For most of the last 200 years there have been more people leaving Scotland than coming to live here.

In the last few years we have turned that around -more are coming than going.

But our population is still falling, yet this time the cause is not emigration but low birth rates.

So how do we address this new population challenge?

The Executive is right to say higher immigration will play a major role.

Here our ambitions need to be bold, like our competitor nations. Imagine trying to mirror the Canadian 1% policy that attempts to attract 1% of the Canadian population through new immigrants year on year.

In Scotland that would mean 50,000 new Scots every year, the size of an average constituency.

These are very ambitious targets. 

Thus whilst it is absolutely right for Scotland to focus on overseas students, even if every graduating overseas student stayed in Scotland (both unrealistic in practice and wrongheaded) it would only meet around one tenth of the target of the Canadian policy.

So what would be a realistic number of new immigrants to attract to Scotland? 

Britain has attracted half a million more people into Britain than those leaving in the last three years.

Hidden behind the depressing debate on asylum lie the facts that immigration is rising significantly with approaching 300,000 coming to the UK annually.

But very, very few of these immigrants come to Scotland. 

Had Scotland even managed to attract it’s 10% share of that net inflow we would have attracted 50,000 new Scots in the last three years.

But in reality Scotland is attracting only a  fraction of that number.

So one critical issue is to make Scotland more attractive to those immigrants who have committed to the U.K.. 

“Come to Scotland — the welcoming part of the UK” has to be at the heart of the message.

Yet however many immigrants we attract this alone is unlikely to overcome the countervailing trend of  sharply falling fertility.

Scotland’s fertility has plummeted since the baby boom years of the 60’s, a general trend mirrored in all advanced nations.

Because falling fertility has, until recently, been a global trend in advanced nations many concluded that the trend was irreversible and unrelated to the character of the society in question.

But the facts tell a different story.

When one looks behind the bald statistics it becomes apparent why some people don’t want to ask too many questions about fertility rates.

So those of us who want a discussion about why Scotland has a very low birth rate are not issuing a clarion call to women to have more children but asking why they are choosing to have fewer children in Scotland than the rest of the UK and Europe.

The countries in Europe with the highest fertility rates are the Scandinavian ones, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland; all have higher birth rates than any part of the UK.

These societies are well known for their commitment to women in public life and their child friendly policies.

Next comes a middle band of northern European countries including France, the rest of the UK, Holland, and Ireland; and finally there is a group of southern European countries like Italy and Spain, which have the lowest European fertility levels.

Very low fertility levels are also found in some East Asian countries such as Japan (China should be discounted because of coercion). 

Why have Italy and Spain been at the bottom of the childbearing league since these societies historically had high fertility levels?

The provocative answer, according to some demographers, is that these are societies where it is hardest for women to combine childrearing and a career.

In countries where women are penalised for attempting to combine child rearing and a career many women find themselves giving up the option of motherhood. 

The demographers are now suggesting that in these countries women feel fairly emancipated if they remain childless but imprisoned by traditional male attitudes if they do not.

So in Italy, Spain and Japan we may have seen women reacting against chauvinistic societies

As one commentator put it,”women in these countries simply go on strike, and if the men who dominate these countries do not make career and childrearing an easier combination they will not soon not have much of a society left”.!

The critical issue for Scotland is why she has a fertility rate more characteristic of a southern European country than a northern one.

Is this because in Scotland it is also more difficult to combine career and child rearing?

The anecdotal evidence abounds; Scotland is not a leader on child friendly policies.

Crucially many southern European countries have decided to change their ways.

In Germany, Spain and Italy there has been a small but significant turn around in fertility rates in the last five years.

As the Economist recently reported, Italy, which lay at the bottom of the European league, fertility has quietly crept up since 1995.

Some of this is due to immigration but the main factor seems to be cultural and soci-economic.

Fertility rates continue to fall in the poorer and more traditional south of Italy, but they are now rising in the north where one might expect to see the first impact of changed attitudes.

Emilio Romano, home to some of the most progressive family support policies has seen the biggest rise in births, up some 28% since 1995.

The Italian government has begun issuing a baby bounty of 1000 Euros for every child after the first.

The Italian evidence suggest that attitudes matter as much as financial support.

In Germany the issue of family support is now near the top of the political agenda.

In the last year the Government has embarked on a huge childcare expansion plan including a £4 billion pound investment in all day schools over the next four years. 

So once again when policy does address the issue of child rearing and career-combining there does seem to be a response.

This should not surprise us.

When it comes to child rearing the market has told us what mother’s want.

Those with the financial means to buy in the private market purchase  — nannies, after school care, flexible nursery care, summer camps, the right to work part time or from home. 

So when it comes to child rearing it is not that we do not know “what works” but, that is only available to those who can purchase it.

Labour has taken the first steps with 2.5hrs  nursery care per day but we remain well down the international league. 

In Quebec in 1997, an enlightened government instituted a universal $5 a day nursery plan in state subsidised nurseries, following a year’s paid maternity or paternity leave.

In France the government long ago implemented affordable childcare programs for 1 to 3 year olds.

Sweden guarantees a place in subsidised childcare for every child from 1 to 6, at a rate of 20 Euros a week.

Yet Scottish families looking for all day childcare can expect to fork out up to £200 per week. 

Hitherto fertility rates have been seen as purely a private matter.

This ignores the growing evidence that public policy can address these issues.

Women need progressive employers like BT, Barclays, Ford and Ernst & Young all  now offering long career breaks.

Feminists have long argued that women in history often had to cut out motherhood because they could not combine it with work or study. 

The issue for Scottish women maybe less about sex discrimination than finding time for kids.

This requires a debate of the kind taking place elsewhere otherwise efforts to drive immigration will be held back by attitudes that put Scotland in the slow lane compared to other northern European nations.

back to index of speeches and articles

Link : Holyrood magazine

For most of the last 200 years there have been more people leaving Scotland than coming to live here.

In the last few years we have turned that around -more are coming than going.

But our population is still falling, yet this time the cause is not emigration but low birth rates.

So how do we address this new population challenge?

The Executive is right to say higher immigration will play a major role.

Here our ambitions need to be bold, like our competitor nations. Imagine trying to mirror the Canadian 1% policy that attempts to attract 1% of the Canadian population through new immigrants year on year.

In Scotland that would mean 50,000 new Scots every year, the size of an average constituency.

These are very ambitious targets. 

Thus whilst it is absolutely right for Scotland to focus on overseas students, even if every graduating overseas student stayed in Scotland (both unrealistic in practice and wrongheaded) it would only meet around one tenth of the target of the Canadian policy.

So what would be a realistic number of new immigrants to attract to Scotland? 

Britain has attracted half a million more people into Britain than those leaving in the last three years.

Hidden behind the depressing debate on asylum lie the facts that immigration is rising significantly with approaching 300,000 coming to the UK annually.

But very, very few of these immigrants come to Scotland. 

Had Scotland even managed to attract it’s 10% share of that net inflow we would have attracted 50,000 new Scots in the last three years.

But in reality Scotland is attracting only a  fraction of that number.

So one critical issue is to make Scotland more attractive to those immigrants who have committed to the U.K.. 

“Come to Scotland — the welcoming part of the UK” has to be at the heart of the message.

Yet however many immigrants we attract this alone is unlikely to overcome the countervailing trend of  sharply falling fertility.

Scotland’s fertility has plummeted since the baby boom years of the 60’s, a general trend mirrored in all advanced nations.

Because falling fertility has, until recently, been a global trend in advanced nations many concluded that the trend was irreversible and unrelated to the character of the society in question.

But the facts tell a different story.

When one looks behind the bald statistics it becomes apparent why some people don’t want to ask too many questions about fertility rates.

So those of us who want a discussion about why Scotland has a very low birth rate are not issuing a clarion call to women to have more children but asking why they are choosing to have fewer children in Scotland than the rest of the UK and Europe.

The countries in Europe with the highest fertility rates are the Scandinavian ones, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland; all have higher birth rates than any part of the UK.

These societies are well known for their commitment to women in public life and their child friendly policies.

Next comes a middle band of northern European countries including France, the rest of the UK, Holland, and Ireland; and finally there is a group of southern European countries like Italy and Spain, which have the lowest European fertility levels.

Very low fertility levels are also found in some East Asian countries such as Japan (China should be discounted because of coercion). 

Why have Italy and Spain been at the bottom of the childbearing league since these societies historically had high fertility levels?

The provocative answer, according to some demographers, is that these are societies where it is hardest for women to combine childrearing and a career.

In countries where women are penalised for attempting to combine child rearing and a career many women find themselves giving up the option of motherhood. 

The demographers are now suggesting that in these countries women feel fairly emancipated if they remain childless but imprisoned by traditional male attitudes if they do not.

So in Italy, Spain and Japan we may have seen women reacting against chauvinistic societies

As one commentator put it,”women in these countries simply go on strike, and if the men who dominate these countries do not make career and childrearing an easier combination they will not soon not have much of a society left”.!

The critical issue for Scotland is why she has a fertility rate more characteristic of a southern European country than a northern one.

Is this because in Scotland it is also more difficult to combine career and child rearing?

The anecdotal evidence abounds; Scotland is not a leader on child friendly policies.

Crucially many southern European countries have decided to change their ways.

In Germany, Spain and Italy there has been a small but significant turn around in fertility rates in the last five years.

As the Economist recently reported, Italy, which lay at the bottom of the European league, fertility has quietly crept up since 1995.

Some of this is due to immigration but the main factor seems to be cultural and soci-economic.

Fertility rates continue to fall in the poorer and more traditional south of Italy, but they are now rising in the north where one might expect to see the first impact of changed attitudes.

Emilio Romano, home to some of the most progressive family support policies has seen the biggest rise in births, up some 28% since 1995.

The Italian government has begun issuing a baby bounty of 1000 Euros for every child after the first.

The Italian evidence suggest that attitudes matter as much as financial support.

In Germany the issue of family support is now near the top of the political agenda.

In the last year the Government has embarked on a huge childcare expansion plan including a £4 billion pound investment in all day schools over the next four years. 

So once again when policy does address the issue of child rearing and career-combining there does seem to be a response.

This should not surprise us.

When it comes to child rearing the market has told us what mother’s want.

Those with the financial means to buy in the private market purchase  — nannies, after school care, flexible nursery care, summer camps, the right to work part time or from home. 

So when it comes to child rearing it is not that we do not know “what works” but, that is only available to those who can purchase it.

Labour has taken the first steps with 2.5hrs  nursery care per day but we remain well down the international league. 

In Quebec in 1997, an enlightened government instituted a universal $5 a day nursery plan in state subsidised nurseries, following a year’s paid maternity or paternity leave.

In France the government long ago implemented affordable childcare programs for 1 to 3 year olds.

Sweden guarantees a place in subsidised childcare for every child from 1 to 6, at a rate of 20 Euros a week.

Yet Scottish families looking for all day childcare can expect to fork out up to £200 per week. 

Hitherto fertility rates have been seen as purely a private matter.

This ignores the growing evidence that public policy can address these issues.

Women need progressive employers like BT, Barclays, Ford and Ernst & Young all  now offering long career breaks.

Feminists have long argued that women in history often had to cut out motherhood because they could not combine it with work or study. 

The issue for Scottish women maybe less about sex discrimination than finding time for kids.

This requires a debate of the kind taking place elsewhere otherwise efforts to drive immigration will be held back by attitudes that put Scotland in the slow lane compared to other northern European nations.

Link : Holyrood magazine