FOR YEARS in Scotland we have been told the third sector is the beating heart of civil society. Volunteers. Campaigners. Stakeholders. Independent voices speaking truth to power. Yet the more one examines this vast architecture of publicly funded virtue, the more one begins to suspect that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Take Voluntary Health Scotland, which recently declared that the NHS contains inbuilt discrimination against women and trans women. One may agree or disagree with the claim itself, but before we even reach the argument another question arises. What exactly is Voluntary Health Scotland?
The name conjures an image of church halls, pensioners with clipboards, tea urns, and people giving up evenings out of civic duty. Yet its accounts reveal something rather different. Last year the organisation received roughly £290,000 in income, of which around £260,000 came directly from the taxpayer. Membership income amounted to about £8,000. Membership is now free.
Including other Scottish Government grants this organisation is 94.8 per cent funded by the Scottish taxpayer.
One begins to wonder where precisely the voluntary element enters the equation. I never knew volunteering made for such a gainful career.
This is not really a criticism of one organisation alone. It is a description of an entire ecosystem that has emerged in modern Scotland: a professionalised third sector whose relationship with the state increasingly resembles symbiosis rather than scrutiny.
The same people move endlessly through the same publicly funded institutions. Yesterday cycling charities. Today health advocacy. Tomorrow climate resilience, social inclusion, active travel or community empowerment.
The subject matter changes but the administrative class remains remarkably constant. Co-ordinators become senior co-ordinators. Engagement officers become policy managers. Diversity leads become strategic leads. The grant application never dies; it merely changes logo.
Naturally, the chief executive of Voluntary Health Scotland himself emerges from the ever-popular cycling brigade of the Scottish third sector, because in modern Scotland one apparently drifts seamlessly from bicycles to national health policy by way of enough stakeholder engagement seminars. One begins to suspect expertise is now less important than fluency in the dialect of consultations, frameworks and funding applications. And so we arrive at a curious modern phenomenon: voluntary organisations which are neither especially voluntary nor particularly independent.
Their memberships are tiny, their public profile limited, yet they speak with the authority once reserved for broad civic institutions. Ministers cite them as evidence of consensus. Broadcasters present them as representatives of civil society. Journalists quote them as neutral expertise. Yet their financial dependence rests overwhelmingly upon the public purse. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
None of this requires conspiracy. No minister need telephone a chief executive with instructions for the day. Incentives are enough. Organisations adapt themselves to the funding environment in which they survive. If governments fund advocacy aligned with prevailing institutional values, then more and more advocacy will conveniently align itself with prevailing institutional values. This is not corruption so much as gravity.
The problem is not that charities exist. A healthy society requires voluntary action. The problem is that Scotland increasingly confuses state-funded activism with independent civic life. There is also something quietly remarkable about a body called Voluntary Health Scotland speaking authoritatively on the failures of healthcare whilst apparently containing no actual healthcare workers within its structure. Yes, really.
No nurses. No doctors. No paramedics. No surgeons. No radiographers. No exhausted ward staff finishing twelve-hour shifts under fluorescent lighting at three in the morning.
Modern Scotland increasingly prefers administrators of public life to practitioners within it. And when one actually reads the report, the imbalance becomes striking. The trans debate appears endlessly, almost ritually, while conditions affecting millions receive passing reference.
Prostate cancer and cervical cancer are juxtapositioned to inequality, which is curious given it is biologically impossible to discriminate between genders in the provision of cancers only one sex can develop in the first place.
Elsewhere the report criticises the lack of routine breast cancer screening for women over seventy whilst simultaneously acknowledging that the medical evidence does not support universal screening in that age group. One is left wondering whether the purpose is healthcare analysis or simply the performance of permanent grievance through the language of healthcare.
Heaven forbid we asked them to define what a woman is. And that perhaps is the point. We now fund endless commentary upon public services rather than the public services themselves.
That £260,000 in direct taxpayer support could have employed roughly eight nurses looking for work. Eight actual healthcare professionals delivering measurable care to actual patients. Instead the money sustains another layer of policy advocacy, strategic engagement and managerial intermediation orbiting around healthcare without ever quite touching a hospital ward.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote of the seen and the unseen. We see the offices, the campaigns, the glossy strategy documents, the conferences on inclusion and wellbeing. We see announcements of new funding streams and hear constant declarations that another £250,000 has been “committed” to something. In Scottish politics expenditure itself increasingly becomes the achievement. But what is unseen?
What productive activity never emerges because taxation remains permanently high? What businesses never open? What wages never rise? What services are never improved because public money circulates endlessly through managerial layers before reaching the citizen it was supposedly intended to help? Even within these organisations the pattern becomes familiar. There is always a chief executive, naturally. Then communications officers, participation officers, impact officers to measure impact, engagement officers to engage engagement, and often a co-ordinator to co-ordinate the co-ordinators.
The modern Scottish third sector has become less a realm of volunteers than a permanent graduate scheme for the administratively gifted. Meanwhile the public are asked to regard all this as organic democratic expression rather than what it increasingly resembles: an outsourced extension of the state itself.
The irony is that genuine voluntary associations once formed one of the strongest parts of Scottish life. They were funded by members, churches, local fundraising, philanthropy and mutual obligation. They belonged to communities because communities sustained them. If people stopped valuing them, they disappeared.
Now many survive regardless of public enthusiasm because the taxpayer sustains them instead. And so when organisations heavily funded by government present themselves as independent moral authorities instructing the public on what Scotland must think, more and more people are beginning to ask a simple question.
If nobody voluntarily funds the voluntary sector, what exactly is voluntary about it?”
Established in 2006 and celebrating twenty years, ThinkScotland is not for profit relying on donations to publish our wide range of opinions. You can subscribe to our FREE newsletter here – share and follow us on ‘X’ here – like and comment on facebook here and make a donation here. Every contribution helps to meet our overheads.
Image of man being offered money by nito from Adobe Stock
