It's the Balkanisation of the north; it's the end of local democracy; it's a sectarian carve-up of Northern Ireland – so went the catcalls from local politicians last week.
But the truth is much simpler.
The north is sectarian and the Balkanisation started a long time ago and was completed at the last general election.
The west and south are green and the east and north are orange. It was ever thus so since partition – only in the west there was no control, no power and no money for infrastructure.
So get over it. Sinn Féin alone has welcomed the proposals which affect the councils, no doubt seeing the electoral benefits of cutting bureaucracy while solidifying their support in these areas.
It is not gerrymandering or sectarian; its change and Peter Hain is right that our council areas are too small and there are too many. We are over-governed and we have too many public representatives.
The fact that 69 of the 108 members of the assembly are councillors is an affront to any modern democracy. Those that hold triple mandates are even worse. Democracy a la the north is stymied by the egos of the few against the interests of the many.
Why should politicians hold office in no less than three tiers of government? Imagine Bill Clinton remaining governor of Arkansas when president of the USA and holding a seat in Little Rock City Council, or Tony Blair sitting on Sedgefield District Council while serving as prime minister?
The spectacle of politicians holding council, assembly and Westminster seats is obscene. Yet others now want to take their multiple mandates down to the Dail for yet another opportunity to have a forum.
Our provincial mentality is killing democracy, with the same people clinging on to multiple offices.
Not surprisingly the proposals to shake up local government have been widely welcomed by the business community and if we go by the turnout for local government elections the public won't mind either.
Of course the politicians don't like it because there is going to be less of them.
Yet with our PR system, electing one councillor per 5,000 electors may encourage us to better use our preferences as the system intended.
Politicians of all hues attack quangos, yet it is politicians who hold more positions on the various quangos than any other group.
Politicians clamour for positions on health trusts, education boards, policing partnerships and tourism bodies but now the sinecures of local office are disappearing faster than snow off a ditch.
However, the proposals outlined by the secretary of state leave some questions unanswered.
If one education board, why not one health board? Why is the over-governance at central government not being tackled simultaneously?
Or, perhaps more poignantly, what about the question raised by Eddie McGrady: "Will decentralisation of powers to councils – 'super' or not – be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of budgets to cover the implementation of local services?"
If moving powers and functions from central government to local government is purely a cosmetic exercise which leaves the bill at the door of the ratepayer rather than the taxpayer, then it is nothing more than a stealth tax.
Like many members of the public, I am less moved by the outcry against the identity of super-councils. Many places like Newry, Banbridge, Moyle or north Down have divided geographical loyalties and always will.
It is strange that Belfast should remain unchanged when it is obvious to a martian that a greater Belfast exists as the urban boundaries of Belfast – Castlereagh, Newtownabbey and Lisburn are indistinguishable.
Parliamentary boundaries have changed to create more equity in terms of political representation between nationalism and unionism. The new council maps just reflect those demographics more starkly.
We are bluffing ourselves if we believe the secretary of state has created this balkanisation – he is merely reflecting the political realities on the ground.
If, in education and health, the new structures put more money into front-line services and if they create less bureaucracy for end-users, then they should be welcomed.
Politicians by their nature don't embrace change readily – that's why we have things like the Good Friday Agreement, the Equality and Human Rights Commissions and Patten forced upon the political and civic system.
If the government goes down the route proposed it better be a two-pronged route.
To solely implement this as a treasury cost-cutting exercise without putting in place proper wealth-creation incentives, we could – as the sceptics point out – end up without a pot to piss in.
