Secret Scotland

I don’t really know what else to describe the appearance of two unrelated, but illustrative, stories published by the BBC this week with regard to government funding/spending.

In the first, a survey has identified a £40 million funding gap in the provisions made for free personal care for the elderly, a scheme which is currently said to cost some £280 million to run each year. Audit Scotland, in a separate review, found the policy was patchy in its implementation, and suggested the shortfall was anywhere up to £63 million. These may be small amounts in terms of government finances, but as one who can express a view from personal experience, would emphasise how great the benefit can be for those who receive such care. They report gives a figure of up to £149 for possible weekly payment that may be made.

In the second, the BBC reports that councils have spent record amounts on external consultants, over 30% more than last year, totalling over £67 million. Not surprisingly, a council spokesman claimed that using consultants saved money in the long run. In the period 2007/07, Edinburgh spent £8.2 million, North Lanarkshire £7.1 million, Highland £7 million, Glasgow (surprisingly, or maybe not) £2 million. Dundee refused to provide their figure, requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

With such amounts being spent on consultants, one has to winder what those employed by the council are doing to earn their wages, especially the ‘High Rollers’.

There are plenty of good and valid reasons to bring in consultants, especially of they bring specialist knowledge in seldom used areas of operation, but the amount seems large, and could cover the cost of free personal care for the elderly, and still leave change.

In my business, I detest seeing consultants appear on the books, the reason being they are usually brought in by directors who want their pet projects ‘rubber stamped’ by an outsider to prove they are ‘good ideas’. Well, since they’re paying the consultant’s often ridiculous fees, it’s little wonder they concur. The truly aggravating aspect is that all they generally do for their money is tell us what we know already, but some directors don’t value what they hear from their peers, for free, but will support the same advice if it arrives bound in an externally generated report - with a fat fee note attached to prove its ‘value’.

I wonder if it’s the same in councils?

We recently warned you that there would be military exercises taking place around the country, and this week the British Geological Survey (BGS) confirmed it (honest, their name really is Survey, and not Society, as the BBC have them described as I write - I use their services, they’d get rightly upset if I got their name wrong).

Obliged to class their observations as earthquakes until alternate confirmation could be made, the BGS recorded explosions in the Minch, between the mainland and the Western Isles, three times last week, at magnitudes of 1.1, 1.5 and 1.9.

The major exercise involved numerous simulated bombing runs, and is one of the few remaining where live firing of most weapons available is authorised.

In a later news item (where the Beeb got ‘Survey’ right), the Royal Navy confirmed that the explosions recorded by earthquake recording equipment were caused by military mine clearance training.