There are moments when language stops being a tool and becomes a refuge.

For me, Gaelic has always been like that. Not simply a language I inherited, but a way of being in the world, one that shaped how my family understood land, kinship, humour, grief and responsibility. It was there in the background of my childhood: half-heard phrases, songs that carried more feeling than explanation, a sense that words could hold people together even when life was hard.

In a previous blog now five years ago I spoke about how I had to be taught English to replace my mixture of twin-speak and Gaelic, of how I missed the cadences and rootedness of my original tongue, and of how my mother’s dementia was shaped by her return to the language of her childhood. I am mindful of all this in the year that the Gaelic language has received official status from the Scottish Government and two days out from the start of Seachdain na Gàidhlig (World Gaelic Week) which runs from 23^rd February to the 1^st March 2026. It is a Scotland wide and international celebration of Scottish Gaelic language and culture which is funded by Bòrd na Gàidhlig, with events in communities, schools, care settings, arts venues, and online. The theme for 2026 is: “Use It or Lose It / Cleachd i no caill i”

As I have grown older, that sense of language as belonging has deepened in me especially as I watched my own mother live with dementia. The sense of losing language unless it is used is also very pressing as every year without my mother’s Gaelic chats I grow further and further away.

Something remarkable happens as memory frays both with age and especially with dementia. The acquired, professional, socially expected layers of language often fall away first. What remains is older. Deeper. More elemental. For my mother, Gaelic had not disappeared in the way that names, dates or recent events sometimes did. Instead, it returned, even more dominant,  unexpectedly, tenderly, as if the mind, in its own wisdom, retreated to the place where language first felt safe.

This is not nostalgia. It is neurology, identity and care colliding.

During Seachdain na Gàidhlig, we rightly celebrate the living language, its creativity, its resilience, its future. But we also need to speak about its role at the end of life, and in the long, complex middle space of ageing, frailty and cognitive change. Because language is not just about communication. It is about recognition.

To be spoken to in your first language, especially when you are vulnerable, is to be told: you still belong here.

People living with dementia do not lose their personhood. But they do lose the scaffolding that helps them navigate a world built for speed, efficiency and cognitive performance. In those moments, language becomes more than semantics. It becomes emotional geography.

A familiar phrase can calm distress where medication cannot. A song can unlock connection when logic fails. A word spoken with the right rhythm and accent can say you are known in a way no care plan ever could.

This is as true for Gaelic speakers as it is for people whose first language is Urdu, Polish, Cantonese, BSL, Scots, or any other language carried into later life. Scotland is not monolingual in its ageing. Our care systems often behave as if it is.

Cianalas

There is a Gaelic word I keep circling back to as I get older: cianalas.
It is usually translated as homesickness, but the word is larger than that. Cianalas is the ache for what shaped you, the place, the people, the sounds, the blàs (the flavour, the accent) of speech that tells you you belong. It is a longing that is not simply for a geography, but for a known way of being.

In the gentle erosion that dementia brings, I have watched how cianalas moves from the edges of a life to its centre. My mother’s English, the language that carried so many of her adult years slipped away like a tide. But Gaelic did not go far. It returned in the mornings, in the intimacies of care, in the quiet between questions. A phrase. A hymn. The cadence of a blessing half‑remembered. And when a carer answers in kind, even with a few words, even with an approximation of the blàs, recognition sparks. The room settles. The person is seen.

This is not romanticism. It is what so many of us know from lived experience and professional practice: first languages often endure somewhere in the layered self, and when we meet someone in that language, we meet them in a place of safety and identity.

But what happens to language when the system and structures of social care become so pressured and stressed that just as in this past week we read of yet another Health and Care Partnership warning that care will potentially have to be reduced just to those with critical need?

For years, we have spoken about person‑centred care as a moral and professional baseline. But the reality across social care today is stark. Underfunding, workforce shortages and crisis commissioning have narrowed care down to task completion and risk management.

When the system is forced to focus only on what is “critical”, everything relational is framed as optional. A focus on language becomes a “nice to have”. Culture becomes an “extra”. Time becomes the enemy.

And yet, for someone living with dementia, language is not an extra. It is care.

A care plan that captures first language, familiar songs, place‑names; a team who learn basic greetings; signage and small rituals that carry the beul‑aithris (oral tradition) into daily life – these simple acts lowers anxiety, restores dignity, and anchors the self.

I have seen a single line of a psalm do more to soothe than any sedative; a remembered place‑name (An t‑Eilean, An Gleann) restore orientation more quickly than any timetable. These are not luxuries. They are expressions of dignity. But they are precisely the things most at risk when care is reduced to survival mode.

Gaelic carries concepts that modern care policy struggles to articulate. Ideas of belonging, mutual responsibility, and continuity between generations. Words that assume relationship rather than transaction. Care as something done with, not to.

When older people lose access to their language, they are not just losing words. They are losing a moral universe that once made sense of the world.

In a country that is ageing, diverse, and increasingly unequal, this should trouble us deeply.

If we allow the social care crisis to hollow out language, culture and relationship; if we accept a system that only meets “high‑level needs” while neglecting the human ones then we will end up with services that keep people alive but fail to help them live.

Seachdain na Gàidhlig reminds us that languages survive not because they are protected in law, but because they are used in daily life especially in moments of vulnerability.

I leave you with a poem:

Speak to me
not only so I understand,
but so I am recognised.

When my words come slowly,
meet me there.
When they come from another time,
do not correct them,
walk with them.

Care is not the task you finish,
but the person you remain with
when the task is done.

If we forget this,
we will build places
where bodies are kept safe
and selves are quietly lost.

Listen.
The language is still here.
It is asking
to be answered.

Donald Macaskill

Love is not a word you will find in most policy documents. It does not feature in strategic frameworks, regulatory standards, or workforce planning spreadsheets. It is too soft, too subjective, too human. It resists the tidy categorisation of outcomes or indicators.

Yet, walk into any care home, supported living service, or the home of someone receiving daily support, and you will find love everywhere. Not the commercialised romance that dominates 14th February each year, but the quieter, sturdier forms of love: presence, patience, kindness, fidelity, and regard. These are not sentimental extras. They are the hidden architecture on which good care depends.

We speak of care as if it were primarily a task, something to be delivered, commissioned, or purchased. We live in a time when so much of care is framed through metrics: minutes allocated, tasks completed, regulations checked. These things matter because they provide structure and accountability, but they do not reveal the soul of care. They cannot. Because the soul of care is relational. It lives in the space between people. It is the meeting of one human being with another at a point of need or vulnerability. And it is love, in its broadest and most elemental sense, that makes this meeting transformative rather than transactional.

To name love explicitly in this context is not sentimental. It is honest. It is professional. It is human.

Love appears in the way a carer notices the slight change in a resident’s breathing. In the way a support worker sits quietly with someone in the distressing confusion of dementia. In the way a team keeps vigil at the bedside of a person approaching the end of their life. In the way families entrust their mother, father, partner or child to the hands of strangers who, over time, become companions.

None of these fits easily on a procurement form.

In recent years, we have become braver in acknowledging that the emotional labour of social care is real labour; skilled, demanding, draining, and profoundly important. But we still hesitate to name love as part of that skill set. Perhaps we fear sentimentality. Perhaps we worry that invoking love will weaken the professional boundaries we have so carefully crafted. Or perhaps we are uneasy with the idea that a system so chronically underfunded depends on something as immeasurable as the human heart.

But naming love does not diminish professionalism; it deepens it. It reminds us that care is not simply a service but part of the moral fabric of society. Love is what roots dignity. It is what honours the personhood of individuals who may have lost speech, memory, mobility, or independence. Love refuses to reduce people to tasks, conditions, or risks. It insists that each person is deserving of attention, respect, and warmth.

I have long believed that the crisis in social care is not only a funding crisis, workforce crisis, or demographic crisis. It is also a crisis of imagination. We have forgotten that systems exist to serve human beings, and not the other way around. If love were recognised as a central component of care, we might design our structures differently. We might prioritise time over throughput. We might value continuity of relationship rather than the cheapest unit cost. We might reward the emotional intelligence required to soothe, reassure, and accompany.

Love, after all, is not free. It requires time, training, support, reflection, and fair pay. It requires leaders who understand the emotional ecosystems of their services. It requires political leaders courageous enough to speak not only of budgets and efficiencies, but of the ethical duty we owe one another.

Love is costly. It demands presence, patience, resilience, and vulnerability. It asks carers to carry the stories of others as gently as their own. It asks families to trust strangers who will become companions. It asks society to honour those at the margins, not with pity, but with regard.

And perhaps, if we are truly bold, it requires us to rethink what we consider to be success. A life well supported may not be measured in metrics, but in moments of connection: the smile that returns after days of silence; the shared memory that breaks through the fog of dementia; the comfort of being held, known, and not abandoned.

And when love is absent? We see loneliness deepen. We see distress unaddressed. We see people reduced to tasks and time slots. We see a system that may function on paper but fails in humanity.

This Valentine’s Day, while the world trades roses and declarations, it is worth pausing to honour the quieter forms of love that shape the everyday practice of care across Scotland. The love that is expressed in touch, tone, patience, and presence. The love that sustains people at their most fragile. The love that is given freely, but not without cost. The love that sustains social care in Scotland through long nights, under immense pressure, in moments of grief and in moments of joy.

Love may never appear in the formal architecture of our social care system. But without it, nothing holds. Love is not the soft centre of care. It is the structure. Love is the architecture.

As I reflect on the central argument of this piece; that love is the hidden architecture of care, I’m drawn again to the clarity of our poets. Naomi Mitchison, was a woman of fierce humanity and political tenderness, and in her work, she names love as a kind of ballast: a weight that keeps the world from spinning apart. Her steady, grounded lines feel perfectly at home in the landscape of care.

She understood that love and belonging are often expressed not in grand gestures, but in the small acts that hold people in relationship with one another. Her voice reminds us that care is built from these daily, patient continuities.

So it feels right to close with Mitchison’s poem,  a reminder that love does the quiet work of holding things together, in poetry as in care.

“Love Poem”

Naomi Mitchison

Love, like a stone at the rim of the world,
Holds the edge of things together;
It is the weight that keeps the sky from falling,
The stillness that steadies the weather.

Not loud, not sudden, not possessed,
But patient as the turning sea;
Love is the thing we build with daily,
And the thing that builds us, quietly.

Donald Macaskill.

Photo by Mayur Gala on Unsplash

There are moments in public life when the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes so wide that it can no longer be bridged by warm words, sympathetic tones, or polished political narratives. The Scottish Government’s 2026–27 Budget is one such moment. It speaks the language of dignity, rights and fairness, yet delivers a settlement that undermines all three. For those who work in social care, and even more critically, those who depend upon it, this Budget is not simply inadequate. It is to put it frankly, a betrayal.

The tenth anniversary of me doing this job as the CEO of Scottish Care comes on the 1^st April. I remember it well because on the 1^st April 2016 the ground-breaking and at the time dramatically innovative commitment of the then Scottish Government to pay all care workers the Real Living Wage (or as we used to call it the Scottish Living Wage) came into force. Indeed one of my first tasks as CEO, was a radio interview to laud the game-changing nature of this action. But even then, although it valued workers, we all recognised it was a first step on a journey towards the proper reward and renumeration our critical frontline care workforce deserved. Along with many others I had been involved for months in the planning for the day and in ensuring there was sufficient funds in place. We didn’t get it completely right, and there remains huge issues f equity not least at local government level, but it was a great first step. Roll on ten years and we have a very different set of behaviours at play in the current Scottish Government.

The Real Living Wage: a promise broken

The Real Living Wage was meant to be a baseline of decency, a statement that Scotland values the people who provide intimate, skilled and emotionally demanding care. It has been a continual commitment of successive administrations. Yet the latest Budget fails to fund this commitment. COSLA described the Budget a failure “to fully fund… the Real Living Wage to workers in Adult Social Care”, leaving local authorities to absorb the difference.

The consequences are profound.

Social care organisations, particularly independent, charitable and small providers, cannot magic up unfunded wages. They operate on ultra‑thin margins, with fee rates set by local authorities. When government increases wage expectations without increasing funding, providers must either cut services, reduce hours, freeze recruitment, or hand back contracts. This is not hypothetical. It is already happening.

And all this means that staff who are continually told they are valued, are denied the means to live. Frontline workers hear ministers praise them as heroes while watching other sectors achieve pay rises. Without funded differentials, experienced workers earn the same as new entrants. Without stable contracts and predictable hours, workers juggle shifts to pay the rent. Without respect reflected in pay, they leave.

Every unfunded wage rise becomes a cut in disguise: shorter visits, inconsistent staff, unmet need, closed services, exhausted families. The Budget may never state it in writing, but this is how human rights erode, not by decision, but by neglect. And the human rights of those who use social care in Scotland have been run into the ground.

Government cannot meaningfully claim commitment to social care while shifting the financial goalposts year after year.

This is not partnership. It is the slow extraction of responsibility from government onto providers, workers and unpaid carers, cloaked in the language of “efficiency” and “local flexibility”.

The result is that councils will be forced to raise council tax; services are being trimmed to statutory minimum; community supports are being hollowed out and the most vulnerable and valuable of our citizens are being left with fewer options and longer waits.

Scottish Care’s verdict is unambiguous: “This Budget fails the people who rely on social care support – and those who deliver it.”

This failure is not abstract; it is personal. It touches so many lives.

It means older people waiting months for assessments and years for packages of care and support. When providers cannot recruit because pay is uncompetitive, packages do not start. People deteriorate. Families burn out. Hospitals fill.

It means people with disabilities whose independence depends on stable care relationships have their very autonomy undermined because of inconsistent staffing, driven by poor wages and high turnover, all of which puts their lives at risk.

It means unpaid carers are continually being stretched past breaking point. Shared Care Scotland and the National Carer Organisations highlight the absence of clear investment in short breaks, respite and local support organisations. These omissions are not oversights; they are choices.

It means that workers cannot afford to stay and cannot afford to leave. They hold lives in their hands daily, supporting complex care, offering emotional labour, and carrying profound responsibility and yet they are told, through this Budget, that their worth is negotiable.

Now I know that a Government Minister or spokesperson will give the oft quoted statement about ‘record’ investment. Indeed, ministers have presented the Budget as delivering a “record” £22.5 billion for health and social care and a “record settlement” for local government. But this narrative dissolves when placed beside the truth which is no full funding for the Real Living Wage policy for adult social care, children’s social care, or early learning and childcare.

These headline figures create the illusion of investment while disguising the truth: frontline social care does not feel “record” anything. It feels cut, stretched and disregarded.

If the Government truly believed in social care, the Budget would have:

• Fully funded the Real Living Wage, including progression and differentials.
• Provided ring‑fenced, multi‑year social care funding aligned to evidence‑based cost‑of‑care models.
• Invested in ethical digital transformation rather than delaying core infrastructure until 2029.
• Protected and expanded community‑based supports that keep people well.

These actions would stabilise the system, honour the workforce, and safeguard human rights.

The 2026–27 Budget represents a deliberate political choice: to underfund social care while claiming otherwise. It asks the workforce to bear the burden of government decisions. It asks families to fill the gaps left by inadequate planning. It asks providers to deliver more with less until they collapse. It makes clear that this Government no longer funds the Real Living Wage for frontline carers.

But most of all, it asks the people who need support to wait. To cope. To endure.

That is not dignity. It is not fairness. It is not Scotland at its best.

It is a betrayal—and it must not stand.

Donald Macaskill

Photo by Sarah Agnew on Unsplash

There is a moment, often somewhere in our 50s or 60s when the future shifts its angle. The horizon draws closer, the noise recedes, and a quieter question makes itself heard: What do I want to leave behind?

Not the inventory of possessions, but the pattern of our presence. The imprint of our care. The courage of our convictions. The habits of kindness that might keep on happening after we are gone.

This blog is an invitation to linger with that idea of legacy: how the desire to leave something of worth shapes our older age; what the psychology says; and how we can attend to it in ourselves, in our families, and in the craft of social care.

I find myself in this space because this past week I’ve been reflecting on my own late twin brother who died 8 years ago last week. Too soon and too young, with so many left empty by his absence. As is so often the case in someone who knows that they are going to die, we did not spend the time that we could have in reflecting or speaking about what life had been like. We spent the time we had left together in laughter and remembrance, in anecdote and fondness, keeping the uncomfortable away and the fear largely unmentioned.

But this past week both because of his own early death and because of so many others who I know, and the far too frequent conversations I have, I have spent time reflecting on legacy and purpose.

It is perhaps a truism to say that there are days when life’s timetable is torn up. A diagnosis, a sudden decline, and the horizon that once stretched decades ahead now feels alarmingly near.

Psychologists have long observed that, in mid-to-late life, that many of us turn outward with a concern for the generations to follow. My old psychologist inspiration Erik H. Erikson called this generativity, the developmental pivot from “What did I achieve?” to “Whom and what did I grow?” The fruits are not just external. It is the impulse to nurture what will outlast us.

Generativity predicts better well‑being and even stronger cognition in later life, whereas its shadow which is described as stagnation can shrink our world to self-preoccupation, which is often the accusation of those in older age.

What is undeniable is that numerous sources of research show that people who engage in legacy-building, through storytelling, mentoring, or creating tangible gifts, report lower anxiety, greater sense of purpose, and improved emotional well-being, even in palliative contexts.

Legacy work is not about grandeur. It is about continuity: ensuring that something of our values, our love, our wisdom remains in the world when we cannot and perhaps especially in the lives of those whom we have loved and who mean so much to us.

Another favourite, Dan McAdams’ psychological research adds texture to the work of Erikson on legacy, arguing as he does that highly generative people tend to tell redemptive life stories, transforming setbacks into service, threading meaning through adversity; such narrative style correlates with psychological adaptation and prosocial engagement. Legacy is not only what we do; it is how we narrate what we’ve done, which is in and of itself critical because that story mobilises us to keep giving. It is the words we chose to tell the tale of our being in life.

As we grow older and age we also reorganise our motivations. Laura Carstensen’s work on Socioemotional Selectivity Theory shows that as time horizons feel shorter, we prioritise emotionally meaningful goals and relationships. Legacy work naturally fits this shift: we invest in fewer, deeper ties and do things whose meaning can be felt now and remembered later.

We can see this in clinical and care contexts as well. Life review work which was first described by Robert Butler in the 1960s, offers structured reflection that helps older adults integrate memory, resolve regrets, and move towards integrity. It’s a cornerstone in later‑life and palliative practice, and when facilitated well and sensitively, it can reduce distress and enhance a sense of coherence: a psychological soil in which legacy grows.

Then at the end of life, Dignity Therapy takes this further: a brief, guided process that invites people to record what they most want remembered. Research trials report heightened dignity, meaning, and perceived benefit for families with the legacy document becoming a tangible bridge between the living and the soon‑to‑be‑bereaved.

If we want to leave something of worth, psychology suggests two reciprocal movements: doing (generative acts) and meaning-making (stories that redeem and bind).

This past week I have been reflecting on the extent to which in residential care and in homecare in all our palliative care and support of residents and citizens whether we have properly maximised the potential of legacy work. Because even accepting all the understandable constraints of time, resource and capacity I am not sure we have. And at the same time I am equally convinced just how important for the grieving and bereavement of those we leave behind; how critical it is that we do much better at this work which is to aid the art of dying and the gifting of legacy.

For those of us whose work it is to care and support folks at the end of their lives, I think we need to get better at embedding life review and legacy work in assessments and care planning (especially in hospice, care homes, and community nursing). We need to train staff in dignity‑conserving practices; create quiet rituals for recording and returning a person’s words to their family. We need to measure outcomes beyond symptom control: track family perceptions of meaning, appreciation, and connectedness post‑bereavement.

All that might just start by asking the ‘why’ questions, however provisional they may be. An encouragement to try to write a brief “legacy sentence”: “I want the people and places I love to be more X because I was here.”  It might move on to a guided life review where time is set aside – together or alone – to walk your story: chapters, turning points, the regrets that still disquiet, the gifts you’ve given and received.

And of course, all of this means tackling head on all the barriers that silence people. Those who have spent a life convincing themselves that they have nothing to leave. This is poverty of imagination, not of worth. Those who say, “Talking about death feels morbid.” Completely understandable on the one hand but at the same time we know that shared meaning and esteem buffer anxiety. In community, we can approach finitude not with fear but with craft: rituals, conversation, song. And there is so much more practitioners of endings in care home and community can do.

Legacy is not the marble we carve; it is the meal we keep setting. It is the apprentice we welcome into the workshop; the young carer we notice and support; the foreign‑born neighbour we draw into our circle until this land is also theirs.

Our social care, when at its best, is legacy in motion: the daily transfer of attention from one generation to the next. It is where the values we say we hold are stress‑tested against reality. If we make our services places where people can remember, make meaning, and give one last time, then we will have honoured the dignity of ageing and have given space and place to a legacy that never ends.

Bequeathal

Leave not the stone with your name,
leave the path you wore through the field,
the one that knows your footfall and invites another’s tread.

Leave not the chair at the table,
leave the habit of an extra place,
the cup that finds the hand that trembles.

Leave not the answer, clean and sure,
leave the question, kindly asked,
that opens like a gate and lets the younger through.

Leave not the purse alone,
leave the skill of open hands,
and the craft of making enough into plenty.

Leave not the speech fine‑phrased,
leave the story told in kitchens,
where steam writes blessings on the window glass.

Leave not a claim on land,
leave belonging to a people,
soil in the marrow, duty turned to joy.

And when the light goes thin,
and names begin to loosen from their faces,
let what you have planted be your speaking:
the neighbourly knock; the steady chair;
the path; the cup; the open gate.

My late twin had two loves in his life – his family and his roses – after he had died, I took cuttings of some of the roses and to my great surprise managed to get them to grow in my own garden in another country from their original soil. Even after transplanting they lived on – a memory, a legacy of his creativity and so much more. Planting what outlives us in hope and love, dignity and desire, is the work we should all seek to undertake, every day.

If legacy is love with a timetable, then ageing is not the end of that work; it is the season when love gets organised. May we be found busy planting what will outlive us and may Scotland’s people and places be the richer for it.

Donald Macaskill

Photo by Amarbayasgalan Gelegjargal on Unsplash

The third Saturday of January 2026 arrives not with celebration, but with a heavy sense of reckoning. The Scottish Government’s newly announced Budget, for all its rhetoric of renewal, has once again relegated social care to the margins. For those of us who live and breathe social care, this is not just a policy disappointment rather it is a profound moral failing. The question before us is urgent and inescapable: What kind of Scotland do we want to create together, and why does our Government not share that vision?

Every day, in every corner of Scotland, social care is the quiet infrastructure that holds our communities together. It is not a discretionary spend, nor a luxury to be afforded only in times of plenty. It is the scaffolding that allows individuals to thrive, families to stay together, and communities to flourish. Yet once again, this Budget treats care as an afterthought: “a budget that talks about dignity but does not fund it”.

In the wake of this Budget, each of the six pillars which comprise the vision within  the Scottish Care 2026 Election manifesto Care Creates feel more like a distant aspiration than a policy reality. Rights‑based budgeting and ethical commissioning remain words on paper, not principles in practice. The workforce; already stretched to breaking, faces another year of undervaluation and uncertainty. Promises of integration and innovation ring hollow without the resources to make them real. And now, Scottish Care’s own analysis makes the picture starker: the budget “falls dramatically short of what is required to protect essential care and support services, the workforce that delivers them, and… the individuals, families and communities who rely on them.”

We cannot ignore the consequences of this chronic underfunding. Workforce shortages deepen, finances grow ever more fragile, and the scars of austerity persist. Increasingly we are relying on people to pay more and more for their own care and support whilst the Government pays less and less. Increasingly this current Government is creating a two tier social care system in Scotland whether by default or deliberate design. The Government has failed to meet COSLA’s call for an additional £750 million in core funding to stabilise and grow social care support. Instead, providers are left “delivering more with less,” absorbing unsustainable costs and shielding people from the fallout of an under‑resourced system.

“Care Creates” is not just a campaign tagline; it is a summons to action and a framework for transformation. The Scottish Care Manifesto for 2026 sets out a bold, necessary vision: six pillars that, if embraced, could reshape our nation.

1. Rights at the heart of Social Care

Human rights are non‑negotiable. Embedding rights‑based budgeting and ethical commissioning ensures decisions reflect the voices of those who rely on support. Yet, as the Budget analysis makes clear, this Government has again offered “no ring‑fenced protection for social care support, no alignment to the true cost of care”. Human rights cannot flourish in the vacuum left by insufficient investment.

2. Fair Pay, Fair Work, Fair Care

A thriving social care system demands a valued workforce. Fair remuneration, career progression and parity with NHS roles are essential. But “warm words will not pay the bills”. The Real Living Wage uplift, while welcome, remains inadequate without funded differentials or career pathways. With thousands of vacancies, we cannot afford to lose more skilled professionals to sectors offering better pay and lower responsibility.

3. Integration across systems

Care cannot exist in silos. We know that integrated care teams reduce admissions and transform outcomes. But without resources, integration is rhetoric. Today we face “crisis conditions” where unmanaged pressures threaten to further reduce care packages and increase unmet need across health and social care. We are faced with the sad daily reality that people are dying whilst waiting for their care but because they are unseen by everyone except their families, they are the hidden victims of a broken system.

4. Future‑Ready Care

Our sector has proven its capacity for innovation, from digital tools to climate‑conscious planning. Ethical AI and adaptive models offer huge potential- but only if investment matches ambition. Instead, Scotland remains “a decade behind before we even begin,” with key digital infrastructure not expected to be social‑care‑ready until 2029 – an “unacceptable delay” that entrenches inefficiency and stalls innovation.

5. Investing like it matters

Funding care is not charity: it is a strategic, national economic investment. Every pound invested in social care returns more than double in socio‑economic value, strengthening local economies and enabling people to live well in their communities. Yet this Budget once again chooses not to unlock those benefits for Scotland.

6. Care for people and planet

Ethical commissioning, sustainability and community wellbeing must shape every decision. But the absence of robust investment renders environmental and community ambition fragile. As Scottish Care notes, “This Budget does not meet the moment”: a moment demanding bold choices, not incrementalism.

The “Care Creates” campaign exists to shift public and political understanding: social care is not a cost to be contained, but an essential investment in Scotland’s future. It underpins health, drives economic participation, sustains communities and supports family life. Yet at a time when “providers are closing” and “workforce shortages are at crisis levels”, Scotland’s Budget has offered neither boldness nor stability.

It has chosen caution where courage was required.

It has chosen system preservation over human flourishing.

It has chosen short‑termism over Scotland’s long‑term wellbeing.

Disappointment must not become despair. Realistic positivity means acknowledging the constraints while refusing to surrender hope. It means saying: Yes, the road is hard, but it is not impassable. It means recognising that although Government has not led, we will.

As Scottish Care affirms:
“Investing in social care support is not a cost, it is a national dividend. Care creates stability. Care creates opportunity. Care creates Scotland’s future.”

Even as we face disappointment, we are never alone. Together we can influence change, support those who suffer, and celebrate the compassion, expertise and community that define our sector. With courage, creativity and solidarity, we can build the Scotland we know is possible; one where social care is not an afterthought, but the beating heart of national life.

Care creates Scotland’s future.
If our Government will not lead, then we must.

Donald Macaskill

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash