VERY few people deny the growing crisis of trust that cuts across all British institutions. From policemen, to journalists, religious leaders, business and banking executives, and most of all politicians, authority figures everywhere are treated with growing suspicion bordering on contempt by the people they supposedly serve.

Deservedly or not, parliaments suffer most from this problem. Policemen might lose public sympathy, but they still have big sticks to beat us with. Bankers might lose their reputation for prudence, but they still do what they are meant to do: make a mountain of money for themselves and their wealthy clients. But politicians? Without trust from the public, their institutions could theoretically collapse. And that’s exactly what’s happening to the structures of Westminster today.

Many interconnecting causes have brought us to this crisis. But perhaps the deepest problem is the flow of dirty cash from British capitalism into the veins of British democracy. The Tory Party has never, ever been a vehicle for social justice, but once upon a time it was a huge One Nation organisation funded by ordinary members. Today, its dwindled forces are kept alive by regular injections of cash from the City of London, allowing them to outspend all their rivals put together.

Sadly, there is no scandal here, no outraged editorials, no spittle-flecked screaming for reform. Instead, the British press, owned nearly outright by Tory supporters, are ratcheting up the pressure on Labour’s finance from the unions.

The unions, they say, are the old corruption poisoning British democracy. Hence we have the Trade Union Bill.

I’m not a fan of the unions funding Labour, as I’ll explain. But it would be profoundly ignorant to let this point stand. The unions give Labour money for a simple reason: historically, without this cash, the centre-left might as well not bother with British democracy.

In a flawed electoral system such as Westminster, the party with the most cash to throw at marginal seats generally wins, and the winner takes all. Without union money, working people might as well lie down and submit to rule by the old Etonians, the spivs on the make, and the technocratic tax-cutters that make up Tory frontbenches. There would be no welfare state and no rights for workers.

The sad truth today is that union money simply can’t prevent these evils anymore. Last January Ed Miliband had to admit that the Tories could outspend him by a ratio of 3:1. A recent study by the London School of Economics revealed that the Tories received £15.4 million in donations for the 2015 General Election. All other parties, including Labour, SNP, Greens and more, had to make do with less than £12 million combined.

Westminster being what it is, much of this spending goes to fund marginal – often middle-class – seats, meaning that marginal voters are worth more in a very literal sense.

THE votes that really seem to count, though, are those of the property tycoons, the hedge fund managers and the inheritors of vast fortunes that fund the Tories. And their investments are well rewarded. First dibs on the NHS, cuts to corporation tax, light-touch regulation, and a front-row seat at the auctioning of public assets are some obvious benefits. Additionally, giving the Tories a few bob never harmed anyone’s chances when it comes to the honours list.

How can the labour movement keep up with this gravy train? All the accusations of union interference with democracy are, at best, utterly petty by comparison. So while union funding isn’t working, and we need an alternative, the Tories’ Trade Union Bill should be opposed by anyone with remotely progressive politics. It is not an attack on Labour, it is an attack on working people’s right to defend themselves. The biggest problem with UK unions is that they are too apolitical, too willing to sacrifice their own politics to Labour’s. This Bill only enhances this problem, curbing the unions’ ability to launch and fund grassroots campaigns to save hospitals or defend victimised workers.

But the question remains, what’s the positive alternative to this mess? Scotland needs to come up with answers, or we risk replicating the corporate-controlled “democracy” we rightly deride.

Some favour voluntary solutions, relying on crowd-funding and technology to outwit the old bureaucratic politicians. Fine, for a while. But in an era where the Tories can spend £100,000 per month on Facebook, it’s clear that the old corruption can adapt to new tech fairly quickly.

Some favour state funding.

I sympathise with this view, but state funding of institutions without grassroots legitimacy would simply reinforce existing problems. It would also favour established parties over new grassroots contenders. Would the public be willing to fund such a system? I wouldn’t.

My preference is for a hybrid system, what American academics have called the “democracy card”. The government would give every citizen a small but equal amount of cash, which they would be under no obligation to spend, to back political candidates of their choice.

The aim would be to force political hopefuls to find their cash from a large pool of ordinary people, rather than fester away in the isolated chambers of parliament, easy prey for corporate lobbyists.

Parties could choose to avoid this donation system. But the catch would be that any party taking “democracy card” cash would be banned from taking corporate cash or other big donations. Everyone would know which parties were funded by citizens, and which ones refused citizen funding in favour of elite funding.

The late Stephen Maxwell once called for supporters of independence to set precedents rather than honour traditions. When Scotland becomes Europe’s newest democracy, we should paradoxically honour his words, and ditch the old habits of corporate-funded politics for a new era of citizenship.