Why is Scotland relatively less attractive to migrants than England? – John McLaren

Within these areas, some little heard of local authorities experienced spectacular population rises. For example, Harborough, near Leicester, and Tewkesbury, near Gloucester, both grew by over 17 per cent. Only nine councils in the whole of England saw a decline in their population and only two by much more than one per cent – weirdly Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea. In Scotland, only two councils saw their population rise by double figures – East Lothian (12.5 per cent) and Midlothian (16.3 per cent) – while ten saw a fall in population.

Population change is determined by two things, the natural change – births minus deaths – and net migration. On the natural change side, Scotland lags as it has the lowest fertility rate across the four home nations, with 1.31 in 2021 compared to 1.55 for England, 1.5 for Wales and 1.81 for Northern Ireland, all of which are well under the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. On migration, in a recent publication by the Fraser of Allander, researchers estimated that, over the period 2002 to 2021, Scotland’s share of UK net migration averaged under 6 per cent, well below its population share of more than 8 per cent.

Family-friendly policies

Add together a lower birth rate and lower net migration and you get a slower growing population. Some might see this as a good thing – more sustainable, less congested and all that – but many politicians tend to see a faster growing population as a sign of success: ‘everybody wants to move here cos we’re so good’.

Get our weekly opinion newsletter for expert analysis from The Scotsman’s team of columnists

The Scottish Government has tried to make having children easier via the likes of baby boxes and higher benefit payments. However, research and reality has shown that while these policies might have positive outcomes in other areas, like employment, they typically do not move the dial on fertility rates. A Unicef report from 2019 rated countries like Norway and Portugal as amongst those having the most ‘family friendly’ policies – with the UK amongst the worst – and yet both countries have a lower fertility rate than the UK. It is changing cultural practices that dominate such rates and these cannot be bought off easily, if at all.

On migration, the Scottish Government is actively welcoming, compared to a UK Government that is hostile, in word if not always in deed. Furthermore, it can claim to have some advantages in terms of higher benefits, less of a housing problem, ‘free’ higher education, free public transport travel for many, no prescription charges etc. However, none of this seems to be enough to entice even its population share of international immigrants.

Of course, as the Fraser of Allander paper pointed out, many factors will determine where migrants end up, including “pay levels, availability of jobs that meet visa requirements, employers’ willingness to sponsor visas, local amenities, previous immigration patterns, and other personal aspects”. So it is difficult to tell how well or badly, in relative terms, Scotland is actually doing. Nevertheless, given the elevated levels of migration since 2002, along with the Scottish Government being in control of many of the factors that might attract migrants, if not migration policy itself, then questions must be asked as to why so few want to come.

Census debacle

One area where Scotland has been successful is in cross-border UK migration, with Scotland’s net inflow being driven by English newcomers. Such a positive pattern has been seen every year since 2000 and often by more than 10,000 people. This is not older Scots returning to the homeland, as, post-student-influenced years, migration declines with age. It may even be that some previously England-bound migrants have become enamoured of the Scottish benefits outlined above. We don’t know for sure.

None of this analysis is helped by complications around Brexit and Covid, in terms of migration patterns, and the Census debacle in Scotland – where the initial response rate was 79 per cent, later boosted to 89 per cent, but still well behind the ‘target’ response rate of 94 per cent and the England and Wales response rate of 97 per cent.

All of which brings us back to the original question: why is Scotland such a relatively unappealing place to have children or migrate to? Which of its policies are attractive and which are off-putting? What are the merits or otherwise of its policies on taxes, benefits, and freebies? Is it the weather?! The answer is not obvious, which is exactly why the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament should be more interested in understanding the root causes. But these are not questions that either body traditionally likes to ask itself. Instead most Scottish politicians prefer to simply state “we are migrant and family friendly”, then avoid doing any work that might lead to a better understanding as to why that is, or is not, the case.

Preceding any such review of migration-friendly policies, it might also be worth spending a bit more time mulling over such basic questions as, why do we want more migration, where do we want it, who do we want and how much of it do we want.

John McLaren is a political economist who has worked in the Treasury, the Scottish Office and for a variety of economic think tanks