It is only natural for a representative of a sector that relies on public money to call for more of it, but Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), has a point in raising concerns about the funding of Scottish colleges.

In a letter to Michael Russell, the Scottish Education Secretary, Mr Flanagan says a real-terms cut of £56 million to the sector since 2010/11 is jeopardising the chances of successfully implementing the reforms suggested by the Wood Commission.

The commission, which was set up by the Scottish Government to examine how young people can be better supported to gain the skills they need for sustainable employment, has suggested, among other things, that the further education (FE) sector should work much more closely with schools and employers to develop a coherent and effective system of vocational education.

This is unquestionably a good idea, particularly at a time when one of the greatest challenges to the UK's future economic growth is the continuing skills shortage - essentially, a lack of graduates with the skills required by the country's emerging and growing sectors.

The further education sector could be in a good position to help solve this problem, but Mr Flanagan believes colleges will find it hard to do so when they are facing dramatic funding cuts, particularly to their teaching budgets.

The issue is one which this newspaper has raised on many occasions and it continues to be of concern. The FE budget has shrunk dramatically - budgets have declined from £506.9 million in 2012/13 to £470.7m in 2014/15. Thousands of jobs have also gone and last year the teaching budget was cut by 8.5%.

The Scottish Government's response to this has been to say the cuts will be partly offset by the rationalisation of the sector and, in response to Mr Flanagan, the Government has repeated the argument.

Certainly, it is the case that some elements of the rationalisation do make sense. Unnecessary tiers of management should be removed; back-office functions should be shared between colleges; the duplication of courses between neighbouring colleges should be removed.

However, there remains a danger of the cuts damaging the quality of the student experience. Mr Flanagan is also right to be worried about the effects the cuts could have on the role colleges can play in improving vocational education.

No one is suggesting the FE sector should be spared from necessary cuts, but the reforms should be driven by educational and social factors rather than economic ones. There is clearly still a strong demand for places, with thousands of students on waiting lists. But it is not just the students who need the colleges. Scotland needs them too and the fear remains that not enough is being done to protect them.