Gibbon. On 7 February 1935, he died in Welwyn Garden City after an operation for a perforated gastric ulcer. He was 33-years-old. His ashes were buried in the Mearns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Jeremy Corbyn's new outfit won't back indyref2. No British party will
'When that party launches, which I'm expecting to be later this month, will be the start of us getting serious in Scotland and finding out who the members are when they join and trying to get, we're looking at the end of August before we get any real meeting of what will be the new party in Scotland. Until then, we don't really have a position other than we are happy to take part in the coalition, electoral alliance talks in Scotland on that basis, on the basis of supporting a referendum.' So, a big vote of thanks to Jim Monaghan for straightening that out for us. In fact, there is a very simple answer to the question of what will be the position of the Scottish plook on the arse of Corbyn's new party. It will be whatever the arse says it will be. The arm of this new British political party located in Scotland will be no different from the Scotland branch offices of the other British parties. Parties are not permitted to have different positions in different parts of the UK. If the likes of Anas Sarwar tries to give the impression that 'Scottish' Labour has a position on any issue that is distinct from that taken by his boss, Keir Starmer, he is lying. Which will shock nobody. The same goes for the other British parties that are either squatting in Scotland's parliament or hoping to do so. None of them can possibly have a distinct position on the constitutional issue. It is impossible for Sarwar to be in favour of a new referendum while Starmer is against it. Because it is all a single party. And Starmer is in charge. Sarwar is there to try and look as much like a real party leader as he can – no much! – so that the British media can go on promulgating the lie that Scottish Labour are (a) Scottish, and (b) a real political party. It is not Scottish, it is British. It is not a political party, it is a sham. It is part of the apparatus which provides the illusion of democracy and respect for Scotland's distinctiveness. It is all entirely false. The speculation about this new party's position on an independence referendum has nothing to latch on to. If that position is to be inferred from Jeremy Corbyn's stated attitude over the past few years, it is as plain as if it was the victim of one of Jim Monaghan's 'clarifications'. If I were to attempt to sum it up, I'd say Corbyn is not – or tries to appear as if he isn't – as explicitly or fervently opposed to a referendum as many (most?) other British politicians. But now is never the time. That being his position, it is also the position of the bit of his party that calls itself 'Scottish'. If they tell you differently, they're lying like Sarwar. It is all irrelevant anyway. Because even when British politicians try to look as if they are not anti-democratic, they are operating within a system which is inherently anti-democratic. As is the case throughout the discourse around the constitutional issue, people talk of a referendum but never define or describe it. As if this referendum could be only one thing and everybody already knows what it is so it doesn't need to be stated. Generally, what people have in mind is a referendum such as had in 2014. They have been 'conditioned' to think of a Section 30 referendum as the 'gold standard' of democratic events. It most emphatically is not! You are probably asking the obvious question. If a referendum held under 'powers' transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is not the 'gold standard', what is? Or perhaps you are wondering what precludes a referendum held under transferred 'powers' being a proper constitutional referendum. I shall attempt to address both these points. The following suggested criteria for a true constitutional referendum were first published in July 2023 as an appendix to the Stirling Directive. Though no longer online, the criteria were referred to and republished in November 2024. In short, a true constitutional referendum must be binary: The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable – they must be two quite different options and not two variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined at the outset and may not change in the course of the campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been proposed. Both options must be deliverable, in that the winning option and the following actions must be implementable immediately and without further process. To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain. The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. The outcome must be acknowledged as an expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland and therefore binding on all parties. It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome of one referendum cannot preclude future campaigning for other constitutional change even where such change would alter or obviate the prior choice. The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as easy as possible but with due regard for security and confidentiality. The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by Scottish institutions. Every effort must be made to eliminate or at least minimise external interference. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, Britain shall be classified as an external (foreign) power. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, political parties registered as such and headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as agencies of the country where they are registered and headquartered. In summary, a constitutional referendum is binary, with options which are discrete, defined and deliverable. It must be entirely made and managed in Scotland by Scotland. It must produce a clear decision and not merely a result. It must meet internationally recognised standards for a democratic event. And the outcome is the undeniable expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland. These criteria were not meant to be prescriptive. The intention was to provoke a discussion about the form of referendum Scotland's cause requires. Most of the criteria are, however, quite evidently essential. That the referendum must be binary. That the options be fixed and not permitted to change in the course of the campaign. Perhaps most pertinently of all in the present context, the stipulation that the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. A referendum held under transferred powers can never be determinative and self-executing because this would mean that the people had the final word on the matter and not Westminster. A proper constitutional referendum would acknowledge the people of Scotland as the ultimate authority, not Westminster. The British state not only will not transfer powers for a proper constitutional referendum, it cannot do so. Supposing it was possible for the British state to transfer powers such as would allow a proper constitutional referendum, this would breach the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine which underpins the entire edifice of the British state. Without ultimate political authority being vested in a parliament under the near total control of an executive whose clients are not the people but the ruling elites, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The three pillars of the British 'system' are unchecked power, unearned privilege and unregulated patronage. None of these pillars can exist in a political system which is truly democratic. If the people had the authority which the term 'democracy' implies, it is not believable that they would tolerate the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define a British state which serves the few regardless of the cost to the many. A proper constitutional referendum is informed by the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Therefore, no British government could ever acknowledge the sovereignty of the people in any meaningful way. They may state it as a slogan. But they absolutely cannot give it political effect. It follows that, whatever rhetoric they contrive to make it appear otherwise, no British political party can ever support a proper constitutional referendum. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum cannot be given in any case. Regardless of the compelling reasons why the British will not and cannot give that power, the power itself is inherently 'ungiveable'. The right of self-determination is inalienable. It is a human right and cannot be surrendered, transferred, forfeited, abrogated or removed. It is as inherent to the people as life is to the person. If the power to exercise the right of self-determination is in the gift of another, this necessarily implies that it is not present in the people. But it is an inalienable right and cannot be other than present in the people. I hope this has gone some way towards explaining both why no British political party can ever genuinely support a proper constitutional referendum and why a referendum held under powers transferred from Westminster can never be a proper constitutional referendum. Peter A Bell via email
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Claims of 'sovereignty of Scottish people' won't hold up in real world
On November 23, 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate for an independence referendum, not because of opinion, but because constitutional authority lies solely with Westminster. Holyrood, regardless of the mandate, is legally bound. People then shift the conversation from Parliament to 'the people'. But the people can't act through a Parliament that holds no legal authority. That's the trap. You're told to win a majority, but once you do, you're told you have no right to use it. That's not democracy. That's occupation dressed up as devolution. And what happens if we push anyway? Let's be crystal clear: Westminster has the legal power to shut Holyrood down, just like it did to Stormont on March 30, 1972. Northern Ireland's Parliament was suspended, and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 formally abolished it. A precedent exists – and the UK Government has already demonstrated its willingness to use it. Still, some cling to UN treaties. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is often invoked as a means of protection. However, in the 2010 ICJ ruling on Kosovo, the court made clear that international law doesn't prohibit declarations of independence, but it also doesn't enforce them. It depends entirely on power and recognition. In 2017, Catalonia declared independence. Spain declared it illegal. The EU looked away. Catalan leaders were jailed or fled. Why? Because they had no power to make their sovereignty real. Compare that to Kosovo (2008) or the Baltic states (1990–91). They didn't ask for permission. They created a crisis, gathered support and forced recognition through action, not appeals. Even Canada's Supreme Court (1998) stated that Quebec had no right to secede unilaterally, but rather that a clear referendum would create a political obligation to negotiate, not a legal one. Every route that Andy and others cling to – votes, courts, petitions, the UN – has already been tested. Every door is locked. Every demand for proof of public support is just a stalling tactic. And when we meet the condition, they move the goalposts again. It always comes back to one truth: you either have the power to enforce your sovereignty, or you don't. Scotland does not. Not yet. And until this movement stops confusing theory with force, and starts acting like a people denied their nation – not petitioners in someone else's Parliament – we will never be taken seriously, at home or abroad. James Murphy Bute ANDY Anderson in commenting on my long letter (July 7) writes that I mistakenly assume 'that the so-called UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish people can't have a referendum on independence'. He correctly states: 'The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to institute a referendum on that subject because it can only act within its allotted powers under the Scotland Act, and constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. This says nothing about the powers of the Scottish people, who in fact hold sovereign power in Scotland.' The only reference to the 'Supreme Court' in my letter was when I said: 'The only item in Jim Fairlie's 2020 article not still entirely relevant is his perceptive warning – that went unheeded by the then leadership of the SNP – against taking the right to an independence referendum to Westminster's 'Supreme Court'.' The entire substance of Jim's article was that neither Westminster or its legal creations could legitimately overrule the sovereign rights of Scotland's people and further he sets out how those rights could be asserted in a Scottish Parliament with a democratic mandate. My own agreement on that position was, I thought, made pretty clear in my last long letter of July 7. If there can be any doubt, I draw Andy's attention to my long letter of June 24 where I stated: 'Some assert that this would be to ignore Westminster's Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood could not act on reserved matters without Westminster's permission. Not so; this approach tackles Westminster's attempted roadblock to democracy head-on. Westminster can be notified of our intent as a protocol courtesy. However, any problem with regard to their Scotland Act and a 'transfer of powers' is a problem for Westminster to address, and not a Scottish Parliament with a specific mandate from Scotland's highest legitimate authority – that of the Scottish people.' Perhaps, Andy was wilfully misreading me to, yet again, mention Scottish Parliament, Petition Number PE2135 on Implementing the International Covenant on Civil and International Rights (ICCPR). A petition I fully support and signed a while ago. The only point on which we may differ is that I regard having the ICCPR passed into Scottish law as a potentially powerful extra lever in the inevitable (political) struggle to prise away Westminster's death-like grip on Scotland. Just not as a magic key that alone will vanquish all obstacles to the exercise of Scotland's democratic rights. Mike Wallace Edinburgh AS I've mentioned a few times before in my letters, I have been guilty in the past of the cardinal sin of voting for Labour. For my sins, I eventually saw the light and ditched them for the SNP and independence sometime in the early noughties. It got me thinking, though. What if I lived in England? Well, as Labour have now basically turned into the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the US, we clearly now have a US-style political situation in England where you can choose between the Tories and Reform UK (the equivalent of the Trumpian Republicans in the US) or Labour (the Democrats). I reckon it's a case of Bernie Sanders's 'no more', England style! As in the US, none of these options now tackle the grotesque inequality and poverty in our society, so basically as a voter that actually has a heart and cares, you are well and truly screwed! If I lived in England, I would definitely vote for the Greens but they ain't gonna win power any time soon so it would basically feel pointless, which is so sad! So, clearly progressive voters in England have no say in who governs them. Well, actually they do but not in the way they would like. Ditching Labour for the Greens or the new party on the left potentially being jointly led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will almost certainly make it even easier for that awful man Farage to be the next prime minister. What aboot us, though? There are thankfully two progressive parties to vote for – the SNP and the Scottish Greens. As we all know, these two parties were in coalition in government. Happy days as far as I'm concerned! Then shitty politics got in the way! The non-progressive wing of the SNP (ie the right-wing types!) got into a fankle and wouldn't settle until they had persuaded Humza Yousaf to ditch the 'lefty' Greens! The rest, as they say, is history. So where am I going with all of this? Well, I'll tell ye where am gaun! Folk with a heart and that actually care are well and truly being squeezed oot o' the democratic process. Nowadays, and it's aye been, it's aw aboot shitty 'growth' which is meant tae trickle doon tae the masses (aye right!). We perversely pride ourselves in Scotland and the UK of living in a democratic society but this 'democracy' doesn't stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer year after year after year! Aye. Ye can stuff this type of 'democracy' up yer arse! Ivor Telfer Dalgety Bay, Fife I WAS disappointing to see the celebrations of the Entente Cordiale by two heads of state. That treaty deprived Scottish citizens of the right to French citizenship that they'd had for centuries. Maybe French education is not what it's cracked up to be. Macron, like his predecessors at the start of the last century, considered Scotland to be a throwaway for better relationships with England. Trump is not the only leader to enjoy having his ego massaged! Drew Reid Falkirk FURTHER to Alan Hinnrichs's letter (The National, Friday, July 11), this should be compulsory reading to a far greater audience, such as the UK and US governments and to all those who believe all the Israeli propaganda. I have previously written to your wonderful newspaper and to others about the genocide that has been happening in Gaza for a very long time. It seems to have been the aim of the Israeli state since 1948 to rid Gaza and the West Bank of the Palestinians. Previously, they have encouraged their population to remove peaceful Palestinians from their rightful homes by using force and even murder of these innocent Palestinians. Now, for a very long time, they have been bombing household buildings and killing many thousands of innocent civilians, mainly women and children. The UK and US governments have been complicit in this genocide by continuing to supply weapons to Israel. How many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered under the pretext that there has supposedly been a Hamas leader sheltering in one of the bombed buildings? For a very long time, the Israelis have denied food and sustenance to the fleeing and sheltering population. Now, the IDF has been guilty of shooting civilians, who have been queuing at so-called safe relief stations, to supposedly receive some meagre scraps of food. Hospitals have been bombed and many medics have been killed, just trying to do their job of treating the injured and trying to save lives. These, all, are crimes against humanity and the Israeli state must be held accountable and punished for these criminal actions. However, the governments of the UK and US must be held accountable for supporting and supplying weapons, thus aiding Israel in committing this genocide and ethnic cleansing. During the Second World War, people and governments denied being aware of what was happening to the Jews in the German concentration camps. However, with modern technology, the whole world can see what is happening in Gaza every day and they should do something to stop the murder of innocents. Robert Cumberland Blantyre
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Scottish councils sell off almost 2000 public assets amid budget pains
SCOTLAND'S cash-strapped councils have sold off 1851 homes, schools, community centres, civic halls and other properties in recent years amid budget shortfalls, The Ferret can reveal. Thirty-one local authorities disposed of the public assets between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2024, generating £243 million in revenue, according to data we obtained via freedom of information. The sales include 113 former schools and nurseries, 69 community centres and civic halls, 17 care homes, 14 public toilets, and eight libraries. Some councils shed large proportions of their total number of properties in recent years, which range from small plots of land to sprawling building complexes. Shetland sold 14% of its assets, while Fife and North Lanarkshire, which withheld details about its sales, shed around a 10th. Others disposed of up to a fifth of their schools. READ MORE: Pat Kane: Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent' Some services which were run in the sold properties appear to have been stopped, with no replacements earmarked. Trade unionists and campaigners said councils were 'swinging the axe' at services which provide 'vital support for everyone in our towns and cities'. They blamed the Scottish and UK governments for 'cuts and austerity'. Councils said cash shortages had led to difficult decisions about cutting some services, and called for a 'fair budget settlement'. A Labour MSP claimed the UK Government had delivered a 'record' budget to Holyrood, which partly funds councils, while the Scottish Government also claimed to have made 'record' payments to local authorities. The disposal of properties by local authorities is a continuing trend. In 2021, we revealed that councils sold off 2663 assets between 2015 and 2019. They included 39 leisure centres, 23 public toilets, 17 libraries, seven swimming pools and four outdoor centres. Ongoing cash constraints mean councils face further stark choices about the future of public assets. In May, Scotland's Accounts Commission said mounting pressures from inflation, increasing costs and demand had surpassed additional funding awarded to councils by the Scottish Government, meaning town halls face a budget shortfall of £647m in 2025-26 alone. Additional costs they must shoulder include wage rises, higher employer National Insurance contributions in light of the UK Government's increase, and growing service demands, including social care requirements due to Scotland's ageing population. Councils are aiming to raise more money via increases in Council Tax and charges for some services. But communities that face paying more have growing expectations for the services they use as a result, the commission added. What did councils sell off? FIFE Council sold eight community centres and civic halls – around a 10th of its total number of halls and centres, when compared to the local authority's current asset register. Other councils sold a significant number of key assets. Glasgow sold 23 former schools, Highland and Dundee disposed of 10 each, Aberdeenshire nine, and Shetland, Dumfries and Galloway and the Western Isles seven each. Argyll and Bute sold six schools, Fife and Edinburgh five each, while Perth and Kinross, as well as Fife, each sold four. Proportionally, Shetland and the Western Isles sold nearly a fifth of their schools, Inverclyde sold a sixth, while Dundee sold a tenth, according to the councils' current asset registers. Six more Western Isles schools are considered to be 'surplus' to requirements. Residents of Scotland's rural areas and islands have previously warned that school closures could make local battles against depopulation unwinnable. READ MORE: John Swinney: I'm working to get injured children from Gaza treated in Scotland The Western Isles also sold four care homes – a quarter of its total listed care facilities – while Glasgow shed five. The sales contrast with warnings of a social care crisis in Scotland. North Lanarkshire sold the most properties (207), followed by Fife (189), East Ayrshire (167), Highland (153) and Dundee (106). Public assets can vary in size and significance, however. Edinburgh Council made the most from its sales (£48.8m), although property prices in the capital are significantly higher than elsewhere in Scotland. West Dunbartonshire banked £29m, Fife £26.6m, Highland £24m, Glasgow £20m, Aberdeen £17m, and Dundee £12.8m East Renfrewshire and North Lanarkshire councils refused to provide any information about their sales, while East Dunbartonshire withheld sale prices. North Lanarkshire Council said the information would be too costly for it to collate, while the other two argued the data could be purchased via Registers of Scotland. Councils defend their sales LOCAL authorities stressed that some schools, halls and centres had been replaced. Those closed were due to declining usage, or deteriorating conditions, they added. Fife Council stressed more than 100 of its 189 sales were parts of land and buildings, rather than entire properties, and encouraged communities to apply to take over the running of local hubs. Council assets were sometimes given to local groups, it said Aberdeenshire Council added that in addition to providing crucial revenue, some sales allowed old buildings to 'enjoy a new lease of life within our communities'. The community transfers of buildings did not always stop formerly council-run services from being discontinued, however. READ MORE: David Pratt: Tony Blair and Keir Starmer are playing fast and loose In Aberdeenshire, schools were sold due to declining pupil rolls or ageing buildings which place 'a significant financial burden on the council during challenging financial times,' said a spokesperson. Highland Council highlighted that schools with dwindling pupil numbers were mothballed to give an opportunity for more children to move to the catchment area and avoid the risk of permanent closure. Dumfries and Galloway Council argued its closures 'had no measurable impact' on pupil population decline, which was 'fairly consistent across all areas'. The local authority provides education 'to all school-aged pupils', it added. In Dundee, a new £100m community campus, which will feature the 'state-of-the-art Greenfield Academy', would open to around 1500 pupils in August, the council said. 'Swinging the axe' THE Scottish Trades Union Congress said the scale of sell-offs was 'as alarming as it is unsurprising.' Local authorities were 'swinging the axe' at services which provide 'vital support for everyone in our towns and cities', warned deputy general secretary, Dave Moxham. 'Yet again, it's the failure of politicians – their grave, unforgivable inaction on redistributing wealth – which has pulled the shutters down on our services,' he argued. Some opposition parties laid the blame for the councils' sales at the door of the Scottish Government. 'It's a measure of the SNP Government's chronic underfunding of Scotland's local authorities that, to make ends meet, councils are being forced to cut services and sell off the properties that provided them,' claimed Scottish Conservative shadow cabinet secretary for local government, Craig Hoy. Scottish Tory MSP Craig Hoy (Image: Submitted) His view was echoed by Scottish Labour, which warned that the disposals 'can undermine councils' ability to both serve communities and achieve financial stability in the long term'. 'However, councils have been left with little choice but to take this course of action because the Scottish Government has failed to listen to warnings about the state of their finances,' alleged local government spokesperson, Mark Griffin MSP. 'The UK Labour Government has delivered record funding for the Scottish Government, so the SNP have no excuses,' he claimed. Campaign group We Own It, however, argued that governments both north and south of the Border shared responsibility for the 'absolutely devastating' disposal of council property. 'Every one of these public assets made people's lives better, every one was something that local communities owned collectively,' said Cat Hobbs, the group's director. 'The message for both the Scottish Government and for Westminster must be: stop forcing councils to sell off the family silver. Demand that they steward these assets for future generations instead and give them the funding to do so. 'Cuts and austerity are a false economy, a quick fix with dire consequences. The damaging impact on communities today and in the long term must not be ignored.' Budget settlements: shortchanged or 'record' high? COSLA, which represents Scotland's local authorities, said that while councils 'work hard to continue running high-quality services', they face significant budgetary challenges. 'This means that in some cases they have had to make difficult decisions about which properties and services they can continue to run,' said a spokesperson. 'Cosla will continue to advocate for a fair budget settlement for Scottish local government that recognises the importance of local decision making in getting the best outcomes for our communities.' Shona Robison is the SNP's Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government The Scottish Government said it had given councils 'a record £15.1 billion this year – a real terms increase of 5.5%'. 'The total local government finance settlement increased by almost 50% between 2013-14 and 2025-26,' a spokesperson said. 'Most local authorities have had to account for the planned hike in employer national insurance contributions and the UK Government is entirely responsible for this. 'Local authorities are independent bodies and it is for them to decide how to manage their budgets and property portfolios based on local needs and priorities.' Every council named in this article was approached for comment.
