My sure bet still looks safe

Glasgow Science Centre © E Gammie

At the start of the month, even though I don’t bet I referred to a sure bet that I might have made if I did like to throw my money away, and mentioned the fact the Scotland’s Science centres, and Glasgow Science Centre in particular, were heading for hard times as their government sourced funding was to be reduced.

A few days later, the wind of change appeared to be blowing, threatening my sure bet, and that despite news of the centre’s core funding going down, ministers were to say that the country’s four science centre’s were receiving “record” funding, and announced that they could also bid for a share in an additional £250,000. Note the important option of bidding for the additional cash – some might get lots, and some might get none! And if some don’t bid, they’re guaranteed to get none.

Now there’s news that the Glasgow Science Centre is to cut 28 jobs in response to fears about its funding, and my sure bet is looking as secure as it ever was – was it ever really in any danger?

I won’t even try to separate fact from fiction, or work out what game is being played here (if you’re an aul’ cynic, or have sat on a board of directors then you will know), suffice to say that the claims and statements being reported can’t all be right. You can have “record” funding and a reduction in funding. You can’t have representatives referring to funding cuts while spokeswomen tell of budget increases for science centres over the next three years.

Whatever is going on, it seems to be clear that someone somewhere is trading in bovine fertiliser, and that there don’t seem to be any obvious winners (except for the “points scorers”), with the science centres wasting their time on funding worries, the government issuing statements that make no sense, local MPs and others being drawn into crisis talks, people losing their jobs, and Scotland being given bad press in the media.

All told, it’s hard to see how anyone can reap any benefit from this sort of politically motivated nonsense, and the bottom line is probably going to be that that if the whole silly exercise was costed, then the supposed saving value of the funding cuts (or is that budget increases?) will be negated by the costs of all the meetings, discussions, talks, spokeswomen, statements, news releases, staff redeployments, redundancy payments, loss of goodwill, and any other claims arising.