Caught between the hammer and the anvil, that’s us.
The hammer being the amount of cash we have to do things, the anvil being the huge amount of need for our services.
How do we escape from this bind? In truth, I’m not sure I’m up to answering that.
The third sector’s unique position in society and our funding models mean that we will, to an extent, always be prisoners of this contradiction.
But life can be made easier, surely. And the only way for that to happen is for political will to translate into fiscal spend.
We always being assured that the political will is there. I sat through the first minister’s address to this year’s Gathering and heard her warm, emollient words about the sector.
You can read my report on them on page 8.
Correctly, she told us that the sector’s job is to “make life difficult for governments and policy makers”.
There was also a welcome line about how the sector is vital to Scotland’s transition to a “wellbeing economy”, where growth is measured in happiness, not gross domestic product.
Fine. Great. As I say, welcome. But we have heard all of this before – many times. The stark fact is that it is hard to hold to account if you are barely holding together, and this was brought into focus at the same event and from the same platform as the first minister by SallyAnn Kelly of Aberlour.
She spoke of the reality for many charities, which must be stacked against our own ambitions – and those others have for us.
The reality is the “level of churn”, with no assurances over funding streams or terms.
If the Scottish Government is serious about the role the third sector has to play – and I don’t believe it isn’t – it has to start following through with action.
Here we come to another bind – and another hammer beating on another anvil. Much third sector cash is filtered through local government, the funding for which is part-determined by decreasing levels of money coming from Westminster.
We’re almost in a circular firing squad scenario, and something has to give.
I’m not sure what the answer to this is – my personal opinion is that it probably involves using Scotland’s tax raising powers to more efficiently squeeze those who can most afford it and resolving Scotland’s constitutional deadlock. After all, when you can’t untie a knot, you have to cut it.
Another contradiction Scotland’s charities find themselves stretched upon is the relationship between practising and preaching. Can charities preach environmental responsibility, while their pension funds are invested in fossil fuels?
On the other hand, given the already parlous nature of finances across the sector, can we afford to divest?
These issues are explored on pages 12-17.
More questions than answers I’m afraid – but you resolve nothing without debate. In that light, be sure to tell us what you think – tfn@scvo.org.uk.
Graham Martin is editor of TFN.
