WHEN in the early days of the economic downturn it became clear that cuts to public services would be necessary to wrestle down the UK's deficit, the arts community had reason to be afraid.

For successive embattled Government ministers in the past, reducing funding for the arts has seemed like the least of evils when the alternatives have been cutting nursing or teaching jobs. Arts organisations will be relieved, however, that the culture budget in Scotland has not been as sharply reduced as it has been south of the Border. Last year, the sector was rocked by a public row over how Creative Scotland was run, and how its funding decisions were made, but conspicuous by its absence in those discussions was anger about an overall funding shortfall from the Scottish Government.

There has been a fall – overall culture spending, for Creative Scotland, the heritage sector, museums and galleries and the national companies, decreased from £156.8m in 2012/13 to £153.2m in 2013/14 – but it has held up better than many expected it would.

The Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop, then, is justified in drawing a sharp distinction between her attitude towards the arts and that of her UK counterpart, Maria Miller. In April, Ms Miller warned arts organisations that they would have to prove their economic benefit or face funding cuts, saying projects must show "healthy dividends" on the taxpayer's investment. This was after the Department for Culture, Media and Sport announced a 30% cut in grant aid for the Arts Council by 2014/15.

Ms Hyslop took the opportunity yesterday to contrast that approach with her own, which she described as understanding "that culture and heritage have a value in and of themselves". She said that "despite these challenging times, we do not measure the worth of culture and heritage solely in pounds and pence – we value culture and heritage precisely because they are so much more, because they are our heart, our soul, our essence".

Ms Hyslop was of course scoring a political point. Her rousing words were part of an unabashed campaigning speech designed to appeal to the heart and secure the backing of her listeners for a Yes vote in the independence referendum. What is more, the protection of arts funding thus far – and until after the independence referendum – does not mean that it will be protected forever. Further cuts will be required to the Scottish Government's overall budget over the next four years and the arts may still take a hit. The sector is also buffered by Lottery revenues which are still rising after being diverted to pay for the Olympics.

Nevertheless, there is no denying the difference in emphasis and approach between the two governments. Whether independence would make a fundamental difference when the Scottish Government is already taking a distinct approach to the arts is a moot point. Hearing Ms Hyslop's words, however, many in her audience will have counted their blessings that they live and work in Scotland.