Audit Scotland has an agenda quite unlike that of the National Audit Office for England. The latter above puts not a word of criticism, direct or implied, of the Government in report titles or press releases.
Today, the Herald and Reporting Scotland have been all over the Audit Scotland headline report below.
In Scotland, it’s all very different:
Things are bad almost everywhere they look and that is trumpeted in headlines and releases for the media.
One of Audit Scotland’s clearest indicators of bias and, indeed, lack of credibility, came in April 2023 when we heard that better protection from flooding is required in Scotland: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65323458
Audit Scotland had clearly failed to audit the evidence below:
In November 2020, despite 30 flood warnings and 7 severe flood warning, Scotland’s media have no images or reports of flooded homes to be blamed by local Tory MSPs on failures by the SNP Government to prevent them.
If they had them, we’d see them. BBC Scotland’s headline report has ‘disruption’ on the roads but not one image of a flooded house.
Maybe I’m tempting fate, but we’ve been here before, in 2016, as major flooding of homes in England was desperately linked by ‘our’ media to a few cases in Scotland and supposed SNP failures.
Why are homes not flooding despite a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours?
As far back as 2006, researchers at the English College of Estates Management, whose patron was HRH Prince of Wales, made a number of highly encouraging comments about the achievements of the Labour-run Scottish Executive, SEPA and the Local Authorities:
As far as flood protection is concerned, unlike in England, the 1 in 200-year standard of protection is ‘universal’ for all new buildings, with a 1,000-year standard for such vulnerable uses as old people’s homes, schools, hospitals etc. In addition, construction in flood hazard areas has almost completely ended. Crichton (2003: 26) estimates that “the active flood management programme currently in progress will result in almost all high-risk properties being protected against the 200-year flood within the next three years, taking climate change into account.” It is also interesting to note that the Scottish Executive grants for flood defences have never been refused on the grounds of budget restraints and there is no rationing of flood defence spending.
It is clear, however, that the more stringent building standards which are applied in Scotland ensure that severe storms result in much less property damage than comparable events in England. Also, the level of flood protection and the commitment of funding to achieve flood protection are higher in Scotland than in England.’
College of Estates Management at: https://www.cem.ac.uk/media/28193/flooding.pdf
More recently, with SNP leadership, the favourable comparison still seems to hold. Published research from the esteemed Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in 2012, seems to support my first impressions quite strongly:
‘Where English planning regulations permit building in flood plains where there is no alternative, Scottish Planning Policy does not permit building in areas in which ‘the flood risk exceeds the 200-year return period’, i.e. where in any year there is a greater than 0.5 per cent probability of flooding. Scotland has stronger regulations governing the capacity of sewage and drainage systems for new building. It also has stronger minimum standards for flood defences. Building regulations ensuring flood resilience in the housing stock are more developed. Scottish planners, through Flood Liaison and Advice Groups, are engaged with local communities, the emergency services, insurers and other interested parties in drawing up flood plans. The differences in regulatory regimes between England and Scotland are reflected in the number of households that are at risk of flooding, and the resilience of communities in responding to those risks.’
The level of investment will be one factor in these differences. In recent years, spending in England and Wales has declined seriously after significant increases under Labour in 1997 to 2010, as revealed in a UK Parliament Briefing Paper from 2015:
‘Central Government spending on flood defence in 2010-11 was cut soon after the Coalition Government was formed. Spending was reduced in one year by £30 million or 5%. In the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review (2011-12 to 2014-15), a total of £2.17 billion in central government funding was provided for flood and coastal defence. This represented “a six percent fall in central government funding”, The Committee on Climate Change calculated that this represented a real term cut of around 20% compared to the previous spending period.’
In sharp contrast, for Scotland, we see in a Scottish Parliament Committee Paper for 2014-2015, evidence of increasing investment:
‘With regard to flood protection and alleviation, the Committee welcomes the cash terms increases in the funding available to SEPA, and to the Natural Assets and Flooding budget, both of which sit in the RAE portfolio. The Committee believes that, due to climate change, severe weather events will become increasingly likely in Scotland in years to come, and it is therefore essential that flood forecasting and warning systems be as accurate and robust as possible. The Committee welcomes the increased funding for flood forecasting and warning in the RAE portfolio and recommends that the Scottish Government continue to ensure sufficient funding is available to improve flood forecasting and warning systems, to ensure greater consistency across the whole of Scotland.’
As for more recent evidence of superiority in the Scottish system, see this at the Scottish government site and little (surprise, surprise) MSM coverage of it at the time:
‘£42 million a year plan over the next decade.
More than 10,000 families are to benefit from a ten year strategy to protect homes in many of Scotland’s most flood-prone communities. The plan is the result of grant funding totalling £420 million and follows an agreement reached between the Scottish Government and COSLA. The cash will be used to deliver 40 new flood protection projects and support local flood risk management plans. More than 130 flood protection studies will be carried out to help find potential solutions for another 26,000 residential properties currently at risk. The announcement came as the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, fulfilled her pledge to return to Newton Stewart following an earlier visit in the aftermath of flooding at Hogmanay.’
So, unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government has maintained or bettered the investment and the sophistication in flood prevention here. Had I been writing in 2006, the Labour-controlled Scottish Executive would have rightly claimed any credit for performance north of the border. In 2016, the SNP-controlled Scottish Parliament can do the same. Will BBC Scotland allow them to do it? They clearly didn’t in the run-up to General Election in 2016 so I doubt it.
There you have it, my attempt to shore up our defence plans against a flood of BBC bias (See what I did there, again, again?) as we approach the UK Monsoon season.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37306094
http://news.sky.com/story/16312m-flood-defence-plan-an-elastoplast-say-victims-10569571
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Water/Flooding
College of Estates Management at:https://www.cem.ac.uk/media/28193/flooding.pdf
UK Parliament Briefing Paper at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tGK3kUO-iKEJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05755.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Scottish Parliament Paper at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/70875.aspx
Scottish Act on Control of Flood water at:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1057/0094052.pdf
WWF Report at: http://nationalfloodforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/floodplanner_web.pdf
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/about-us/accounts-commission/commission-members
I had a look at this site shown my ignorance by not having heard of any of them are they all independent no affiliations to any party or an axe to grind,just asking.
LikeLike
Well THEY may deliberately turn a blind eye to Tory failings in England (and the UK) but many of us in Scotland are more than aware of the BIGGER picture and too the reality of who is really doing the “day job” for the “MANY” (as in the Scottish Govt for it’s citizens) and who is more focused upon doing the assumed and preferred “day job” only for the benefit of the FEW (as in the Tory UK Govt for both themselves and their wealthy donors)……………that is the REAL distinction via both governments…..while the other two devolved governments, UK and NI, are never focused upon …that is YET….once their respective citizens via a less British style of government is in place…..and they also begin to signal that they too want to LEAVE the UK in growing numbers then and only then will they TOO become targets….of both the English media and their various Pro UK government(s)…..
Are the DUP still in the huff in NI….because they failed to win over the people in NI in recent elections……perhaps that suits the Tories at WM as they cannot have a ‘Nationalist’ Govt in power…..can they!…..
LikeLiked by 3 people
“while the other two devolved governments, UK and NI”
* Wales and NI…..gremlins again…LOL
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that at the least the style of reporting by Audit Scotland contrasts markedly from that of the National Audit Office (NAO).
The Audit Scotland report in focus has this headline: ‘Access to mental health services slow and complicated’.
On 9 February 2023 the NAO published a report on mental health services in England. It had this title: ‘Progress in improving mental health services in England’.
Audit Scotland has this opening paragraph in its press release: ‘Accessing adult mental health services in Scotland remains slow and complicated for many people. In particular, ethnic minority groups, people living in rural areas and those in poverty all face additional barriers.’
Then we learn: ‘There have been big funding increases for services since 2017, but a lack of data makes it hard for the Scottish Government to see the impact of that spending. Waiting times for psychological therapies have improved. But ministers do not measure the quality of wider mental healthcare services, or whether they are improving people’s health.’
The NAO had this first paragraph in its press release: ‘Despite funding and staffing levels for mental health services increasing, and more patients being treated, millions of people with mental health needs are still not accessing services, with some facing lengthy waits for treatment, according to a new National Audit Office (NAO) report.’
After eight paragraphs of just factual, statistics-rich information on the state of mental health services in England, the NAO press statement then has this:
‘Furthermore, THE IMPACT OF INITIATIVES TO REDUCE INEQUALITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH IS UNCLEAR. Less than 10% (2 OUT OF 29) OF INTEGRATED CARE BOARDS SURVEYED BY THE NAO SAID THEY HAD ALL OR MOST OF THE DATA NEEDED to assess variations in patients’ access, experiences, and outcomes.’ This negative paragraph, addressing comparable issues to those highlighted in Scotland, was not used by the NAO to construct a negatively framed headline.
The NAO’s report title could be taken as neutral or even positively framed. Its very first paragraph acknowledges enhanced government/NHS contributions whilst then pointing up the ‘problem’. Then eight paragraphs of factual information before addressing the issues around impact assessment and data, also on this making reference to what appears to be actual research with Integrated Care Boards – responses of ‘2 out of 29’.
And on the ‘tone’ of comment regarding government: ‘The NAO report concludes that, while funding and workforce for mental health services have increased and more people have been treated, BOTH DHSC AND NHSE MUST LEARN THE LESSONS FROM THEIR EFFORTS TO DATE AND DEMONSTRATE A FIRMER GRIP on the significant ongoing risks to their ambitions in order to ensure value for money in their expansion efforts. They must also set out what is required to achieve equality between mental and physical health services.’
This from the NAO is hardly the stuff likely to aid headline writers! By contrast it can seem as if authors of Audit Scotland reports are consciously enabling negative headlines for oppositional new media.
Which brings me to the other difference between Audit Scotland and NAO reports: for the most part the news media ignores the latter. And the Scottish news media always ignores the latter even though on occasions the government department and spend under scrutiny impacts taxpayers in Scotland.
‘
LikeLiked by 4 people
Every agency in Scotland that is controlled by Westminster government acts firstly to support and promote England and Englands Westminster government that’s why Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland have puppet governments it’s all a fake show of independence there is no independence for them , note of course that England does not have their own independent puppet government like holyrood stormont etc and that’s because their government Westminster would not cede power to another place.
Audit Scotland , piffle , no auditing done there , they are as reliable and honest as GERS cut from the same cloth , liars and deceivers that’s what they are
LikeLiked by 4 people
And despite all the improvements in flood prevention, and no flood damage to residential properties in Scotland. Everyone in Scotland will see an increase in their household insurance, and if you ask why it costs so much more this year than last year. The answer will undoubtedly be “because of last years floods!!!!
Not in Scotland.
How exactly are you assessing my property and location??
Of course we will be compensating the insurance companies (and Lloyds names) for their losses in england, cause by westminster not spending the taxes they took from us and those in england on flood defences.
Now there is another thing we need to build, an independent insurance industry.
Anybody fancy being a Jock Tamsons Coffee shop Name.
LikeLike