IT should not come as a surprise that Audit Scotland is to have its budget slashed at a time when its role has never been more necessary; identifying inefficiencies in order to free up money for supposed priorities.

In today’s Scotland, watchdogs are not supposed to bark and Audit Scotland has become a persistent nuisance. Most conspicuously, its report on the Ferguson ferries scandal was a game-changer; cutting through deceptions and blame-passing that have characterised that sorry affair.

As a result of its report, which fingered political motivation for rushing through the contract, Holyrood’s Audit Committee is now conducting its own inquiry. Its findings are unlikely to make happy reading for Ministers who had fingers in that particular pie – Swinney, Brown and Sturgeon herself – never mind the departed fall-guy, Derek Mackay.

Audit Scotland does its job without political fear or favour and we should be grateful to it. This makes it a very rare animal in the sprawling, interlinked network of Scotland’s quango and patronage circuit where future appointments and funding are dependent on current compliance. And before you ask – no, it wasn’t always like that.

To take another example, I looked at Audit Scotland’s latest report on the performance of local councils and came upon a gem of information that, since 2010, library services have suffered a 29 per cent cut in investment while library closures have “shone a light on digital exclusion”.

Scotland’s quangos are not meant to shine lights on anything inconvenient. Ms Sturgeon’s policy on libraries is to have the occasional photo opportunity, holding a book while surrounded by little children. The fact libraries have been closing and reducing hours, long before the pandemic as cuts in council funding bit, does not fit that script. So thank you, Audit Scotland.

Just to reinforce its point, their report states: “While the digital offer will shape the future of library services, research shows the buildings are vital as a safe, accessible, free, trusted and communal space in communities”. Thank you again, Audit Scotland, for making a statement which would, in an open, progressive society, become the stuff of political debate and media coverage. But do we live in such a society?

At this point, I recalled a blog by the thoughtful independence campaigner Robin McAlpine that was forwarded to me last week. He approaches these matters from a different perspective to mine on the constitution but that does not make it impossible to agree when it comes to analysis of how Scotland is run under Ms Sturgeon’s drab but, when it comes to self-protection, highly efficient regime.

Mr McAlpine defined the “motto of the Sturgeon era” as “be the hand that feeds and demand no biting”. He recalled the early appearance of Naomi Klein as “poverty tsar” and her abrupt disappearance when she “didn’t get the no biting memo” as “a clear and chilling warning from the beginning – cower and I will bestow riches upon you, rise against me and you will be destroyed”.

Mr McAlpine continued: “Scotland is now a cartel of public agencies, NGOs, private interests and consultants and a host of ancillary services all willing to keep their mouths shut in return for generous payment…There is barely a day goes by when the government doesn’t announce another vat of gravy for the train.

“If you want any given group of public sector insiders to start telling the media that your government is doing a good job you simply create a £50 million fund and ask them to ‘bid’ for it. These bids never go to anyone not already soaked in gravy”.

I have no wish to embarrass Mr McAlpine but he is spot on with that critique and a lot of people who have been complicit in allowing it to develop should examine their consciences. How often have I heard the sheepish apology: “I can’t say anything because we’re dependent on them for funding – and they’re ruthless”.

The need for scrutiny of how the Scottish Government’s very generous resources are spent has been given new urgency by the austerity package signalled by the Finance Secretary Kate Forbes, which envisages a huge further cut to local authorities and hence the services they provide.

Ms Forbes blames the £3.5 billion black hole on the funding settlement from Westminster, the traditional cry to relieve the Scottish Government of any self-responsibility. Her claim of a 5.2 per cent cut in this year’s budget is wholly dependent on including the emergency funding for Covid as the baseline, which only a knave or a fool would claim as legitimate. Ms Forbes is not a fool.

Without that pretence, the budget has increased and will rise further as Barnett consequentials arrive during the course of the year, as they always do. If there is indeed a £3.5 billion black hole, then it is entirely due to spending decisions taken in Edinburgh and a refusal to recognise that politics is the language of priorities, in Scotland just like anywhere else.

What we saw recently was not a real spending review but a crude piece of axe-wielding. Again, I can scarcely improve on Robin McAlpine’s summary: “The Scottish Government’s austerity budget was not inevitable – it is the price Scotland will pay for seven years of poor quality, visionless government”.

While he and I disagree respectfully about the desired destination, we seem to be on exactly the same page about the nature of the journey. These years could have been spent on making Scotland a far better, more socially just society to live in. Deep-rooted problems could have been addressed with serious, radical intent. It hasn’t happened and anyone who dared to challenge was deemed an enemy.

It is not Audit Scotland’s job to be a political opposition and it has never come close to crossing that line. It has just done its job and declined to be cowed. More power to its elbow, now and in the future - no matter who is in government. And incidentally, its annual budget is barely half of what has been committed to preparing for a referendum that only 30 per cent want and isn’t going to happen. Priorities?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.