Councillor Thomas Heald is a Scottish Conservative councillor for Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate for Dunfermline and political advisor in the Scottish Parliament.
At a hustings event last week, I was asked what the biggest threat to democracy in Scotland is today. The usual answers came up: the rise of the far right, public apathy and social media. All these are real concerns.
But from my experience in Holyrood over the past ten years, I’ve learned one important thing. The health of democracy relies on a clear division between government and civil society. In Scotland today, that division is becoming harder to see.
Recent news has highlighted something many of us have suspected for a while. Much of Scotland’s charity sector is not just supported by the government but also depends on it. Dependence, whether in politics or life, usually leads to consequences.
The numbers are striking.
A large portion of charitable income in Scotland comes from the state, with less from independent sources. That shouldn’t necessarily be uncomfortable for Conservatives, many charities provide essential public services, however over time reliance changes behaviour.
Where the funding goes, influence often follows. The ‘follow the money’ dilemma.
A recent investigation in The Times indicated that some organisations feel pressure, subtle but present, to go along with Government priorities. Criticism isn’t silenced, but it is softened. When funding is concentrated in one area it becomes harder to express dissent.
Consider Intercultural Youth Scotland, which received nearly £1 million in public funding despite internal complaints and governance issues. Regardless of the merits of its work, the key question is whether there’s enough oversight when distributing public money at such a scale.
Now look at the gender reform debate. Several publicly funded organisations have been among the strongest supporters of the Scottish Government’s stance. This may be a coincidence, but in politics, perception is important. The view is that the same voices receive funding, gain traction and align with the Government.
This issue goes beyond funding. It’s also becoming clear within the Scottish Parliament.
Committees are supposed to review Government policy based on independent evidence and challenge it. However, too often, witnesses from publicly funded organisations seem to support rather than question the Government’s position. What should be a scrutiny process starts to look like an endorsement.
Over time, this blurs the committees’ purpose. Instead of testing the Government, they risk making it seem independently validated.
So what needs to change?
Firstly, we need greater transparency. It often isn’t clear to the public or even to parliamentarians how reliant many third sector groups are on taxpayer money. That cannot be right. Any organisation receiving public funds should be required to make that clear on its website, in its publications and when giving evidence to Parliament.
Secondly, we should be open to a more uncomfortable question. If an organisation relies almost entirely on the state for funding, in what meaningful way can it still be called a charity? A review of charity law in Scotland is overdue, not to weaken the sector but to re-establish the principle of independence that supports it.
Thirdly, the lobbying rules need to keep up with reality. Whilst groups lobbying Ministers and MSPs must declare their activities, that transparency doesn’t always extend to interactions with public bodies, especially when those bodies are influencing major policy decisions.
This gap is significant.
The development of the Scottish Prison Service’s gender policy, influenced in part by discussions with externally funded advocacy groups, illustrates the problem. We now know the consequences, but at the time, the process of how those decisions were influenced was far less visible.
If taxpayer-funded organisations engage in lobbying, whether to Ministers or public bodies, they should disclose that activity. This isn’t just a bureaucratic formality; it’s a fundamental condition of accountability in a democracy.
Without transparency, it becomes more challenging to separate public money, advocacy and policymaking.
When these boundaries blur, it isn’t just accountability that falters, trust does too.
A healthy democracy relies on a balance between those in power and those who hold them accountable. When that balance weakens, democracy does not collapse suddenly. It erodes gradually.
If civil society cannot speak freely, it stops being truly independent. If the Government faces no real challenges, it ceases to be effectively governed.
That’s the risk: not a sudden break, but a slow drift toward a system where power largely communicates with itself and calls it consensus.
Scotland can and should do better.