Look between the lines of official reports and what you see here appears to be: "Councils have done pretty well to-date, the future looks a lot tougher and some of you may not yet be ready for that."
This now annual publications summarises how a more than 8 per cent real terms reduction in government financial support for council services over the period 2010 to 2014 has been handled by our 32 councils and I share the view of the Accounts Commission that most of them have done quite well.
On a range of measures performance has improved. Increased levels of re-cycling; increased users for libraries, sports centres and museums; reduced costs of street cleaning and roads maintenance. You might find these apparent successes hard to credit: potholes in roads are a regular source of complaint; lots of voluntary bodies have seen their council grants reduced; schools continue to be closed. So if your local services have been changed, reduced, or even withdrawn you won't be impressed. Nor if you used to work for a council and found yourself persuaded to leave.
A key message is that councillors still often fall short on robust financial planning. Medium to longer term plans of between five to 10 years are not universal. Capital borrowing has built up and the management of reserves varies widely between different councils.
As populations change we place more demands on council services and this is different place to place, whether care for older people or greater school provision.
The implicit message is that councils might now have to look at some of the drastic solutions tried in England, where government grant reductions have been three times greater than here. And that will be tough .
Professor Richard Kerley, Centre for Scottish Public Policy
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 hereComments are closed on this article