Focus: Your country needs you

In 2002 just 51,270 babies were born — the lowest since records began in 1855 — a fall of 24% since 1991 and of 43% since 1951. Scotland’s total fertility rate — a measure of the average number of children born to women of a child-bearing age — is Britain’s lowest at 1.48 per family unit.

Estimates suggest Scotland’s population will fall below 5m within six years and decline at an accelerating rate as the population ages.

This might be worrying enough. What makes it more than a regrettable tale of modern-day depopulation is the devastating effect it is likely to have on Scotland’s future prosperity.

While the naturalist David Attenborough is warning that the population of Britain is growing out of control, the new report has brought apocalyptic warnings from Scotland’s business community if the fall in Scotland’s population is not reversed.

By coincidence, last week also saw confirmation that Scotland was in danger of slipping into recession. GDP, the most accurate measure of the strength of the economy, fell by 0.3% in Scotland in the first quarter of this year. The message from Allan Hogarth, spokesman for CBI Scotland, is clear. “There is a demographic time bomb which is ticking in Scotland,” he says.

“If the problem is not addressed, there will be more pressure on public services because there will be fewer taxpayers. It would be harder to grow your business in Scotland. The country’s reputation abroad could suffer as a consequence.”

The worrying new developments pose some searching questions for Scotland’s future. Is there a rational explanation for the country’s low fertility rate, giving clues to how it can be countered? Why do Scots no longer want to go forth and multiply? Do our politicians have a coherent plan to tackle this threat to prosperity? Can we avert the grim prospect of fewer and poorer Scots? And should we all just get busy under the duvet and think of Scotland?

THE word is “pronatalist”. It means being in favour of birth. Over the years many countries have experimented with ways of accelerating fertility rates, with varying degrees of success. Methods have ranged from appeals to national pride to offering financial incentives.

The French government recently announced an additional “birth bonus” and promised another 20,000 creche places to help mothers return to work. In Singapore, worries in the 1980s about skills shortages and the threat of an ageing population persuaded the government to give priority in housing and schooling to families with three or more children as well as tax relief and bonus payments for each birth. To kick-start the country’s baby-making, a government computer dating service was set up to help couples get together more quickly.

It worked — for a while. A small rise in birthrates was followed by a fall from 1.62 children in 1987 to 1.42 in 2001 — a rate comparable to that of Scotland where none of these efforts have been made.

Research suggests it is hard to raise fertility rates if the role of women in society has simply changed too much for them to go back to being “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen”.

Academics say the wide range of factors why women choose to have babies later, and to have fewer of them, are bewilderingly complex. They include the changing role of women in society, growing secularisation, changes in attitudes to marriage and family and economic insecurity.

But the mystery remains: why it is that Scotland has the lowest fertility rate in Britain? Why are more Scottish than English women having children in their thirties rather than their late twenties? Why are Scottish couples having fewer children than English ones? Surprisingly, given the potential threat to future prosperity, this is a subject on which there has been little meaningful research. Paul Boyle, professor of human geography at St Andrews University, admits in his report to the registrar general that “some possible answers suggest themselves, but at present they are little more than speculation”.

So what is the speculation? It includes factors such as the rising tide of individualism as younger Scots choose consumerism and enjoyment over the commitments of marriage and children. Then there is the expansion of higher education, and difficulties in combining work and family.

If none of these seem particularly Scottish phenomena, the way we deal with them may well be. It may be harder to work and bring up a family in Perth than in Peterborough, according to the report.

It says: “ . . . the responsibility for children is rarely shared equally between the two parents and Scotland may be lagging behind England in terms of gender equality in the home. Greater pressures on women dealing with the combined demands of work and family are contributing to the difference in fertility between England and Scotland.”

Boyle also suggests that a lack of confidence in Scotland’s economy may be serving to depress fertility generally. Some of the answers may also lie in the fact that a large number of bright university graduates look south of the border when it comes to getting a job, meaning new generations are born in England.

In addition, more immigrants are drawn to multicultural London rather than predominantly white Scotland. This could be crucial, as immigrants tend to have more skills, be more entrepreneurial and have bigger families than homegrown Brits.

The Catholic church is among those who lament the decline of the family. A spokesman, Peter Kearney, says bigger families appeared to be less socially acceptable these days — and this manifested itself in subtle ways. For example, family holiday packages and tickets for outings were geared to two adults and two children.

Kearney’s family are bucking the trend. His wife is expecting their fourth baby on Tuesday. “Families with three or more children are not deemed to be the norm,” he says.

“The bottom line is these birth figures do question the long-term viability of Scotland as an economy and as a society. The picture is bleak. There are really only two alternatives. One is that Scots have more children to repopulate our country, or we allow others to populate it for us. That means we must be more welcoming to asylum seekers and refugees and immigrants.”

IF there is one word that sets warning bells ringing in politicians’ ears it is sex. Despite the seriousness of the challenge, the birthrate issue is one Scotland’s politicians are treating with extreme care. Experience has told them that anything remotely related to sex can be politically troublesome.

So the play-safe position of Scotland’s government is that it is not for ministers to encourage or discourage Scots to have children. Until earlier this year the Scottish executive did not have a coherent policy on halting the population slide. There was a nervousness about getting too heavily involved in issues such as immigration that were, strictly speaking, the responsibility of Westminster.

But an increasing awareness of the link between population trends and economic performance meant they could not continue to sit on their hands.

In February, Jack McConnell, the first minister, launched the Fresh Talent initiative, aimed at adding to the diversity of the Scottish nation and aiding its economy.

“I am determined that we will put in place a number of actions that will attract talent, and retain talent in Scotland,” said McConnell. “We want to vigorously promote Scotland as a destination for people applying for UK work permits.”

McConnell aims to encourage immigration by getting Whitehall to promote Scotland as a destination for migrants. Fresh Talent also looks to retain university graduates, both homegrown and those from overseas, to stay in Scotland after the completion of their studies. This will be particularly aimed at high-tech graduates, by developing university spin-out companies through the new intermediary technology institutes.

Even the Tories, traditionally proud of their reputation as the party of family values, are reluctant to encourage people to have more children.

It is, they say, a simple matter of individual choice, kept free from the promptings of politicians. “Fertility rates are not matters for politicians to discuss. It is a cultural thing more than anything else and is subject to cultural change.”

Nonsense, says the SNP’s Alex Neil. He adds that the success of tax incentive schemes in countries such as Sweden and France merits serious consideration.

Neil says it is almost time to run a “Breed for Scotland” campaign — and he denies this would be sending out the wrong issue to young and unmarried people in Scotland. “The incentives would be targeted at families and stable partnerships,” says Neil.

The nationalist MSP also believes McConnell could do more on immigration, offering incentives for migrants to come north. The executive, he says, is too scared to take on the British government.

AS THE politicians ponder, Scottish women have decisions to make about their lives.

Pam Findlay is a 36-year-old mother-of-one from Aberdeen. She has decided not to have more than two children. Findlay, who has a 15-month-old son and works part-time, put off having a child until she was 33. She hopes to have another baby but will stop there. “I think it is quite impractical to have a big family nowadays. Childcare is expensive. I could not afford it for three children. Then there’s the cost of holidays, and a bigger car to cope with the child seats.” Like all women of her age she is aware that by leaving a family so late, she is taking a gamble with nature. What if she can’t have another? Kearney says nature is too often overlooked. “Our culture has suggested that fertility can be switched on and off. The view of some in the medical establishment is that nature can be utterly controlled. The reality is that it can’t. That can lead to great sadness and disappointment.” Findlay, at 36, can’t be absolutely sure that mother nature will deliver her the second child she has delayed having. “I would hope to have one more child,” she says. “But if I can’t, I hope I will still be glad I did not do it earlier.”