It’s almost as if it is carved into the ornate marble of the City Chambers. ‘Thou shalt not agree’.

Even when they do appear to agree on something it is not really agreement and can lead to the sort of heated exchanges that if captured could keep a thousand pensioners warm this winter.

All four parties in the city chambers said they were not pleased to have to make cuts to the tune of £50m in this year’s budget.

READ MORE: SNP and Greens do 11th-hour budget deal

All of them looked east to the Scottish Parliament and said that the city should get a better deal from the Scottish Government Budget.

But that was as far as it went.

Allan Gow, the City Treasurer of the SNP administration, who had the unenviable job of coming up with a financial plan for the next year that meant there was £49m less than this time last year, stated as soon as he rose to his feet the settlement from the Scottish Government was “very disappointing”.

He went on to say that he would be making the case again if there is more money available to the Scottish Government after the UK budget that more cash must come to Glasgow.

READ MORE: How much your council tax will be in Glasgow

Susan Aitken, council leader said the Scottish funding process was “perverse” and that relatively better of council areas like Aberdeen and Edinburgh, benefitted more than Glasgow.

Frank McAveety, Labour leader who has twice previously been in charge of the council and had the headache of managing, with his treasurer, reducing budgets was having none of it.

He also said Glasgow should be getting more and the Scottish Government, while receiving more money in its budget has been cutting budgets of councils like Glasgow.

Consensus? Not a chance.

Labour and Mr McAveety were not having the SNP’s ‘standing up for Glasgow’ mantra.

He said the Scottish Government was dictating council tax increases and central government was setting the parameters.

It was he said a “hierarchy of nonsense” and said that he was not believing that the SNP in Glasgow would “storm through to Edinburgh” to “slap about” the government and come back in triumph with a better deal.

Minutes earlier Ms Aitken had prodded her Labour opponents in a not gentle fashion.

She said there needed to be change in the funding mechanism and said Glasgow would lead the calls for change adding she would do so in a more “constructive an impactful way than attempts by previous administrations”.

It is safe to say the postman has not darkened the door of either the Aitken or McAveety households with Christmas cards from the other.

Malcolm Cunning of Labour had been busy with his Texas Instruments calculator totting up what the Scottish Government found extra cash for ‘at the expense of local councils’.

H said that the money the SNP spend on “propping up Ferguson Marine would’ve cleared our deficit in a oner”.

Kim Long of the Greens said the Scottish budget was a “horror show for Glasgow”.

Euan Blockley of the Tories also refused to believe the SNP and said it was a bleak day, cutting £50m from the budget.

He stated: “I don’t believe the SNP will ever stand up to their political masters” in the Scottish Government.

What is clear however is that since budgets have been cut from Holyrood neither Labour, when it was in charge nor the SNP, so far, has managed to stem the tide of cuts that have year after year eroded services in Glasgow.

Year after years cuts are made, jobs are lost services are cut and facilities are closed.

Council taxpayers are now after years of a freeze, facing increased charges, not to see services improve, not even to see services stand still but to prevent even more damage. It is in deed perverse.

If all parties recognise the obvious need for the Scottish Government to put in place a fairer funding mechanism for Glasgow then at the next full council perhaps a motion could be tabled that they can all support demanding such a settlement.

Can we get agreement on that?