Thread by @Neiledwardlovat

🧵One of the more profound, and missed, statements from @MkBlyth was his comments on the dispersal of the population in Scotland.

Agree with what he says, but when you combine this with the collapsing birth rate in rural Scotland it has far more frightful implications.

None of this is solved with immigration (immigrants tend to adopt the lower birth rate and gravitate to urban centres).

It would also require a profound change in Scottish attitudes to immigration. But necessity might be the mother of invention there.

So how do we plan for a shrinking and aging rural population in Scotland whilst continuing to provide something approaching universal services.

How do we care for the elderly in these areas? Who is going to do this?

Do we plan to actively populate or depopulate these areas?

Neither option is easy, cheap or palatable.

Do we have significant and sharp increases in per head public spending in these rural areas to attract people inn (and encourage them to have kids)?

Alternatively do we somehow port the remaining people to urban areas?

The latter seems unpalatable and would effectively make rural Scotland a playground for the rich and those that can afford to self-sustain.

Trouble is doing nothing will probably mean we end up at this destination anyway.

This is a current problem.

The current generation are going to be picking up the tab for this, probably in their retirement. #WASPI is a blip in comparison.

It's JUST as significant as a Net Zero economy, indeed how much of our carbon planning takes account of any of this?

Ignoring this problem won't solve it, nor will a solution 'emerge'.

Ultra - right wingers seem to be jumping on the issue thinking that the state can encourage women to have more babies and 'preserve our culture'.

That "Handmaiden Tale' solution is a farce.

But more realistically we can start to plan for it.

Before we can do that we need to start talking about it.

Is anyone wanting to join the debate?

@threadreaderapp unroll