I HAVE always struggled with equations, despite my maths teachers' misguided conviction that they could be solved. Now we have yet another set of figures on social care, this time under the banner of the Accounts Commission ("Watchdog in stark warning on care costs", The Herald, September 22), and let me see if I have understood them:
On the demand side:
* 0.4 per cent annual increase in overall population (nine per cent between 2012 and 2035);
* One per cent annual increase in the pensioner population (27 per cent between 2012 and 2035), with little apparent improvement in health;
* Two per cent annual increase in youngsters requiring social care (36 per cent increase since 2000);
* 22 per cent more per year needed by 2020 to maintain the service (£667 million on £3.1 billion).
On the supply side:
* £3.1 billion annual social care spend on 300,000 beneficiaries, which looks like £10,000 a head,
* 1.7 per cent planned savings in 2017 (£54 million against £3.1 billion).
While a £9 million sticking plaster to help health boards weather the winter is welcome, it is disappointing to hear Health Secretary Shona Robison repeat the mantra that "integration of health and social services will support better provision of care". It rings as hollow as the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board spokespersons repeating that parking space at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital is adequate and will not be increased.
I have considerable sympathy for Ms Robison – as a politician she probably feels she has no alternative - but these are not party political matters: the Scottish Government has no business rehearsing this karaoke script, any more than opposition MSPs have making cheap jibes, and if ever there was an issue meriting grown-up cross-party collaboration this is it.
The numbers do not add up – we all know that – and since my erstwhile maths teachers are probably no longer available we must look to those responsible to work together on a design for a silk purse. I know where they can find a sow's ear.
James Sandeman,
3 Scone Place,
Newton Mearns.
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