You’ve named what so many of us have seen up close for years, the quiet capture of Scottish public life by a closed circle of government-funded insiders. It’s not conspiracy, it’s culture: a revolving door of “consultation” and “evidence” that always lands in the same hands.
Those of us who’ve tried to bring front-line recovery experience or independent data into the debate know exactly how that wall feels. It’s not that they argue, it’s that they exclude.
Your call for transparency and diversity of evidence is spot-on. Until we face the dependency problem in the third sector, policymaking will stay trapped in a taxpayer-funded echo chamber.
Excellent analysis, thank you for putting it so clearly. 👏
Thank you, Annemarie. No doubt this is something that would have frustrated you during your many years of campaigning. This is a conversation long overdue and I'm glad that I could contribute to it. Much more work to do!
I think you are onto something important about the public campaigning of organisations heavily dependent on Scottish government funding. I support full disclosure of that funding, at the very least.
Some of these organisations, such as the Rape Crisis centres, also deliver important services. In many respects, they are more like quangos than normal charities, but their effectiveness is not subject to review by, e.g. the Audit Commission or Parliamentary Committees.
In fact, there seems to be no process by which the continuation of funding for all these organisations can be publicly assessed. I cannot see why a charity which gets more than 50% of its income from the government should not be treated like other quasi-official bodies.
Thanks Keith. I agree. The idea of third-sector organisations being treated like quangos (and the accountability that goes with it) if over half their funding comes from taxpayers' is a very interesting idea which is worth exploring
Superb piece, James. 👏
You’ve named what so many of us have seen up close for years, the quiet capture of Scottish public life by a closed circle of government-funded insiders. It’s not conspiracy, it’s culture: a revolving door of “consultation” and “evidence” that always lands in the same hands.
Those of us who’ve tried to bring front-line recovery experience or independent data into the debate know exactly how that wall feels. It’s not that they argue, it’s that they exclude.
Your call for transparency and diversity of evidence is spot-on. Until we face the dependency problem in the third sector, policymaking will stay trapped in a taxpayer-funded echo chamber.
Excellent analysis, thank you for putting it so clearly. 👏
#RightToRecovery #Scotland #Policy #Accountability
Thank you, Annemarie. No doubt this is something that would have frustrated you during your many years of campaigning. This is a conversation long overdue and I'm glad that I could contribute to it. Much more work to do!
I think you are onto something important about the public campaigning of organisations heavily dependent on Scottish government funding. I support full disclosure of that funding, at the very least.
Some of these organisations, such as the Rape Crisis centres, also deliver important services. In many respects, they are more like quangos than normal charities, but their effectiveness is not subject to review by, e.g. the Audit Commission or Parliamentary Committees.
In fact, there seems to be no process by which the continuation of funding for all these organisations can be publicly assessed. I cannot see why a charity which gets more than 50% of its income from the government should not be treated like other quasi-official bodies.
Thanks Keith. I agree. The idea of third-sector organisations being treated like quangos (and the accountability that goes with it) if over half their funding comes from taxpayers' is a very interesting idea which is worth exploring