By Marc Crothall
If I asked you to invest £150,000 in a project and guaranteed that you would receive somewhere in the region of £15 million back for your support, what would you do? If I guaranteed you that you would receive another £15m-plus the next year, and another £15M-plus the year after, what would you do? If I told you that the project needed urgent funding to ensure its survival for this year and viability for future years, what would you do?
Shake your head and say “No, not for me” or start digging promptly.
There was a real chance that T in the Park was not going to be held this year. A lifeline of £150,000 was awarded by the Scottish Government to ensure the festival could take place in its new home at Strathallan Castle. Without that support, it was likely that the festival would not have gone ahead and, if that had been the case, it was deemed unlikely by DF Concerts that the festival would stay in Scotland in the future. The north of England was mooted as a potential alternative "home" for the festival.
Last year T in the Park generated £15.4m for the Scottish economy. The staging and delivery of the event itself created hundreds of jobs.
The award of “state aid” funding has been heavily criticised by politicians, businesses and individuals. That is subject to a review and we await further details about the process and the decisions made around the funding for this event from the First Minister. Allegations of impropriety should, of course, be investigated and it is right and proper that this review takes place and that questions are answered.
What seems to have been omitted from debate is recognition of the scale of the impact this festival has on the Scottish economy. It generates some £15m a year. What about the next year and the next? Let’s take the next five years and put a figure on that: £60m, perhaps?
Let’s not forget, too, that the funding was awarded on the basis that the festival would remain in Scotland, with the proviso that funds are paid back to the Government if the situation changes.
The payment could be viewed as a "bail out" or it could, more sensibly, be viewed as investment in the future of our economy; a strategic investment rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
How might we have responded had the Scottish Government refused to offer a lifeline to DF Concerts to ensure the go-ahead for T in the Park this year and protect its vital role in driving on the economy?
Would we have felt okay about £60m potentially vanishing from our economy over a five year period? I would suggest that no, we would not, and for one moment putting aside any questions about the process of the award of this funding, I would go as far as saying that we would generally feel supportive of the Scottish Government’s decision to offer a lifeline to the event.
Of course, the taxpayer should be reassured that public money is being invested for the benefit of the economy, but could anyone argue that this isn’t the case?
The outcomes of this particular funding package are clear. This is about supporting the objectives of Scotland’s national events strategy and enhancing Scotland’s major events portfolio to boost the events, tourism and national economies.
What would losing one of Scotland’s major events have done to our reputation given that, in recent years, we have provided the stage for some of the world’s biggest and most noteworthy events? Few favours, I suspect, not to mention our loss becoming someone else’s multi-million pound gain.
Many of Scotland’s best-known events receive funding from the Government and its bodies to ensure their viability and long-term survival: Celtic Connections, Edinburgh’s Hogmanay, the World Pipe Band Championships, and the International Book Festival to name but a few.
Allegations of "cronyism" aside, why should the biggest music festival in Scotland be viewed any differently?
Marc Crothall is chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel