Allan Massie: Let's talk freely about middle-class handouts

IN 2009 it was reported that the average cost of getting married in Britain is now more than 20,000. Average cost is not the same as mean cost, and the latter figure is probably lower. Nevertheless, a poll commissioned by the magazine You & Your Wedding found that the standard couple now borrow 26,000 for their big day at a 5 per cent interest rate over 16 years.

Now you may say, truthfully, that lots of weddings cost much less than this; that it is daft to pay so much and that nobody in your family would ever think of doing so. Fair enough. Nevertheless, quite obviously many splash out heavily on their wedding, either getting into debt to do so, or levying a hefty contribution from parents. And why not, if that's what they want to do?

The "if clause" is important. When people want something enough, they are prepared to pay for it, even if doing so strains their resources or lands them in debt. This 26,000 is only 1,000 short of what universities in England are about to charge for a three-year degree, and though Alex Salmond promises he will never inflict such a wicked cost on Scottish students, their counterparts in England are still signing up for a university education - even though they get into debt to do so.

One consequence may be that weddings become cheaper in England while remaining very expensive in Scotland, where graduate couples enter into marriage without the burden of debt taken on to pay for their university education. Weddings more expensive in Scotland than in England? Outrageous! Intolerable! After free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions for all and free university education, what about free weddings for the young? Come on, Alex, don't be so heartless. Why indeed should anyone pay for anything when the state is there to fork out?

"You're ahead of me now, lady," as the great Max Miller used to say on the point of delivering a choice double entendre, and you will realise that this light-hearted speculation about state-financed weddings and all that is prompted by the speech which the chief executive of Cosla, Rory Mair, gave to a conference organised by The Scotsman on Monday. He argued that there is a wide and widening gap between what councils are required by law to provide and the resources given to them. Moreover, the demand is growing while councils are being squeezed for cash. "It's demand for public services that is killing us, not simply the loss of resources," he said.

Few may sensibly dispute this. It's the conclusion he drew that will provoke argument. "For the top 20 per cent," he said, "we almost do not need to make any provision of public services - and we aren't smart and successful Scotland for people living in communities in that bottom 20 per cent." To put it bluntly, he is saying that people who can afford to pay are getting services free, while those who need free services are getting inadequate ones.This is indisputable. A great deal of public money goes to providing services free at the point of use for people who could afford to pay for them, either in full or in part. To take a couple of obvious examples: how much more money could be spent on schools in deprived areas if middle-class parents were required to make a direct contribution, in the form of a fee, to the cost of their children's education? Why should free care be provided for elderly people whose families are well enough off to pay at least part of the cost of such care?

The examples could be multiplied, and it is certainly reasonable to ask what should be provided free for all and what some might be expected to pay for, or make a contribution towards. This admittedly invites awkward questions: is your aged mother-in-law's wellbeing worth sacrificing a holiday for? Would you be prepared to switch to a cheaper car in order to pay for granddad's hospital costs? What - if Alex was to perform a U-turn on student fees - would you deny yourself to put your son or daughter through university?

The objections to the implications of Mr Mair's argument are obvious and not to be despised. First, the sort of discrimination he appears to be suggesting would require means-testing, which would itself be costly and which is always unpopular except when we are so accustomed to it that we don't call it by that name - income tax being an example of means-testing which is apparently acceptable.

Second, people pay tax as part of an unspoken contract: they will get something in return. What they get may be much less than they pay, but at least it is there. To pay tax and have benefits which you now enjoy removed, while still contributing to the provision of these benefits to others, would strike many as unfair. Resentment and social stress might be the outcome.

Third, such discrimination flies in the face of the philosophy of the welfare state, at least in the form we have grown used to, and particularly of the NHS, which promises treatment as needed free at the point of use. Any discriminatory reform would be very unpopular. People would feel cheated of what they have come to believe they are entitled to receive. It may well be true that if one set out from scratch to devise a national health service and a welfare state, one wouldn't start from where we are now; yet here is where we are.

Nevertheless, Mr Mair has raised an important question which should be argued out. What are we entitled to expect in the way of public services from the state, and what is it reasonable to expect people to pay for? We don't, after all, expect the state to pay for free housing for all, free food, free electricity and gas, free motoring, free holidays, free golf or free trips to Europe to support our football or rugby teams. So why should those who can afford it get free this or that? Having put the question - to which I can offer no satisfactory answer - I am happy to use my bus pass, even while accepting it might be reasonable to raise the age of eligibility: to my own last birthday, of course.