Karen Adam: How we treat the elderly tells us much about our society
I was welcomed with open arms and heard shared stories of lives spent raising families, working locally, and caring for others. Some of them had gone to school in the very places they now live in, worked in the fishing and farming industries, supported the NHS and education sector, or were familiar faces in local community shops before retiring. Many of them had spent their entire lives contributing to their communities. And now, in their twilight years, they ask for just one thing, and that is to stay in the homes and communities they know, with support nearby and companionship around them.
And yet, they're facing the threat of closure, and told, in some cases, by nothing more than a flyer or a vague noticeboard announcement about a 'presentation'. People with hearing impairments. People with cognitive decline. People who didn't fully understand what the 'presentation' was about until they arrived and were told, quite bluntly, that their homes may be closed, and they could be moved elsewhere, perhaps 20 miles away, alone. It's heartbreaking. And it's enraging.
READ MORE: What to expect from The National as we cover Hamilton by-election this week
This, though, highlights something bigger. About how we, as a society, measure our worth. About what kind of Scotland, we are building. Because, for all the policy debates and budget spreadsheets, the real test of a government or a country is how it treats its most vulnerable. And that of course includes our elderly.
I have spoken many times about how we don't wait until independence, how we can create what we want now and let our current values and policy shape our independent nation. And this should be a priority, for our wellbeing economy.
In those complexes, what I saw wasn't just bricks and mortar. It was a community. It was resilience. It was, dare I say it, exactly the kind of future many of us hope for. One of the workers I spoke to said it reminded her of The Golden Girls, these strong, funny women living together, supporting one another, full of spirit and kindness. But behind the humour is something deeply serious, and that's that these women, and men too, were not just living there, they were thriving.
That kind of support, peer support, community care, shared spaces, warm chats in communal lounges, cannot be replicated by handing someone a grant and sending them to live alone in a private flat miles away. And yet, that is the direction some local authority decisions are taking us.
We are told closures are about saving money. But that's a false economy. Because we know that loneliness and isolation among older people have a direct impact on health, leading to more GP appointments and higher hospital admissions. According to the Campaign to End Loneliness, loneliness increases the risk of dementia by 40%, and the impact of chronic loneliness is comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
So I have to ask, what are we saving, really, if we end up paying so much more in health and crisis support down the line? One crucial point that an activist who is fighting to keep these complexes open made is that these decisions made in budgetary isolation may save a housing budget some cash, but what about the impact on other areas to pick up costs? Surely this should have a holistic spending approach.
Instead of shutting the doors on sheltered housing, we should be flinging them open. Investing in them. Modernising them. Replicating them across Scotland as part of our vision for a wellbeing economy.
An economy that values not just profit, but people's quality of life, health, happiness, and community connection.
Scotland has an ageing population. It's a fact. And it's one we need to plan for not with fear, but with compassion and vision. What if we saw assisted living not as a burden, but as a brilliant idea for the future of care? What if we offered that model, not just to the elderly, but to others too? What if intergenerational living spaces, communal kitchens, shared gardens and social hubs were part of how we solved housing issues, isolation, and mental health decline all in one go?
READ MORE: Scottish Labour by-election candidate flounders after dodging question 11 times
The Scottish Government has been leading in embedding well-being into policy thinking. And we've made progress.
But stories like the ones I've heard this week remind me how fragile that progress is when local council decisions, or Westminster-imposed funding constraints, undermine the values we hold dear. We can't build a wellbeing economy on crumbling foundations. We must fight to protect and enhance the community infrastructure that delivers that wellbeing in real terms. Sheltered housing is one part of that.
Community centres, libraries, bus routes, local surgeries, and social care are all other. They're not extras, they're the glue that holds people together, especially in later life.
And this isn't just about 'doing the right thing' for older people, it's also about asking ourselves what kind of future we want. Because all of us are growing older, and most of us, I suspect, would rather spend our later years in a warm, welcoming, communal space with friends than in isolated private accommodation miles from everything we've ever known.
One of the women I met said to me: 'We've looked after others our whole lives. Now we just want to be allowed to look after each other.'
That stayed with me. Because it speaks to something we sometimes forget, that people are not passive recipients of care. They are active citizens with stories, strength, and something to give.
A truly caring society doesn't shut that down. It nurtures it. It invests in it. It sees community living not as a relic of the past, but as a blueprint for the future.
Let's not abandon the spaces where people find joy and dignity. Let's build more of them. Let's value what really matters.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's plan for the NHS: more money plus vital reform
The commitments that the Government made to our NHS in the Spending Review were made in full recognition of the scale of the challenge we inherited and the bold reforms we're already implementing. While it is correct that NHS productivity has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, it is wrong to imply that our response has been to throw more money at the problem, without an equal focus on productivity. Let's be clear: after 14 years of mismanagement, we found an NHS in crisis. Not just underfunded, but fundamentally broken in its structures and operations. The waiting list stood at 7.6 million people in September 2024. 10 per cent of patients were waiting more than 12 hours in A&E. Public satisfaction had dropped to record lows. This crisis demands not just investment, but radical reform. That's precisely what we're delivering. Take our decision to abolish NHS England. This isn't an ideological choice – it's a practical one that will cut duplication, remove unnecessary bureaucracy, and crucially, redirect hundreds of millions of pounds straight to frontline services. The bloated administrative structure created under the previous government hasn't delivered better care – it's created waste, confusion, and ultimately contributed to worse outcomes for patients. We are also tackling the scandalous spending on agency staff. Under the last government, one trust paid an agency £5,100 for a shift by a single doctor in 2022/23. We've cut almost £1 billion in agency spending and our ambition is to eliminate agency use entirely in the coming years. Those billions will be reinvested in permanent staff who provide better continuity of care. We've upgraded the NHS App so that it now sends appointment reminders and test results digitally instead of by post, saving £200 million on stamps, envelopes, and printing. We found an NHS drowning in targets – many contradictory, some counterproductive. We've halved the number of targets set for NHS trusts so that they can focus on what matters to patients: waiting times for operations, ambulances, A&E attendance, rebuilding general practice and dentistry, and improving mental health services. As a result, waiting lists are at a two-year low – but we know they need to fall further. Our Plan for Change outlines how 92 per cent of elective patients should wait less than 18 weeks. We're laser-focused on that goal. Similarly, we've halved the targets that GPs are measured on. The previous government even introduced a target measuring GPs' wellbeing, while simultaneously overwhelming them with bureaucracy. We're freeing doctors to focus on patients by bringing back the family doctor model and ending the 8am phone scramble. These are precisely the productivity measures which are needed by our NHS and by Britain. Last week's Spending Review delivered a £29 billion real terms increase for the healthcare system to 2029. But let's be clear – a lot of this money is linked to reform. Every penny we invest comes with expectations of reform and improved outcomes. We're cutting waste, streamlining bureaucracy, and empowering frontline staff to deliver better care. That's why we're developing a 10-Year Health Plan for publication in the coming weeks, built around three fundamental shifts: from hospital to community care, from analogue to digital systems, and from treatment to prevention. The problems in our NHS didn't develop overnight, and they won't be solved overnight either. But unlike our predecessors, we're not afraid of making difficult decisions and driving through the reforms our public services desperately need. Public service productivity does matter – that's why we're reforming the NHS to deliver better care at better value for taxpayers. Our plan combines investment with genuine radical change. After 14 years of decline, that's what real change looks like.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS could face cuts under assisted dying law, warns Streeting
NHS services could face cuts to cover the cost of carrying out assisted deaths, the Health Secretary has warned. Under the Bill passed on Friday, the NHS will be expected to carry out the assisted dying procedures. Analysis suggests that implementation of assisted dying may cost the health service close to half a billion pounds within a decade, with each death costing the taxpayer more than £15,000. Assisted dying is set to be legalised in England and Wales after a historic vote saw it voted through by a majority of 23 MPs. However, Wes Streeting – who voted against the Bill – is understood to be deeply concerned about the impact it might have on an overstretched NHS. Speaking ahead of the vote, he warned: 'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill', while stressing that the Government would respect the decision of the House. Previously, he had warned there would be 'choices and trade-offs' to make, saying 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'. Last week, the Health Secretary said the NHS was 'in a fight for its life' as he described his mission to turn the service around. A number of MPs who opposed the Bill have raised concerns that assisted dying could take resources away from patients. On Tuesday, Dame Siobhain McDonagh, a Labour MP who voted against the legislation, said it could become 'the Trojan horse that breaks the NHS', saying it would 'rob our stretched NHS of much-needed resources'. The impact assessment of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill estimates that up to 28,317 people will die by state assisted suicide within the first 10 years of rollout. This rises from 647 in year one to more than 4,500 by 2038, and could mean costs of £429 million for the NHS over the decade. The spending includes educating all health and social care staff, training the doctors and nurses involved in the assisted dying service, setting up a regulator, as well as the costs of the lethal drugs themselves. Training staff is set to be the biggest cost – especially as the service is created. This could cost up to £35.5 million in the first year if all involved got the highest level of training available with no one opting out. There would then be recurring annual costs of between £10-22 million. Staff costs could reach £72 million over 10 years, with up to seven staff working for 32 hours per assisted death, it concludes. None of the calculations include the lost productivity and knock-on effects of the work the doctors are no longer able to carry out as a result. The impact assessment puts the cost of the drugs required at around £15 per person. However, independent experts have said it is highly likely to cost more. The Government also predicts a regulator and panel to assess cases would cost up to £13.6 million every year to run. The assessment suggests that overall, the Government could save money as a result of the earlier deaths, with overall savings of more than £640 million. Some of these savings could be made by the NHS. By 2038, health services could save up to £71.5 million a year on end-of-life care, because of the savings from not providing costly hospital care for cancer. Assisted dying is now on course to be available by 2029. Adults with a terminal illness and less than six months to live will be eligible under the new law. The law passed despite widespread opposition, with opponents raising concerns over the dropping of a requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on all assisted dying cases. Critics also warned that the law would 'normalise the choice of death over life, care, respect and love'.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Rowling and Ewing: Loud, proud, and missing the point
Today there are two tales of self-importance. JK Rowling, who came to fame and fortune as the author of derivative children's fiction, Billy Bunter on broomsticks, has in recent years set herself up as the arbiter of feminism, devoting herself to an all-consuming social media attack on trans people, cis gender women she suspects of being trans, and any woman who dares to espouse a form of feminism which is trans-inclusive. Thus it was that Rowling took to social media to attack The National as being "anti-woman". This newspaper is one of the very few publications which covers both sides in the heated and polarised debate about the trans issue, it has a female editor, a female assistant editor, has more female than male reporters, and has gender balance amongst its columnists and regular contributors. On International Women's Day last year, the entirety of The National, from the front page to the sports section, was written and produced by women. READ MORE: The abuse I've had just weeks into my journalism career is abhorrent No newspaper in Scotland comes close to The National in terms of female representation and in the breadth and depth of coverage of women's and LGBT issues. But because that means that The National gives space to opinions on the contentious trans issue which are at variance with those of JK Rowling, that makes The National "anti-woman" in her eyes. Trans exclusive feminists like Rowling lob accusations of misogyny about like the Israeli Government weaponizes accusations of antisemitism – as a tool to bully and silence those who dare to disagree with them. However, empirical evidence strongly suggests that they represent only a minority of women, and an even smaller minority of lesbians. (Image: LESLEY MARTIN)Despite her apparent belief to the contrary, JK Rowling does not get to be the sole judge of what constitutes valid feminism. There are very many women whose feminism has no problem with trans people. Indeed, most surveys find that a majority of lesbians, particularly younger lesbians, believe in a trans inclusive form of feminism and have no problem with admitting trans people into women's spaces. LGBT young people's charity Just Like Us commissioned a poll of 3,695 adults aged 18 to 25. The research found that young lesbians are the demographic most likely to agree that they are supportive or very supportive of trans people, rising to over 90% of respondents. These results were confirmed by a YouGov survey which found that cisgender lesbians and bisexual women in particular are likely to have positive feelings towards trans people, at 84%, including 66-68% who say they are 'very positive' towards trans people. YouGov says this finding mirrors national polling which shows that women are generally more likely to hold pro-trans views than men. But I suppose that JK Rowling would dismiss these lesbian feminists as being "anti-woman" too. We are now at the point in this so-called debate where anyone who doesn't express overt hostility to trans people is dismissed as a woman hating misogynist. READ MORE: 'Where's the dignity?': SNP minister hits out at Labour's 'damaging' welfare cuts Even Rowling's former friend and ally Stephen Fry has now spoken out against her, saying that she has become 'radicalised' and calling her views on trans people 'cruel' and 'mocking'. Rowling's gloating and knife twisting cigar selfie, published on social media when the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, was a tipping point for many. Fry said he used to enjoy Rowling's company and admired her wit, but now feels her behaviour is no longer something he can excuse or overlook. He said: "She says things that are inflammatory, contemptuous, and mocking. It's a terribly distressing time for trans people, and her words only make it worse." Fergus Ewing stands as an independent Meanwhile, the intensely self-important right wing MSP Fergus Ewing has announced that he intends to stand as an independent in next year's Holyrood election. Ewing is one of those mediocre politicians who is permanently angry that the rest of the world does not accept his own estimation of his brilliance. READ MORE: SNP councillor succeeds in bid to force Labour action on Israeli arms sales Ewing owes his position to his family name and connections. Were it not for his belief in Scottish independence, he'd be perfectly happy in the Conservative party. His reactionary and right-wing views are deeply at variance with the mainstream SNP. Ewing has spoken out in favour of fracking. In 2015 the south Scotland SNP MSP, Joan McAlpine, complained to then-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon about Ewing's support for plans by the Duke of Buccleuch to mine coalbed methane at Canonbie in Dumfries and Galloway. (Image: PA)In 2018 he also tried to block Scottish Government moves to ban the pesticide Acetamiprid, which was categorised as a "Highly Hazardous Pesticide (HHP)" by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 2015. The chemical is highly toxic to birds and earthworms and moderately toxic to most aquatic organisms with a high potential for bioaccumulation. It has been blamed for killing bees and butterflies. It is widely used by the forestry industry and in attempting to block moves to ban it, Ewing was again demonstrating that he puts the commercial interests of businesses ahead of all other considerations. Ewing has served as an SNP MSP for the Inverness and Nairn constituency since 1999 and is seeking re-election for the seventh time. This time, he runs as an independent after he became estranged from the SNP when he refused to accept the very mild slap on the wrist punishment of suspension from the SNP group in Holyrood for a week, which he received for the political cardinal sin of voting against now-former Green minister Lorna Slater in a no-confidence motion in 2023. All that Ewing is likely to achieve is to split the pro-independence vote in the constituency and allow an anti-independence candidate to take the seat. But Fergus will always have his self-righteousness to comfort him. In an interview with the BBC today, Ewing said that politicians should start acting like grownups. Quite, Fergus. How about you going first?
