Press Release: Two years of tracking shows Scots struggling with turbulent economic times

Research shows Scots continue to cut back, skip meals and lose sleep over their finances

The Understanding Scotland Economy Tracker, produced by the David Hume Institute and the Diffley Partnership, marks its second birthday, showing many Scots continue to take extreme measures to navigate turbulent economic times:

• 1 in 6 people (17%) report skipping meals

• 1 in 5 people are using ‘buy now pay later’ payment plans

• 2 out of 3 people (67%) are not putting the heating on to reduce costs

For many, the ongoing challenges with the cost of living are dominating their lives with:

• 3 in 10 (29%) Scots telling us they are losing sleep due to their personal finances

Many Scots are living with severe financial precarity:

• 3 in 10 people (28%) are not confident of covering a £100 emergency expense – up three percentage points since February 2023. 

• This rises to 1 in 2 (49%) for an emergency expense of £500. 

The survey also shows 8 in 10 Scots perceive the economy as favouring the wealthy (78%), while 53% believe it primarily serves business interests.  Only 1 in 10 (10%) believe that the economy works in their own interest.

Healthcare (48%) and cost of living (42%) remain among the top concerns for Scots. 

Over three-fifths of Scots (62%) view the cost of living and inflation as a key economic priority, though this is down five percentage points from August. Poverty has become a significant concern for 32% of respondents, up three percentage points from August.

The Understanding Scotland Economy Tracker survey gathers economic attitudes and insights from more than 2,000 members of the Scottish adult population every 3 months to track changes over time. 

Mark Diffley, Founder and Director of Diffley Partnership, said: 

“Broadly speaking, our latest data confirms that the public is still gripped by the costs of living crisis.  There are signs that the economic outlook of Scots is becoming slightly less pessimistic. Compared to last year, a smaller proportion of Scots think economic conditions will continue to get significantly worse; however, the underlying trend remains, including the fact that the economic crisis continues to have greatest impact on the most economically vulnerable and it feels like it still has a long way to run.”

Susan Murray, Director of the David Hume Institute said: 

“Since we started the survey two years ago, we’ve sadly seen people struggling to make ends meet.  One in three people are now telling us they couldn’t cope if they had an emergency expense of £100. It is not surprising to see more people getting into debt. 

Worrying about money all the time will take its toll on people’s health and the health of the next generation. This survey poses challenges for the Chancellor - who gets prioritised in the Autumn statement – those who are sitting comfortably or those living on the edge?”

Ends

Additional notes

Designed by the Diffley Partnership, the survey received 2,218 responses from a representative sample of the adult population, aged 16+, across Scotland. Invitations were issued online using the ScotPulse panel, and fieldwork was conducted between the 1st-9th November. Results are weighted to the Scottish population (2020 estimates) by age and gender.

Blog: Who pays the price of long short-termism?

by Susan Murray, DHI Director

Today, Storm Ciarán is turning people’s lives upside down.  For some people, the impact has been devastating and will last long after the news cameras move on.  

Photo credit: Eileen Groome

The increasing frequency of storms has got me thinking about building standards and transferring of risk.

Again and again advisors have recommended stronger building standards to cope with the effects of climate change – higher wind speeds, heavier rainfall and intense heat to name just three.

But we have seen little change in those standards. A strong industry lobby against any changes has argued that changes would drive up costs.  

But who really pays?

Our weather is changing and we need to prepare our buildings for the changes. A series of papers from 2013/4 from the National Building Standards are fascinating.  They deal with everything from excess heat, drought, wind, flooding and subsidence - if you get that sinking feeling, it could be a sinkhole as we will be seeing more of them.

So why are our buildings not more resilient and providing safe refuge in a storm?

Reading the NBS papers, comments jump out like “Consideration should be given to specifying single car-width garage doors in preference to double car-width – the increased size can enhance wind deflection… and the roof can be subjected to additional uplift action, thereby increasing the risk of the roof being damaged.”  

Do you think all the people buying shiny new homes with double garages know that they have a higher risk of their roof blowing off?

Long after the developers have moved on to new sites, some home-owners find they are carrying the risk of the lower standards and any resulting repair costs. Even with the current standards, increasingly there is evidence of “weak compliance” and “indifference around build quality” according to the Hackitt Review of Building regulations. 

A new industry is emerging of professional snagging companies, one of which is now a hit on social media after capturing their horrifying findings on youtube and TikTok.  However, not everyone can afford a professional snagging company.

Standards matter. 

But if the current regulations are not being enforced and politicians continually bow to pressure against raising standards, this will cost us all more in the long run.

I was introduced to a new acronym this week NIMTO – not in my term of office.  Building standards might not be seen as a vote winner but they matter. We need to end this long short-termism and face up to the challenges ahead or ultimately the state will be picking up the pieces of shattered lives.

Further reading:

UK Housing - Fit for the Future, Climate Change Committee

The Hackett Review: Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, Uk Government

DHI announces five new Trustees

The David Hume Institute (DHI) has announced the appointment of five new trustees to the board.  The new trustees are: 

• Dr Aveek Bhattacharya, Interim Director of the Social Market Foundation

• David Gow, journalist with over 50 years experience

• Catriona Matheson, communications consultant and former special advisor

• Dr Samuel Mwaura, Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Edinburgh Business School

• Ken Ross, who has a portfolio of interests in the built environment and current chair of the Glasgow School of Art trustee board.

DHI's staff, trustees and partners work together to encourage diversity of thought, applying the rigorous approach which has long defined DHI to encourage action which addresses the contemporary issues of our time. Central to DHI's work are the people of Scotland, as they engage, listen and collaborate with people from different backgrounds, genders, and ages, to encourage action towards a more prosperous, sustainable, inclusive and fair Scotland.

Susan Murray, director of the David Hume Institute, said: "We are delighted to welcome such talent to our board at a crucial moment for public policy debate in Scotland. Since 1985, the DHI's research and events have provided insights to increase understanding of the economy and related public policy.

 "The new trustees bring additional breadth and depth to our board to complement the existing Trustees as we work towards our fortieth anniversary.  We are particularly pleased to be supporting Aveek, Catriona and Samuel in their first Trustee roles. 

Ken Barker, Chair of the Board of Trustees said “I would like to thank outgoing Trustees, Will Dowson, Agent for Scotland for the Bank of England and Steven Drost, COO Codebase for their support throughout their time on the board. Their tenure saw the David Hume Institute expand our work, increase the range of voices heard in our research and grow the reach of the organisation”

"We face a complex and rapidly changing world. Our new trustees position the David Hume Institute well to expand our contribution to independent analysis and diversity of thought in Scotland. We are pleased to be able to welcome our new trustees ahead of November's 2023 Trustee Week so they can join the celebrations and training with the thousands of other volunteer trustees in Scotland.”

ENDS

Find out more about our Trustees

Blog: Justice, markets and the Great Risk Transfer

Tuesday 26th September 2023

by Dr Owen Kelly

This blog is based on a speech Dr Owen Kelly gave at a David Hume Institute event on Monday 18th September 2023 at the University of Edinburgh Business School discussing the Great Risk Transfer.

Owen is a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Philosophy at Edinburgh University, examining how ancient ethical ideas can be applied to modern business practice. He also works at the University of Edinburgh Business School as Director of Engagement, and at the Edinburgh Futures Institute, where he is the Deputy Director. From 2008 to 2016 he was Chief Executive of Scottish Financial Enterprise, the representative body for Scotland's financial services industry. Before working for the financial services industry, he worked for 20 years as a civil servant in the UK and Scottish Governments.

---

The David Hume Institute ‘encourages diversity of thought’. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries acknowledges that the Great Risk Transfer is multidisciplinary in its implications. I am taking both of them at their word in offering some thoughts from a philosophical perspective. 

The work of the Institute and Faculty is profoundly empirical in nature, as befits a professional body; and the DHI’s research is similarly grounded in evidence, gathered from primary sources.

My approach is philosophical and more, metaphysical. Such thinking has its place, however. As Dr Myra Hamilton notes in her excellent introduction to the issues, the political and social context of the Great Risk Transfer provides its conceptual justification. That context is, in turn, shaped by philosophical ideas about markets and, ultimately, what the good life for human beings consists in. 

I want to cover three broad areas: justice; freedom; and the nature and consequences of financialization.

First, justice. It is rarely invoked in discussions of commercial or business affairs. Usually we talk about ethics and compliance with codes and rules. But few philosophers, if any, argue that justice is not in some way essential to human life. Since business is part of human life, it must be essential to that, too.

Is the Great Risk Transfer an injustice and, if so, to whom? There are plenty of examples of how it is unfair, or unequal, in its effects but is it unjust? 

Myra Hamilton refers to the idea that taking on risk is seen by some as part of the ‘natural moral order’. This is based on the view that  people should be more self-reliant and take more responsibility for their own situation. But it is also based on the idea that desert is what should guide us in determining whether someone has been justly treated. A sort of ‘you get what you deserve’ view. Desert is part of what is ‘due’ - and the idea of justice as something ‘due’ is ancient, and one of the foundations of the definition of justice put forward by the Emperor Justinian in the 6th Century AD, and still accepted as the closest anyone has got to a working definition of justice.

What is desert based on? 

The philosopher Michael Sandel says that meritocracy is a story we tell ourselves about desert, based on the idea that ‘merit’ can be measured and rewarded. He points out that the dominant measure of merit in most market-based societies is wealth. On that basis, we might say that the unequal consequences of the Great Risk Transfer, where the wealthy are better equipped to take advantage of it and are in any case protected against the downsides, are deserved by all involved. To the rich, more should be given, sort of thing. But Sandel draws out the failings of meritocracy as a measure of actual merit, noting that merit is socially determined and very much in the eye of the beholder. Goodness, kindness and similar qualities, for example, don’t usually figure in the calculations of those seeking to apportion ‘merit’ in a meritocracy. And we should remember that the inventor of the concept of meritocracy, the philosopher Michael Young, did so to sound a warning, not to promote the idea. So the idea that risk has been transferred on the basis of merit, or desert, seems weak.

Also, the bearing of a risk is a harm in itself. The risk transferees – those who have received it – did not seek it and they are, it is fair to say, unsettled and discontented by it. 

For something to be considered an injustice, according to the Code of Justinian, which still stands up as a working definition used by philosophers, there must be an agent. The weather is not usually seen as unjust, though it can be seen as unfair, because there is no agent involved. 

But the Great Risk Transfer is not like the weather – it has agents, identified if not named in the Institute and Faculty’s papers – governments, companies and regulators. I therefore suggest in philosophical terms there has been a big dose of injustice in all this. It may not be common practice to ask around board tables whether a company’s actions are just but given that it is a key question in every other aspect of our lives, perhaps it should be asked more often.

Moving on to the philosophical foundations of markets. It is commonly held that markets and freedom are closely related to one another. The Great Risk Transfer emerges from a philosophical belief that freedom is a good thing in itself.  It is hard to disagree with that belief. But, moreover, that markets give us more freedom. This is true both at the superficial level, as in the greater freedom of choice that came with UK pension reform, and at the more philosophical level – markets add to the good for humans.  They provide a sort of theatre within which freedom is exercised. We are all familiar with the idea that free markets buttress free societies.

But in the case of the Great Risk Transfer, this freedom is, for most people affected, just an abstract concept with little practical content. Immanual Kant proposed that the basis of morality, at least as far as humans are concerned, is that people should be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Because of the asymmetry in the market between consumers and providers, in terms of knowledge and expertise, highlighted by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, consumers are being treated as means, not ends. They are being used as ill-equipped participants in a shift away from the collective, towards the individualised.

The Institute and Faculty does recommend that this is addressed; but companies have, following government and regulatory actions, acted in their own interests, not those of customers. Why should they do otherwise? 

There are many ways to make money in the new individualised world and they are companies after all – but consumers are the means, not the ends, in this great shift, and Kant would find fault with the companies and the policy makers, accordingly.

Finally, there is a reference in the interim report to financialisation. This is a well-recognised phenomenon, and we see it everywhere. I want to highlight two points. The first is that financialisation creates new opportunities for what economists call ‘rent seeking’. This is when the way in which markets are organised creates pinch points, at which money can be made. A good current example is the emergence of credit scoring agencies. These large financial companies – there are only 3 in the UK – provide a service to lenders. They offer to check the creditworthiness of borrowers, interposing themselves between the lender and the borrower. Sure, the lenders pay for their services but to get credit, you need to have a newly-contrived thing called a credit score. To get the credit score, you need to use their products. They create the barrier, then charge you to get over it.

This rent-seeking behaviour is relevant to the Great Risk Transfer because there is a social requirement for risk management - things like insurance and pensions, as well as things like health and safety and flood prevention. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist, said: ”Taxes are what we pay for a civilised society” - all of us benefit from people paying taxes, just as all of us benefit from the management of risk. 

Put bluntly, we do not have destitute old people on the streets. Risk management, like taxation, is a collective public good that helps create a civilised society. But these risk mitigators are only available through private providers, and they are required by society, like car insurance – not an optional purchase, you need it, by law, and society needs you to have it. Pensions, health and other things are the same. They, like taxation, are part of the price we pay for a civilised society.

It is doubtful that private, profit-orientated organisations can provide these services, which we are obliged to use, without rent seeking at the pinch point; and financialisation intensifies this problem. Financialisation creates the environment, abstracted from the world as we encounter it day to day and trading today off against tomorrow, where pinch points can be created and tolls exacted as the price of passage.

 I would like to see companies campaigning to remove these pinch points and encouraging regulators to do so. I realise this is a provocative comment but that is what philosophy is sometimes for!

Ends

Read more about the Great Risk Transfer

Blog: why aren’t more people talking about the Scottish Child Payment?

18th September 2023

by Liz Ditchburn

The Scottish Child Payment is a bold policy intervention with cross-party backing targeting child poverty and its long-term consequences. This blog aims to stimulate discussion about this Scottish policy innovation and calls for investment and action to ensure we learn from its implementation, generating evidence about what works that will be useful in Scotland, the rest of the UK and beyond.

About the Author

Liz Ditchburn CB has more than three decades of experience in the UK civil service and devolved administrations in both domestic and international settings. Most recently, she was Director General for Economy for the Scottish Government, leading on all aspects of the economy and the drive towards net zero in Scotland. Although at the Scottish Government during the development of the Scottish Child Payment she has not worked on the policy itself.

Previously, she was the Department for International Development’s (now Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) Policy Director and its first Value for Money Director. Across her executive career she has worked to integrate economic, social and environmental change to secure better outcomes for people, place and planet.  Liz is now an Honorary Professor at the University of Glasgow, a Non-Executive Director of the Net Zero Technology Centre and a Trustee of NESTA.

---

I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve mentioned the Scottish Child Payment to colleagues and friends based elsewhere in the UK (even some involved in public policy work) and been told they’ve never heard of it. The next reaction when I describe the level and scale of this initiative, is “Wow! That’s big!”. It is indeed.

For those unfamiliar with this new payment to low income families in Scotland (broadly those in receipt of Universal Credit or similar), here are some headlines and a brief timeline:

• First payments began in February 2021 at the rate of £10 a week for each child under 6.

• Doubling of the payment to £20 a week per child was announced in November 2021 with payments at that level starting from April 2022. (In advance of the expected extension of the eligibility to under 16s, a system of bridging payments was put in place for children between 6 and 16 – in effect advancing the formal roll out)

• Payment increased to £25 a week per child and eligibility was formally extended to under 16s in November 2022.

What makes the Scottish Child Payment remarkable and worthy of more debate inside and outside Scotland?  And why does it matter beyond Scotland?

Firstly, impact for individuals: the numbers above bear repeating. If you are a low income family in Scotland, on top of UK child benefit and any other benefit, you can receive £25 per week for each child under 16. There are no limits to the number of children an eligible family can claim for.   To get a sense of impact for a typical family, a family with 3 children will receive £3,900 a year.  That’s a significant addition to a low income household. And it’s each year and every year, not a one-off boost.  At a societal level, modelling puts the impact on child poverty rates at a reduction of around 5% 

Secondly, coverage: when the payment began in 2021, Social Security Scotland estimated it was being paid for 106,000 children.  With the extension to under 16s, around four times more children could be covered. The Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) produced costings estimates when the extension to the scheme was proposed, calculating that around 41% of under 6s and 48% of over 6s would be eligible.  This translates roughly into an estimated 400,000 children being eligible (with actual coverage dependent on uptake). The latest statistics just published by Social Security Scotland show payments are being made in respect of just over 316,000  children.

Thirdly, scale:  this is a fiscal anti-poverty intervention at scale, not a small tweak at the margins.   Earlier this year, the Institute of Fiscal Studies produced some budget analysis for the Scottish Parliament during budget deliberations showing that tax and benefit changes are in effect a significant transfer from richer households to poorer households with children.   Graphics  in their published paper, analysis of Scottish tax and benefit reforms, are well worth a look. 

Fourthly, cost.  The SFC costed the Scottish Child Payment for 2023/24 at £405m.   The recent actual figures for Q1 23/24 published by the Scottish Government confirm this scale with £104.1m spent in the quarter.  To help put these figures into context for readers elsewhere in the UK, a very rough guide is to multiply by 10 to get an idea of an equivalent whole of UK scale – so such an initiative covering all the UK might be in the order of £4.2bn.

Fifthly, political consensus and societal attitudes:  both the introduction of the Scottish Child Payment and its increase to £25 per week per child has been marked by a pretty strong level of political and cross-party consensus.   Indeed, some of the challenge that the Scottish Government received (and still receives) in debates was along the lines of why not go further, faster, why not increase the rate beyond £25? That there is consensus around the idea that child poverty is a bad thing is not surprising; that there is agreement that direct cash transfers to families are an important part of the answer and affordable is more remarkable. 

Sixthly, the tone of the debate:  coverage and discussion around the payment have been mercifully free of language around “handouts” or whether people are “deserving” or not. When cash transfers first began to be adopted in an international aid setting, concerns about whether poor people could be trusted to do sensible things with cash were never far away. The evidence since has shown pretty consistently that given cash, people in poverty use it well.  (The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) has published a great review of the evidence around cash transfers, Cash transfers: what does the evidence say? | ODI: Think change.

What do we know so far about the impact of the Scottish Child Payment – does the evidence suggest that it is going to have the impacts the Scottish Government expects?   

The diagram below shows the short, medium and long term changes that the designers of this policy are looking for – the “logic model”. 

Source: Scottish Child Scottish Child Payment Interim Evaluation

The only published evaluation I’ve seen so far (please send links to any others if you know of them) is from March 2022: the interim evaluation published by the Scottish Government. It was conducted early in the life of the Scottish Child Payment and therefore necessarily focused on the immediate and short-term outcomes, and critically, refers to the period when the payment level was at £10. Nevertheless, it provides some interesting glimpses and areas for deeper exploration.

There was broadly positive evidence supporting some of the short-term outcomes: reduced money-related stress, increased child-related spend, children able to participate in social and educational opportunities and reduced pressure on household finances, with less clear evidence for an improved position of main carers within households. The findings on children’s opportunities and stress are really interesting. Finding out whether and how cash transfers can support better learning outcomes for children rather than just having a direct impact on material poverty is one of the big questions for cash transfers policies.  And we know that persistent stress can have a pervasive impact on long-term health.

These two quotes in the interim evaluation are compelling and provide a glimpse as to how this might be impacting:

 “[Scottish Child Payment] did lessen my worries quite a lot to be honest.  Money's the one thing I'm always stressing about, always thinking about, always worrying about. It was a relief to have that extra boost.  (Parent 22, age 18-24, care-experienced, 3+ children)  

[Scottish Child Payment helps with] not having to stress out because you know it’s coming. When I get stressed, I don’t sleep. I don’t deal well with stress. I don’t want the kids to see me stressed. (Parent 18, age 25-34, single parent)”    

Will these findings still hold at the higher level of £25, under the changed economic context and even sharper cost of living challenges?

The interim evaluation includes lots of detail around the application process and uptake.  As a “passported” benefit (that is one that you’re entitled to because you already receive another benefit), applications should be more straightforward and administratively less costly than standalone benefits.   

However, this also brings with it often complex interactions with other parts of the tax and benefit system and a particular challenge for policy makers when different parts of the tax and benefits system are owned and delivered by different governments; understanding the implications of these interactions – the potential for cliff edges or disincentives to employment for example – will be important.   

Currently, Scotland is the only part of the UK with this system.  For policy makers, differentiation of policy creates a precious opportunity to find out what works, to learn from the experience of implementation and to better understand how best to create the changes we want.  There are other ways to learn of course as well. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are often seen as the gold standard.

NESTA (full disclosure, I am a Trustee) is considering the value of RCTs in this area and also keen to look at what we can learn from Scotland Welfare reimagined: could cash transfers combat child poverty? | Nesta.

We only learn if we invest explicitly in learning - putting in place the impact evaluations, gathering the data, quantitative and qualitative, listening to the stories, testing out our assumptions, doing high quality research.   Few policies work in practice exactly as we intended at the design stage – and sometimes they don’t work at all to produce the change expected.  They can evolve and improve based on experience.  

At a recent event in Edinburgh, Prof Danny Dorling described the Scottish Child Payment as the single policy intervention that has created the largest fall in child poverty anywhere in Europe for at least 40 years.  

Impartiality runs deep in the soul of a longtime civil servant so I am not writing this paper as an advocate of the Scottish Child Payment, important though it will be to the many thousands who receive it, but as a call for us all to invest in learning about what works in tackling child poverty and inequality and to debate these issues throughout the UK with evidence, humility and an open mind. 

Ends

---

Why is DHI thinking about the Scottish Child Payment?

We heard at our recent event with Professor Danny Dorling about how rising poverty and inequality is shattering our nation. We know from our Understanding Scotland Economy Tracker that at least 1 in 4 people are consistently affected by financial stress which is affecting their sleep and nutrition.

Beyond heart-breaking individual stories, poverty results in significant intergenerational consequences for the labour market and public spending especially through long term health conditions.  As pressures rise on public spending, this is the biggest move yet by the Scottish Government to get up-stream and move towards a preventative agenda as laid out by the Christie Commission.

Blog: Public diners - back to the future?

Only a few of the audience had ever heard of the public diners called British Restaurants at our recent Understanding Scotland Economy Tracker event. The concept is a stark contrast to the approach of food banks, giving people emergency food to take home, and which are now increasingly focussed on foods that don’t need cooking as people struggle to afford energy prices. Emergency food banks are a relatively new concept in the UK but public diners are not.

Why are the David Hume Institute interested in this?

Because the nutrition of our nation affects the health of our workforce and poor nutrition affects the public purse by increasing NHS costs. Our economy will not thrive if the population is under-nourished.

Anna Chworow from Nourish Scotland has more food for thought on the role of public diners and the issue of food, nutrition, public health and the economy:

It is a pub question waiting to happen: Which state sponsored a chain of 2,000+ restaurants serving a nutritionally balanced, price-capped menu to the general public? Russia? China? Venezuela? The correct answer is the UK under a Conservative Prime Minister.

British Restaurants operated across Britain during 1940’s and 50’s. They were state-subsidised, affordable public diners, serving healthy meals to communities across the country. What started as ‘communal feeding centres’ was quickly rebranded thanks to an intervention by Winston Churchill who wrote to the Minister of Food, Lord Woolton in 1941: I hope the term “Communal Feeding Centres” is not going to be adopted. It is an odious expression suggestive of Communism and the workhouse. I suggest you call them “British Restaurants”. Everybody associates the word restaurant with a good meal.

Churchill’s intervention set a standard and a level of ambition for these new public institutions. Far from being soup kitchens, they were described as ‘centres of civilisation’, their walls decorated with bespoke murals and at times art loaned from national collections. They operated with state-support and through a combination of volunteer and local authority effort. While they received a subsidy for start-up costs, they also had a strong economic model which used economies of scale: centralised kitchens produced some of the food off-site and many restaurants served 100+ meals a day. In 1943 there were 46 British Restaurants operating across West Scotland. There were six in Dundee alone.

Is it time to revisit this idea to meet the needs of 21st century Britain?

The most recent David Hume Institute’s quarterly Understanding Scotland Economy tracker, developed by Diffley Partnership and Charlotte Street Partners, shows clearly how the need to cut costs is affecting people’s ability to make healthy choices. Last month over half of us made choices about food based on price rather than health. One in four reported buying fewer fresh fruits and vegetables and/or choosing foods that need little or no cooking. It’s clear our current social infrastructure fails to protect our nutritional needs. This failure catches up with us downstream – and we pay for it from NHS’s budgets.

But even if affordability of food was not a barrier to making healthier choices we know that our ultra-processed, veg-poor, industrialised food environments make it extremely difficult. We need places which will make it easy to enjoy a nourishing meal, and where taste and health go hand in hand. And this is about more than calories and nutrients. Research has shown dining in company is key to us eating well. Yet, one in three of us regularly eat alone. The public diner is exactly the type of new social institution that could help us address these issues.

The British Restaurants might have started as an anti-poverty response but the raising of ambition led to them gaining a broader appeal. It was an easy way to eat well at a time when women’s labour was suddenly concentrated outside the home. The public diners took care of meal planning, shopping, cooking and washing up – and even served up a decent pudding in a convivial atmosphere.

If the idea of state subsidised public dining sounds utopian, it’s worth considering the state’s support for other areas of our lives. From GP surgeries, hospitals and clinics to outdoor gyms, parks, public libraries, museums and galleries, although the public sector is struggling it still invests in facilities designed to support our physical and mental health and collective enjoyment. 

Given the huge cost of health problems related to unhealthy diets, the question isn’t really why we should we invest in state-supported public diners. It is: why shouldn’t we?

END

 A version of this blog was first published on the Nourish Scotland website in July 2023.

Further reading about the history of British Restaurants

Read the Understanding Scotland Economy Tracker research August 2023

Blog: Stressed out - the cost of shifting risk from institutions to individuals

by Shelagh Young, DHI Engagement Lead

Do you do a good day’s work after a poor night’s sleep? Do financial worries stop you focusing on the other things that matter in life - on family and friends, on your health or your job? 

Stress and anxiety have been the leading causes of lost working days in the UK for some time. But, despite increased productivity being seen as an essential component of economic growth, the impacts of stress and anxiety on the productivity of people who feel well enough to still go to work is comparatively less well measured or understood. 

Last month we reported that more than one in four Scots are losing sleep over their finances. In July the ONS reported the weakest annual growth since the first quarter of 2013 (excluding the Covid-19 pandemic period) and the weakest productivity output of worker per worker since 2009.

Are these two dismal facts related?

We think so. The research charity Centre for Mental Health calculates that mental health related  presenteeism, defined as being present at work but not fully functioning, costs the UK economy at least £21.2 billion a year in lost productivity. 

In the light of this it is obvious that government needs to lead on reducing stress and anxiety in order to boost wellbeing and therefore productivity. It cannot offload all of this responsibility onto employers, especially as not everyone is employed. Employers can rightly be held to account for reducing work-related stress and anxiety but the wider causes are not theirs alone to solve.

One of these sources of stress is the impact of what the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) calls The Great Risk Transfer. This is best described as a shifting of the burden of risk, such as ensuring our workplace pensions yield sufficient returns to keep us out of poverty in retirement,  from institutions to individuals. The IFoA argued that significant changes relating to pensions, work, health and insurance are placing more of the burden of risk on individuals with potentially socially and economically undesirable outcomes. 

We will be exploring our  research on this topic in a forthcoming lecture at the University of Edinburgh Business School. This work, which was supported by the IFoA,  found that the changes the IFoA identified were often poorly understood by the people most affected and not always their top priorities. For example, while the IFoA included precarity at work in its exploration of risk transfers, our research revealed greater front of mind concerns about precarity in housing.

We found that most people had a very partial understanding of the financial risks they were facing but that did not mean they were unaffected by financial risk-related stress. We heard a lot about the stress of coping with financial responsibilities and that was before the cost of living rose so dramatically. This matters because stress is not just a problem of presenteeism or individual unhappiness. Chronic stress causes long-term and profound health problems including weight gain, heart disease and strokes. All of these are a major concerns when it comes to costs to the public purse. 

We will be following up on our work around risk soon to find out more about what could be done to enable people to cope better. But the one thing we know already is that, while actuaries are professionally trained in risk-management, most of the rest of us are not. We need people to stay healthy enough to be at work but we also want their minds on their jobs for the sake of productivity. It is simply not good enough to design and implement policies that overload people with ever greater and more complex responsibilities which mean, as the FT described it earlier this year, we all need to be actuaries now.

ENDS

Click here to book for our upcoming event in partnership with the University of Edinburgh Business School.

Press coverage: Jeremy Grant reflects on our latest Understanding Scotland economy event

Investors could help turn back tide of processed foods

Exert from The Scotsman on 2nd September 2023:

”What people eat isn’t defined solely by personal preference. It’s driven by the “food environment”, made up of the availability of healthy foods, affordability and advertising by food companies. In the current environment, defined for so many by the cost-of-living crisis, what drives food choice is, increasingly, affordability — as the David Hume Institute showed in its latest quarterly “Understanding Scotland” survey, unveiled at the event.”

Read the full article in The Scotsman

Read the full research.

Read Shelagh Young’s reflections on the discussion event.

Coming soon - the recording of the event.

Blog: Is Social Security Scotland a waste of money?

by Shelagh Young, DHI Engagement Lead

Last week we hosted Professor Danny Dorling, the University of Oxford’s Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography. One ray of light in the long list of complex problems he addressed, many of which are analysed in more detail in his new book Shattered Nation, was the Scottish Child Payment which he described as creating the biggest fall in child poverty anywhere in Europe for at least  40 years. 

How was this positive news addressed in our national media? Hardly at all, as it turns out. It was eclipsed by an announcement from Gordon Brown, whose status as a former big beast of British politics affords him well-earned attention. And what did Brown have to say about this successful cash-first approach to reducing child poverty? Was it even acknowledged? Unfortunately not. 

Describing Social Security Scotland as a “waste of money” he managed to completely ignore two really important things. Firstly, that lifting thousands of children out of poverty looks to be achieving exactly what he called for back in May when he warned that food banks were taking over from the welfare state. Levels of need in Scotland are rising due to the cost of living crisis but not at the same rate as other parts of the UK. The Trussell Trust’s data shows that Scotland saw a smaller percentage increase in the number of parcels provided for children from November 2022 to March 2023 in comparison with the same period in 2021/22 than Northern Ireland, Wales or England. There was a 17% increase in Scotland compared to 42% in England. The Trust’s tentative conclusion is that this may suggest that the extension of eligibility for Scottish Child Payment from aged 6 to age 16, and the £5 increase to £25 a week, introduced in November 2022, has made an impact. 

The second absence in his argument was how people feel about the way they are treated by the new agency.  The Scottish Government invested significant time in engaging with a wide range of people to create ”Our Charter”  which is a requirement of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Its purpose is to set out what people should expect from the new social security system making it clear that Social Security Scotland is required to take a human rights based approach and showing how it will demonstrate dignity, fairness and respect in all of its actions.

Only current beneficiaries can tell us if Social Security Scotland is living up to the Charter and whether it is a significant improvement on their previous dealings with the Department for Work and Pensions. Of course kinder, more respectful treatment doesn’t pay the bills but it does reduce stress and associated mental health problems which is good for the whole of society in the long run. 

Being neutral in party political terms is not the job of politicians but it is our job here at the David Hume Institute. We are not champions of or apologists for any government but we are sticklers for following the data. Big beasts capture headlines but for a better sense of whether your money is being well spent, do what we do at DHI, keep your eyes on the facts.  

Blog: Paying a high price for poor nutrition

by Shelagh Young, DHI Engagement Lead

We should stop treating nutrition as a private responsibility of citizens and make ensuring good public nutrition a key responsibility of governments. That’s a key message expressed at our latest Understanding Scotland Economy event in Edinburgh this week by guest speaker Pete Ritchie, Director of Nourish Scotland.

Ritchie was responding to our findings that, faced with costs of living challenges, over half of Scots are shopping based on price rather than health considerations and that 1 in 4 (24%) are buying fewer fruits and vegetables and/or are choosing foods that require no or little cooking such as pot noodles. The importance of addressing better nutrition as a systemic issue rather than a private matter of individual responsibility was underlined by our other expert panellist, Kate Elliot, of Rathbone Greenbank Investments who generously hosted this event.

Elliot pointed out that business and policymakers have a huge influence on our food choices which is why investor engagement and government action are crucially important. Elliot stressed the need for supportive policy and effective regulation to provide a “positive choice environment” of nutritious and affordable food options. Pointing to the £27 billion annual estimated costs of the health impacts of obesity alone, she also highlighted the fact that poor health in the working age population is not just a moral issue. It has a negative impact on productivity and drives up costs for business due to higher than necessary absence rates. 

Britain has a long history of blaming individuals for their own poor health. It’s 120 years since the Balfour Government created a Committee to look at why so many British people were in a poor physical state following concerns raised about the condition of many Boer War recruits. Back then we had an empire to defend and, compared with other Europeans,  our relative poor health had become a matter of national embarrassment. The Committee’s findings mirrored  what might be heard on a radio phone-in today - alongside issues which are beyond an individual’s control such as poor housing and pollution the Committee blamed parental neglect and incompetent mothers. 

Both of our speakers showed that placing even greater responsibility on individuals, especially when healthy choices are unaffordable for a significant proportion of the population, is not the way forward. The problems of poor nutrition are not going to be solved by making ever greater efforts to persuade and cajole us all to make better choices. Yes, as Ritchie said, we could try to stop children ending up in hospital with mouths full of rotten teeth by making it as socially unacceptable to feed sugary treats to children under five as it would be to encourage them to smoke. However, the key message was that food systems need to change which requires joined up working across governments, business and wider civil society.

Further reading:

See here for more information about Nourish Scotland and here for Rathbone Greenbank Investments.  Rathbone Greenbank formed the Investor Coalition on UK Food Policy alongside The Food Foundation, an NGO focusing on food policy reform, to help support the review and drive forward its initiatives. The coalition is composed of 23 investors representing £6 trillion in assets.

Press release: Cost of living is a ticking time bomb for public health

Tuesday 29th August 2023

Research shows extreme cost-saving behaviours in how Scots shop, eat and live are likely to have a disastrous long-term effect on the nation’s health.

• Rising cost of living continues to dominate people’s priorities. Around half (48%) say this is a top issue facing Scotland. Two-thirds (67%) say this is a top issue for the Scottish economy.

• In response, Scots report that they are shopping around, changing brands or shops, and buying reduced food to cope with rising prices.

• But many are engaging in extreme cost-saving behaviours, which may have disastrous health consequences:

• 1 in 7 (15%) are skipping meals

• 1 in 4 (24%) are buying fewer fruits and vegetables

• 1 in 4 (25%) are choosing foods that require no or little cooking such as pot noodles

• More than 1 in 4 (27%) are consuming more packaged or processed foods instead of fresh alternatives.

These changes have serious public health consequences and risk exacerbating pre-existing inequalities, as working class hit hard by rising prices; over 1 in 5 (22%) of those in social grades C2DE report that their finances are much worse now than a year ago.

Scots remain sceptical and pessimistic about Scotland’s economy and direction. Over a third (38%) say that economic conditions are much worse now than a year ago, down from almost half (46%) in May, and over half (56%) believe that things in Scotland are headed in the wrong direction.

Large swathes of the population remain dissatisfied with the actions and support offered by UK and Scottish Government, local authorities, energy companies and the Bank of England. Over 80% feel that these actors have done too little to help people cope with rising prices.

Despite the dominance of cost of living, Scots continue to emphasise many priorities, including healthcare and the NHS (46%) and poverty and inequality (18%). The economy as a priority is down 4 percentage points to 18%, and the environment and climate change is up by 8 percentage points since the last survey in May to also be at 18%.

This wave of the Understanding Scotland economy tracker survey was produced in partnership between the David Hume Institute and the Diffley Partnership. The survey gathers economic attitudes and insights from more than 2,000 members of the Scottish adult population every 3 months to track changes over time. 

““Broadly speaking, our latest data confirms that the public is still gripped by the costs of living crisis, both in terms of its importance as an issue of concern and in how it continues to impact on our behaviour and levels of pessimism about the future. Chinks of light do exist but they are emerging slowly and are clearly shallow. It is true that, compared to last year, a smaller proportion of Scots think economic conditions will continue to get significantly worse; however, the underlying trend remains, including the fact that the economic crisis continues to have greatest impact on the most economically vulnerable and it feels like it still has a long way to run.”

”

— Mark Diffley, Founder and Director of Diffley Partnership 

““More than one in four people are still losing sleep over their finances. Healthy food choices are slipping out of reach for significant numbers of comparatively wealthy people. Our data shows that the people needed to drive a thriving economy are struggling with the basics in life. This stores up health problems for the future and, combined with widespread pessimism about the future of Scotland’s economy, are persistent trends that should not be ignored.””

— Susan Murray, Director of the David Hume Institute

Understanding Scotland is a quarterly survey tool measuring the most important facets of our lives and decision-making in Scotland: our society, economy, and environment developed by Diffley Partnership and Charlotte Street Partners. Understanding Scotland economy tracker is produced in partnership with the David Hume Institute.

Watch the recording of the research launch event discussion

Notes to editor

Designed by the Diffley Partnership, Understanding Scotland is a high-quality quarterly survey that delivers insights into Scottish behaviours and attitudes towards society, the economy and the environment.

The survey received 2,101 responses from a representative sample of the adult population, aged 16+, across Scotland. Invitations were issued online using the ScotPulse panel, and fieldwork was conducted between the 2nd – 8th August. Results are weighted to the Scottish population (2020 estimates) by age and gender.

Press release: Global expert calls for urgent change to prevent escalating crises in the UK

Professor Danny Dorling, the Halford Mackinder Professor at the University of Oxford, joined a sell-out crowd in Edinburgh to preview his latest book Shattered Nation. Inequality and the Geography of a Failing State' hosted by the David Hume Institute.

Professor Dorling argued, Britain needs change on a scale not seen since the Second World War to prevent the escalating economic and social costs of avoidable crises:

““The enormity of the challenges we now face, mean we need a scale of intervention not seen since the second world war - we can choose to step up to the challenges ahead, we can choose to create a thriving economy and society that does not leave people on the scrap heap, or we can blunder on fooling ourselves that if we just get economic growth to increase all the other crises will be sorted.””

— Professor Danny Dorling

The discussion addressed the key theme of his forthcoming book - that the failure to tackle rising inequality and to invest in ways of meeting the basic needs of people living in the UK puts Britain at risk of becoming a failed state.

Dorling named Scotland as a source of hope citing  policies such as the Scottish Child Payment and the announcement by the Scottish Government’s intention to move to a “Cash First” approach to reducing dependence on food banks.

““People need to know how much they stand to lose if we do not plan for ambitious change.  After housing costs are paid, the average household in Britain is already less prosperous than the median in every other large European country. We have been moving down the ranks for decades, and the fall has accelerated recently. This is not inevitable. We can plan to end the huge inequalities that are a key feature of this decline.”

“What is happening in Scotland shows it is possible to avoid a poverty of ambition where you hope for so little and ask for even less.””

— Professor Danny Dorling

Reflecting on the ambitions of the 1942 Beveridge Report, Professor Dorling identifies the five giants of twenty-first-century poverty that now need to be conquered: Hunger, Precarity, Waste, Exploitation, and Fear. 

Susan Murray, Director of the David Hume Institute, said:

“We were delighted to host Professor Dorling whose analysis of the data shows what can be changed, not just what has gone wrong.  We know from our quarterly Understanding Scotland Economy Tracker that significant numbers of the Scottish population are losing sleep over their finances and cutting back on the basics such as healthy food and heating. Our ability to achieve many goals, including increased productivity, is placed in jeopardy when the people who power our economy are struggling to afford the basics needed for life today.” 

ENDS

View the full David Hume Institute event recording with Professor Dorling

Notes to editors:

Shattered Nation: Inequality and the Geography of a Failing State by Professor Danny Dorling will be published by Verso Books and formally launched on 19 September 2023.

Press Release: the cost of living is driving difficult choices

Tuesday 23rd May 2023

New research reveals in order to meet increased costs, many Scots are running down their savings, turning to credit and stopping paying into pensions:

• 4 in 10 Scots (42%) report having taken money out of their savings to cover higher costs

• 1 in 4 have used a credit card to make for purchases that they wouldn’t usually

• 1 in 5 have used ‘buy now pay later’ schemes to cover everyday spending

• A small but increasing number of Scots have stopped contributing to a pension (7%).

The research also found

• 7 in 10 (68%) report that they have cut their energy use through methods like switching off lights and not using the oven to cope with rising prices and inflation, and two-thirds (66)% report reducing spending on non-essential purchases such as clothing

• turning to high-cost borrowing options for everyday essentials can cause the accumulation of substantial debt which will affect their lives for many years to come 

• the economic outlook from Scots remains bleak with 62% thinking that general economic conditions will be worse in a years’ time (although this is down very slightly from 66% in February) and 45% think their personal financial situation will be worse in a years’ time (down from 48% in February)

• however, while we have seen a reduction in the number of people thinking that things will get worse, optimism is not rising. Rather, many Scots think that the economic outlook will remain the same over the next 12 months suggesting they think that the costs and challenges they face are here to stay.

This wave of the Understanding Scotland: Economy tracker survey was produced in partnership between the David Hume Institute and the Diffley Partnership. The survey gathers economic attitudes and insights from more than 2,000 members of the Scottish adult population every 3 months to track changes over time. 

Mark Diffley, Founder and Director of Diffley Partnership, said: 

“Despite some economic indicators showing signs of stabilising over recent times and some commentators predicting that the worst of the crisis maybe easing, it is clear that Scots are still feeling pessimistic about the prospects for both their own finances and the wider economy. Our survey once again highlights the financial and wider impacts being caused by the crisis and that the most significant impacts are being felt by the most financially vulnerable.”

Susan Murray, Director of the David Hume Institute said: 

“Sadly this research continues to show a stark picture for the Scottish economy. Two-thirds of people continue to cut down on non-essential purchases and almost half the population are reducing their donation to charity.  1 in 5 people, with nothing left to cut back, are turning to high cost borrowing in order to survive. Others are telling us they have stopped contributing to their pension in order to make ends meet. These actions today, are likely to impact personal finances and the Scottish economy for many years to come.” 

Understanding Scotland is a quarterly tracker survey measuring the most important facets of our lives and decision-making in Scotland: our society, economy, and environment developed by Diffley Partnership and Charlotte Street Partners. Understanding Scotland: Economy is produced in partnership with the David Hume Institute.

Read the full report

Notes to editors:

• The survey received 2,184 responses from a representative sample of the adult population, aged 16+, across Scotland. Invitations were issued online using the ScotPulse panel, and fieldwork was conducted between the 2nd and 8th May 2023. Results are weighted to the Scottish population (2020 estimates) by age and sex.

• About Understanding Scotland: Understanding Scotland is a high-quality quarterly survey that delivers insights into Scottish behaviours and attitudes towards society, the economy and the environment. The survey fills a vital gap in research, providing the socioeconomic insights and indicators needed for effective decision-making, with regularity and timeliness.

• About the Diffley Partnership: The Diffley Partnership is an Edinburgh-based consultancy and research company working with organisations across the public, private and third sectors to deliver high quality research and insight on a range of issues using all qualitative and quantitative techniques.

• About the David Hume Institute: The David Hume Institute is an independent think tank with a mission to improve understanding of the economy in Scotland. We carry out research and host public events on a range of issues related to the Scottish economy and society.

• About Charlotte Street Partners: Charlotte Street Partners is a strategic communications agency based in Edinburgh. Our team of advisers offer considerable experience, expertise, and insight across all aspects of communication.

Press release: Is trust a must for a brighter economic future?

“Trust plays a crucial role in a successful economy.”  says Charlie Woods, the author of the latest David Hume Institute Discussion Paper launched today ahead of an on-line event on Thursday 23 May at 1.30pm. Is this being overlooked by business and political leaders who are seeking solutions to weaker than desired economic performance?

DHI Director, Susan Murray, will be joined in this webinar conversation from New York by Dr David M. Bersoff, from the Edelman Trust Institute, Charlie Woods, the paper’s author, and leading mediator John Sturrock , who works to build trust in negotiations.

David will share the global context on trust from the 2023 Annual Trust Barometer to help explore the relevance of trust to the economy and the labour market.

At a time when the majority of Scots are concerned about household finances, think Scotland is heading in the wrong direction economically and are pessimistic about our economic future, are we paying sufficient attention to the potential of increasing trust to boost economic performance?

David Hume Institute Director Susan Murray says:

“Research shows a strong relationship between levels of trust in society and economic performance with more trusting societies generating more income per person than others. Thinking differently about what helps boost economic performance might reveal we have been looking for too long in the wrong places to find the Holy Grail of a more productive Scottish workforce.”

The webinar is free to watch here.

ENDS

Notes to Editors

• For media enquiries contact Shelagh Young, David Hume Institute, shelaghyoung@davidhumeinstitute.org

• The Discussion Paper: Is Trust an undervalued ingredient for a thriving economy? Is available here

• The 2023 Annual Trust Barometer can be found here

• The David Hume Institute is an independent think tank based in Scotland. The charity was established in 1985 to increase diversity of thought on the economy and related public policy. Find out more on our website

Blog: Budgeting to save a global asset

Ahead of the UK budget Shona McCarthy, Chief Executive of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society, reflects on the latest Understanding Scotland economy insights and asks our leaders to lift their heads up from the ongoing crises and take a longer view.

While both UK and Scottish Governments have much to do to address current suffering, the key to sustainable economic growth and wellbeing includes investing in our cultural capital. 

A report by the Lords Communications Committee recently stated that creative industries should sit at the heart of the UK’s economic growth plan and criticised senior politicians for failing to spot its potential.

Investment in culture, which makes up a tiny 0.8 per cent of the Scottish Government budget, has been steadily declining year on year, comparative to other UK nations. This is despite its obvious pre-pandemic economic contribution. The sector has been hit hard by the loss of European funding which has not been replaced at the same level by the new UK Government funds. A rumoured injection of £8.6m for Edinburgh Festivals in today’s budget will be a welcome boost.

In 2019 the creative industries employed over 90,000 people in Scotland with the previous year’s economic contribution measured at £4.6 billion in GVA and £4 billion in exports. But as the sector tries to recover from the debt and ravages of covid, sustaining this contribution and growing the culture and creative sector over the coming years, will require similarly sustained investment, something which does not look likely in the current climate.

Of course governments should be responsive to the electorate’s priorities. It’s no surprise that in the recent Understanding Scotland survey, people in Scotland placed the cost of living and anxieties about NHS performance high on the list when asked to name the issues that most concern them. But we also know from Creative Scotland research across Scotland that 84% believe that it is right that there should be public funding of arts and cultural activities in Scotland. 98% of the Scottish population engaged in cultural activity during lockdown. 93% believes that creative activity is essential for children and young people’s learning and well-being. Alongside addressing immediate concerns is it too much to ask that our political leaders keep their eye on the long game? 

Current challenges and the way governments respond will have long-term economic consequences. In the same Understanding Scotland survey over 60% of Scots said they were cutting down on leisure spending in response to rising costs. In terms of income this could be a knockout blow for those venues and creative practitioners already placed in jeopardy by the impact of the pandemic. As far as the Edinburgh Fringe is concerned I fear there is a sense that it will always be there. The Fringe began as a platform for inclusion and freedom of expression. And it is the very nature of its openness and inclusivity that has caused it to grow organically over 75 years to include more artists, more creatives, more voices from every walk of life and every nation. As we have seen with the plight of the Film Festival this year, we can’t afford to just take it all for granted.

It is astonishing to think the ticket-selling collective of Edinburgh’s Festivals in August are now equivalent in value to a FIFA world cup, and second only to the Olympic Games every single year. 

If cities were bidding now to host what Edinburgh delivers every August, there would be enormous competition.

If the arts were treated like a major sporting event, at least £100m of UK government investment would be on the table to cover the cost and supporting infrastructure. Even comparing, to the much smaller, Eurovision Song contest the UK Government pledged £10m to support the winning city.  

The Edinburgh Festivals are a UK asset, valued world wide which we need to treasure. The arts are a vital part of the UK economy and we need everyone to help us survive. 

ENDS

This article was published in The Scotsman on 15th March 2023

Blog: Celebrate or commiserate for IWD23?

8th March 2023

by Shelagh Young, Engagement Lead, David Hume Institute

Whatever happened to celebrating International Women’s Day?

Back in the day my heart was stirred by inspiring visions of a better future. Today the news is filled with the inescapable truth that far too many women are being left behind by a struggling economy and policies which ignore, and sometimes increase, many of the profound inequalities which first sparked the women’s movement into life. 

Take today’s PMQ session. When asked about action to close the gender pension gap Prime Minister Sunak responded by saying auto-enrolment had helped millions of women. It has but there was no mention of the 1 in 6 women who are currently ineligible to join due to low earnings. Delve a bit deeper and the Government’s own annual review of the scheme makes it clear that reducing the threshold for auto-enrolment was not considered useful for those for whom it  “could make little or no economic sense to save into a pension” stating that it would “divert income away from their day to day needs.”

If people can’t meet their day to day needs now without skimping on pension contributions, who will meet those needs in old age? This isn’t a problem solved easily even for those women who can work more hours or get a better paid job. 

As the consultancy PwC revealed this week, an 18 year old woman entering paid work today will remain permanently poorer than her male peers as she won't see gender pay parity in her working lifetime.

They also reported that childcare costs are so exorbitant that they are driving women out of the paid workforce.

Meanwhile the Joseph Rowntree Foundation pitched in with a cautionary tale about the numbers priced out of home ownership whose income in retirement will also need to cover the rent.

This gives a particularly sharp edge to this week’s advice from Scottish Widows which, as is so often the case, looks to individual women not society in general to solve a problem they did not cause. According to their report, in order to close the average £123,000 difference between men’s and women’s pension savings, young women in their 20s should save really hard before gender discrimination, motherhood and other caring responsibilities take their toll.  

Small wonder then that when we surveyed Scotland’s population for our most recent quarterly Understanding Scotland report, women were far gloomier than men when it came to their personal finances. 

Nearly half of women expected to see their financial position worsen over the next 12 months and 29% had lost sleep due to anxiety over personal finances, compared with only 19% of men. Women were also more likely than men to have skipped meals, reduced portion sizes and used less energy at home to save money. Unfortunately, this probably wasn’t about saving for the future. 45% of women had taken money out of savings and the same proportion had saved less than normal in order to cover current costs. Unsurprisingly, men lagged behind in this depressing race to the bottom by at least 5 to 10 percentage points in almost every domain.

Most shocking of all is that although half of men said they were confident they could cover an unexpected bill of £100 only 37% of women felt they could. This brings us neatly to the gender gap in paid working hours. If your washing machine breaks down there is still more likelihood of the woman in a household being responsible for sorting it out. Being poor keeps you busy but we know what sort of busy leads to better pay and it isn’t the domestic sort.

Which brings us back to needing something to celebrate. When it comes to achieving equal pay and economic growth which respects both planetary limits and the principles of social justice, we clearly have a gender problem and it isn’t just for women to solve.

Ends

Press release: Siloed land information is holding back Scotland

A new report published today by the David Hume Institute and Built Environment Forum Scotland, written by land reform expert Andy Wightman, says the lack of a fully functioning land and building information system is holding Scotland back.

Although Scotland has a considerable amount of information on land and buildings, a Scottish Government commitment in 2015 to deliver a comprehensive Scotland Land Information Service (SCOTLIS) has still not been met.

Information about land and buildings is used everyday by businesses, policy-makers, academics and ordinary people. This information includes who owns land, how much land is worth, building types and energy efficiency ratings, vegetation cover and flood risks areas. 

All of this information exists in some form, however much of it is not easily available and virtually none of it is made available in an integrated form. 

A fully functioning land and building Information system in Scotland would enable users to quickly and easily access information about any piece of land or property in Scotland through a single online source. This will allow for simplified property transfers, better policy and decision making, improved accountability and transparency, and more innovative use of data for wider social and economic benefit. 

There are challenges to overcome but failing to rise to the challenges means Scotland is not reaping the benefits other countries are seeing from similar work. 

Andy Wightman, author of the report said: “A new, fully functioning version of Scotland’s land information system could be in place by 2025 if there was the political will to make it happen. In the past, lack of political leadership failed to establish the governance framework necessary to deliver the ambition for Scotland so the land and building information system remains a vital missing link. ”

Susan Murray, Director of the David Hume Institute said: 

“This report shines a light on the potential of a land and building information system for Scotland. This is essential infrastructure to support the modern economy and transition to NetZero.  The David Hume Institute is delighted to have worked with BEFS, Andy Wightman and others like Professor Stewart Brymer to produce the paper. The ground work has already been done, it just needs everyone to roll up their sleeves and make it happen for everyone’s benefit.”

Ailsa Macfarlane, Director of Built Environment Forum (BEFS) said:

“Obtaining information about buildings can be extremely time consuming.  By bringing together information from different sources, it will be quicker for everyone to access land and building information.  We need a concerted effort to ensure Scotland does not get left behind internationally as other countries are already benefiting from advances in data processing and mapping technologies. As the impacts of climate change intensify, there is even greater need for more timely, more comprehensive and more accessible information about land and buildings in Scotland. A fully functioning ScotLIS will support progress towards achieving Scotland’s net zero goals by 2045.”

The David Hume Institute is hosting a free online event to discuss the paper on Wednesday 8th March. Further details can be found here 

Ends

Notes to editors:

1. About the report: This paper was jointly commissioned by the David Hume Institute and Built Environment Forum Scotland and written by Andy Wightman. It originated from a conversation as part of DHI’s Action Project and it’s development has been supported by a number of individuals, organisations and roundtable discussions.

2. About the author Andy Wightman is a writer and researcher focussing on land governance, land ownership and community land rights. He is the author of publications including Who Owns Scotland (1996), Scotland: Land and Power (1999), Community Land Rights: A Citizen’s Guide (2009) and The Poor Had No Lawyers (2010). He runs the Who Owns Scotland project. From 2016 to 2021, Andy was a Member of the Scottish Parliament.

3. About the David Hume Institute: The David Hume Institute is an independent think tank based in Scotland. We carry out research and host public events on a range of issues related to the economy and society in Scotland.

4. About Built Environment Forum Scotland: Built Environment Forum Scotland (BEFS) is an umbrella body for organisations working in the built environment in Scotland. We focus on the strategic issues, opportunities and challenges facing our historic and contemporary built environment.

Blog: Shan Saba's view from the west

Shan Saba, Director of Scotland’s leading recruitment agency Brightwork Staffline, Founder, Scotland Against Modern Slavery and Board Member of the Refugee Survival Trust reflects on the latest Understanding Scotland Economy insights.

According to the latest Understanding Scotland Economy research people in the west of Scotland are more likely to believe that Scotland is moving in the wrong direction than those in the north and east.

We already know that growing up in Glasgow can be bad for your health so is that why optimism dwindles the further west you live? Or should we be asking if those poorer life chances sharpen people’s wits leading to a less positive but possibly more realistic picture of our future? As a "Weegie", perhaps I am better placed than those who are not from Glasgow to comment.

There is certainly little to celebrate in the fact that eight out of the ten most income-deprived areas in Scotland are all on the west coast (according to the Scottish Government SIMD 2020). Understanding Scotland shows that 46% of people living in Scotland’s most deprived neighbourhoods would not be able to meet an unexpected living expense of £100. This highlights how fragile personal economic situations have become and how people are responding. The research also records a rise in people looking to change jobs or increase their working hours in order to earn more money. 

Is this good news for our fragile labour market which has certainly been affected by difficulties in recruiting across several sectors in recent times?  It is hard to be sure. The dust has not yet settled from the storms caused by Brexit, the Covid pandemic, and the ongoing cost of living issues. The initial labour shortages caused by the departure of European workers translated into higher wages and improved working conditions in manufacturing, agriculture, and hospitality. It has even led to a relaxing of the UK government's stance on immigration. For example, social care workers have been added to the shortage occupation list. 

International students' numbers have had a considerable impact on UK immigration and the world of work. These students have eligibility to work in the UK, although with restricted hours, and they are now much more common in those sectors that were badly affected by the initial labour shortages. It is not uncommon to see African, Indian, and Pakistani nationals being bussed to work in manufacturing and distribution sites across Scotland, which makes me wonder what those Brexiteers who campaigned on an anti-immigration platform think of what has been achieved?

So what about those UK workers that Boris Johnson had proudly said would get up and take on the jobs that needed doing? In certain areas of Scotland, we have seen a slight increase in the availability of "home-grown" workers becoming available due to downsizing or redundancy, and sadly, people who desperately need to top up their income by taking on second or even third jobs to cover their increased household costs.

Overall the news is not great. Firstly because these people alone are not enough to fill the gaps and perhaps more importantly, because labour exploitation has been recorded at its highest level in Scotland since records began in 2002. Desperation can lead people to take on work that is undocumented, and the nature of that work is exploitative at its core.

A quick search on social media for cash-in-hand jobs will bring up plenty of options that can allow you to earn some quick cash with ease. Given the high numbers of people that this survey reveals to be in a seriously precarious economic position, there will undoubtedly be many who are at risk of becoming exploited.

If improved public health Scotland-wide is our goal, then maybe the West Coast pessimists are the modern day equivalent of canaries in coal mines. They might be warning us that there is nothing healthy about a toxic mix of in-work poverty and growing labour exploitation.

Press release: Scots’ pessimism about economic conditions remains

• Almost nine in ten (88%) Scots think that economic conditions are worse than they were a year ago. While two thirds (66%) of Scots say economic conditions will get worse in the next 12 months, this figure has dropped from 81% expressing the same sentiment in November 2022, starting what could be the beginning of an upswing in public opinion on the topic

• A majority (55%) of people believe Scotland is heading in the wrong direction. This is the first time a majority of people have expressed this opinion since Understanding Scotland began

• A quarter (25%) of people are not confident they would be able to pay for an emergency expense of £100 without having to take out a loan or borrowing money, pointing to an alarming level of financial precarity in Scottish households
  

This iteration of the Understanding Scotland Economy series, produced in partnership between the David Hume Institute and the Diffley Partnership, gathered economic attitudes and insights from more than 2,000 members of the Scottish adult population. 

Fieldwork was conducted the week prior to Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation, with results providing a snapshot of public opinion at the outset of ongoing SNP leadership campaign rather than following the announcement of the First Minister’s resignation. 

The new Understanding Scotland polling reveals a mixed picture of public opinion on the economy: while overwhelming pessimism coupled and evidence of harsh financial realities for households persists, people’s predictions for the next year appear less dire than in previous waves of data collection. 

Scotland’s Challenges...

The majority of people (52%) identify healthcare and the NHS as one of the three most important issues facing Scotland today. This is followed closely by the cost-of-living crisis (45%). There has been increased interest in education and schools as a key issue (cited by 15% of respondents compared to 9% in November 2022), correlating with coverage of strike action in the media recently. Interest in other topics covered in the media, such as gender recognition reforms is limited: only 6% of respondents view this as one of the top three issues facing Scotland. 

Scots continue to struggle to make ends meet. Almost six in ten (58%) of people report dissatisfaction with their income covering the cost of living, and 46% are dissatisfied with their ability to meet household bills. Most people continue to report taking action to reduce spending both in and out of home, 60% report not turning the heating on when they otherwise would have done to save money and 61% cutting down on leisure activities in response to rising prices and inflation. One in five (20%) have cut down on meal/portion sizes to save money.

Additionally, labour market activity continues to be shaped in reaction to rising prices: one in five (20%) of people have changed or looked at changing jobs to earn more money, 12% have taken on more hours or paid work, and 7% have tried, unsuccessfully, to take on more hours/paid work. 

Felt unequally...

Financial fragility is not felt equally by the population. While a quarter of Scots are not confident that they could pay an emergency expense of £100 without having to borrow or take out a loan, this rises to over a third (36%) of households with children and 46% of households in the most deprived areas. For an emergency expense of £500 uncertainty in the ability to pay out of pocket rises to 45% of all households, 60% of households with children, and 66% of households in the most deprived areas. 

In response to the cost of living crisis, people are being forced to engage in risky financial behaviours which could lead to increased financial fragility in future: over four in ten (42%) have taken money out of savings to cover higher costs, 41% put less money than usual into savings (with an additional 5% having stopped paying into a pension), all while a similar proportion (43%) reduced their donations to charity. With a quarter (25%) of people using credit cards when they otherwise would not have done and almost a fifth (18%) using ‘buy now pay later’ payment plans, the debt accrued during the cost-of-living crisis could extend its impact on the most financially vulnerable in Scotland. Nonetheless, just over half (52%) of people have hope that their own financial situation will, at the very least, not worsen in the next year.

This wave of Understanding Scotland paints a picture as Scotland gets set to welcome a new First Minister: the cost-of-living crisis continues to impact everyday behaviours, and healthcare and rising prices remain top of the public’s priorities. Nonetheless, amidst widespread disillusionment, a slight glimmer of reduced pessimism for the future in terms of the economy can be found. 

Mark Diffley, Founder and Director of Diffley Partnership, said: “It is clear that the ongoing cost of living crisis is still being felt acutely, and unequally, across Scotland. As we have seen in previous surveys, the impacts of the crisis go beyond immediate financial concerns and continue to have impacts on employment, health and levels of anxiety. A new question on being able to deal with unexpected bills reveals significant unevenness in financial resilience, illustrating that while 4 in 10 of the population would not be confident of meeting an unexpected bill of £500, this rises to two-thirds (64%) of those who live in Scotland’s most deprived communities.”

Susan Murray, Director of the David Hume Institute said: 

“The survey shows a significant number of Scots continue to be unable to cope with the everyday cost of living and are losing sleep over their finances. Even more are unable to cope with an unexpected bill or emergency costs. These results should not be taken lightly. If people are too tired or stressed to concentrate at work, the economy as well as individuals suffer. Living in acute stress affects people’s health and public spending, with the NHS likely to bear the brunt.” 

Understanding Scotland is a quarterly survey tool measuring the most important facets of our lives and decision-making in Scotland: our society, economy, and environment developed by Diffley Partnership and Charlotte Street Partners. Understanding Scotland: Economy is produced in partnership with the David Hume Institute.

We are hosting a free public event to discuss the findings of the report, further details can be found here 

Consultation response: Scottish Parliament Charities Bill

Response to the Scottish Parliament Social Justice and Social Security Committee Call for views on the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill

February 2023

We strongly support updating Scottish charity law to enable OSCR to create an open, publicly searchable register of charity trustees.

Why do we support the update?

The David Hume Institute regularly measures the diversity of Scotland’s top leaders. For the first time in 2022 our analysis included the leaders of the top 300 charities by income, as they are major influencers and lobbyists who impact on all parts of our society.

Increasing diversity of thought is in everyone’s interests as it helps avoid the pitfalls of group think (where similar people think or make decisions as a group, resulting in unchallenged decision-making) and improves risk management and productivity. More equal societies have higher productivity and high productivity allows more investment to create more equal societies. 

The top 300 charities by income represent just 1% of the total charities in Scotland and control over £10 billion each year - 73% of the sector's total annual income

As a micro organisation we do not have capacity to respond to every question in the call for views. However, the points below are relevant to the call for views and draw on our research from 2022, Scotland’s top charity leaders - how diverse are they?

We’re talking big money

• The charity sector in Scotland has an annual income of over £13.17 billion and 208,977 staff.  This means the Scottish charity sector is of a similar size to the NHS in Scotland.

The requirement for transparency has declined since the advent of SCIOs

• Since the introduction of SCIO’s in 2011, there has been a rapid growth in SCIO registrations. Companies House requires a higher level of public transparency for directors of companies with charitable status than OSCR currently requires for trustees.

Image from of OSCR data from Scotland’s top charity leaders - how diverse are they?

Transparency should go hand in hand with the benefits of charitable status

• Along with charitable status comes a legal duty to deliver public benefit.  Many charities receive public funding and tax benefits relating to their legal status.  Strengthening legislation to increase transparency and accountability would help maintain and build on high levels of public trust in the charity sector. 

• Increased transparency will enable diversity monitoring of charity trustees and help highlight risks related to limited diversity of thought. 

Update Scottish charity law to stop lagging behind Charity Commission and Companies House

• The Charity Commission and Companies House already require annual declaration of trustees and directors 

• The Charity Commission’s research into the experience of charities in England and Wales, finds that eight out of ten of charity trustees agree that ‘the rules and regulations trustees have to comply with are important, and are not too much of a burden’.   

• OSCR’s digital annual return means reconfirming those in control of the organisation could be quick and easy as part of this process. Every registered charity in Scotland should already have a record of their trustees and prepare an annual report and accounts. The choice of what information is in the public domain should not depend on the charity's commitment to openness and transparency.

The bill needs to go further

• It is important that the proposed bill enables OSCR to collect and correlate details of other trustee or director positions (those with significant control) held by individuals within charities on the updated Scottish charity register. This information should be publicly available and searchable via the charity register.

• Ensuring it is possible to search for individual trustees in the Scottish Charity Register in a similar way to Companies House, would aid public understanding of individuals’ with potential conflicts of interest.