Cuts v Savings
When is a cut not a cut?
When it's a 'saving' of course - when someone comes up with a fandabydozy new way of doing something - which means you get a better result for less money.
More bang for your buck - in other words.
The Herald newspaper ran an interesting story the other day - which claimed that Scotland has wasted £100 million - on a free bus pass scheme.
But this is not quite as dramatic as it sounds - in the sense that millions of pounds are now being saved - by bringing in new technology designed to cut out fraud and abuse.
The newspaper headline about waste - is that even more could have been saved if the authorities had acted more quickly - hence the claim about a near £100 million 'loss'.
When I say new technology - I do of course mean technology that's years old - but that's a whole other argument.
Anyway Transport Scotland - which runs the bus pass scheme for the over 60s and the disabled - took four years to get on top of things.
But the agency now claims annual savings of £24 million - by using smartcard tickets readers to cut out fraud, red tape and inaccurate payments.
The Scotland wide scheme came into play in 2006 - and if the new ticket readers had been in use from day one - the public purse would have saved even more - £96 million or four times £24 million to be exact.
So is the bottle half-full or half-empty - has Transport Scotland to be congratulated for saving £24 million a year - or criticised for wasting £96 million?
Probably a bit of both.
Because the new 'smart' ticketing system has cost the organisation £42 million - which is funded with government money of course - whereas the initial cost estimate was just £9 million.
So where did the extra £33 million come from?
In any event Transport Scotland won't be complaining if Scottish ministers chop £24 million off their annual budget.
Because that represents a saving - not a cut.
When it's a 'saving' of course - when someone comes up with a fandabydozy new way of doing something - which means you get a better result for less money.
More bang for your buck - in other words.
The Herald newspaper ran an interesting story the other day - which claimed that Scotland has wasted £100 million - on a free bus pass scheme.
But this is not quite as dramatic as it sounds - in the sense that millions of pounds are now being saved - by bringing in new technology designed to cut out fraud and abuse.
The newspaper headline about waste - is that even more could have been saved if the authorities had acted more quickly - hence the claim about a near £100 million 'loss'.
When I say new technology - I do of course mean technology that's years old - but that's a whole other argument.
Anyway Transport Scotland - which runs the bus pass scheme for the over 60s and the disabled - took four years to get on top of things.
But the agency now claims annual savings of £24 million - by using smartcard tickets readers to cut out fraud, red tape and inaccurate payments.
The Scotland wide scheme came into play in 2006 - and if the new ticket readers had been in use from day one - the public purse would have saved even more - £96 million or four times £24 million to be exact.
So is the bottle half-full or half-empty - has Transport Scotland to be congratulated for saving £24 million a year - or criticised for wasting £96 million?
Probably a bit of both.
Because the new 'smart' ticketing system has cost the organisation £42 million - which is funded with government money of course - whereas the initial cost estimate was just £9 million.
So where did the extra £33 million come from?
In any event Transport Scotland won't be complaining if Scottish ministers chop £24 million off their annual budget.
Because that represents a saving - not a cut.
