Population Changes

The population of the UK has risen by an average of 0.5% per year since 2001. The year leading up to the middle of 2008 saw the biggest increase in almost 50 years of 408,000.

It's interesting to see that, for the first time in almost a decade, the increase has been caused more by natural change (number of births - number of deaths) than by net migration. According to the press release by the Office for National Statistics, 54% of the increase was caused by natural change, leaving 46% to be caused by other processes (e.g. net migration). To me, this is still a significant statistic.

The number of people entering minus the number of people leaving (net migration) fell by 44% compared with the previous year. This sounds like a lot - 44% appears to be a big percentage to drop by. However, there were still 118,000 [b]more people[/b] entering the UK than leaving the UK. This is a lot! Our resources are plenty strained already and even though there are (slightly) tighter restrictions on immigration - are they enough? Could we restrain this further and prevent a population increase to 70 million in 25 years time?

As for Scotland, how is our population doing? We're still not making many moves. In 1981, we were at 5.180m. In 1991, we were at 5.083m. In 1996, we were at 5.092m. In 2006, we were at 5.117m. In 2007, we were at 5.144m and now in the 2008 estimates, we are at 5.168m. We've shown a steady increase over the past six or seven years; increasing each year from 2002 (at 5.055m) to our current total. This is much in line with the UK and similar problems can arise, with regards to housing, transport and other resources and population control.

It is up to you to decide whether you think the increasing population is a problem. I think that it is. I think that further restrictions on migration could be in place to limit further the number of people entering the country. Though, I don't feel we quite need to cut down the number of births. One child only anyone?

Megrahi

Ok, so. I kill 270 people. Recognised as guilty. Tell you what - I'll spend 8 or so years in jail, then wander back to my home country as a free man. Deal? Ok thanks!

Listen - whether you are dying of cancer or you're dying of old age: if you kill 270 people you do not get released from prison. 270 people have died, because of you, and have not had a final moment with their families and you should get your final three months (if that's the case) with whoever you please. Utterly ridiculous. I cannot understand that there are compassionate grounds with which to release this man. It just makes absolutely no sense to me.

That is all I have to say at the moment - nothing related to the politics of the situation really, just my general thoughts. I imagine the release is tied up in some political deal of some kind, but there is little for me to say about that. The release itself seems completely unreal.

New Year Honours List - What the deuce?

What the deuce....... is Chris Hoy getting a knighthood for? Ok, so he grabbed a couple of medals, he's inspired more people to get into Cycling. Great! BUT, a knighthood? Sir Christopher Hoy?! No no no no no no no no.

There's little else I can really say, but I've always felt that a knighthood should be reserved for absolutely the highest level of achievement and contribution to life in the UK. There are plenty of others [MBE, OBE etc] that can be awarded for excellent contributions like Hoys.

Hmmph!