17/05/2016 Scotland 2016

Have researchers finally worked out why so many people in Glasgow

are dying younger than folk in the rest of the UK?

Life expectancy is lower in Glasgow, compared to other cities like it.

But have governments since the war created the conditions

take a tumble once more, so is the water of life

It's commonly known as the Glasgow effect.

And it's estimated to cause around 5,000 deaths in Scotland a year.

But the exact cause of the unusually high death rate remains unclear.

This week, new research led by the Glasgow Centre

for Population Health claims to have identified a key factor -

UK Government policy stretching back to the 1940s.

In a moment we'll hear from the author of the report,

but first, let's take a look at why Glasgow's death rate continues

to be higher than other cities just like it.

Glasgow is a place of reinvention, of change in the face of immense

challenge. This was the second city of the Empire. For decades its

skyline was dominated by shipyards and heavy industry. But things

change fast. After the war, many of those shipyards closed and jobs were

lost. Hundreds of workers marched in Whitehall, brandishing the demand of

the must be no more shipyard closures on the Clyde. The high-rise

buildings went up, and slums came down. The Gorbals were once

notorious about housing, but thousands of homes here and in other

parts of the city were bulldozed, within tyre community is moving out

of Glasgow to the new tyrants. Today, Glasgow has a higher death

rate in places like it elsewhere in the UK. It is what is known as the

Glasgow effect, and its exact cause is a mystery. But now, for the first

time, a huge research project suggests decisions by suggestive --

successive governments meeting blame. Including policy from the

1950s to move selected parts of the population out of the city. The

response from local Government in the 1980s diverted funds away from

the urban centre, inviting further on a vulnerable population. And the

effects are still being felt today. Researchers say the rate of

premature deaths is 30 present higher in Glasgow when the city is

compared with the likes of Manchester and Liverpool, places

with a similar history of deindustrialisation and poverty, but

where slum clearance and demolition was on a smaller scale. And it is

not just poor people whose lives are blighted. The Glasgow effect appears

to impact across the social spectrum, affecting people in

middle-class neighbourhoods as well. But these gaping health inequalities

are not just confined to Glasgow and its surrounding area. Scotland

itself has the lowest life expectancies in Western Europe, and

there is a huge gulf in life expectancy between rich and poor. It

is to blame for at least 5000 deaths every year, and there is little sign

that time is a healer. A little earlier tonight

I spoke to David Walsh from the Glasgow Centre

for Population Health and one David, explain what you have found.

Why are so many people in Glasgow still dying young? A really

important point to make is that a huge part of the explanation in

terms of why health is poor in Glasgow is about poverty and

deprivation. The other drivers of poorer health in any society, and

Glasgow has the highest levels of deprivation of any Scottish city.

What the research has shown is that even for those high levels of

deprivation it has worse health than it should have. Research a few years

ago should be premature mortality was about 30 present higher than in

comparatively deprived cities like Manchester and Liverpool and

Belfast. There has been a lot of hypothesising around that, a lot of

speculation. We have tried to put an end to the speculation by producing

an evidence -based assessment of all the research that has been done.

From that we have created a set of what we call rather grandiosely, and

explanatory model. What are they explanations for this? It is a

complex picture but in large part it points to a series of historical

factors, processes and decisions which have had an adverse effect on

Glasgow's population, making it more vulnerable to the main drivers of

poor health, poverty and deprivation, and therefore resulting

in worse health than in these comparatively deprived cities. You

looked at post-war policies. We know that Glasgow has heavy industry, it

had slums for many years, the slums were cleared after the war, people

moved to new estates. Often people moved outside of the city. What

impact that that process has on the people who left and the people left

behind? There are many different factors in this story. That

particular one relates to Scottish office regional policy in the

post-war period. This is new evidence that we included in this

report undertaken by colleagues, and this is based on previously

unavailable material obtained under the 30 year rule. What it points to

is a recognition within the Scottish office that of the challenges facing

the city, they were unsure that local Government would be able to

deal with the processes, the problems. Instead they embarked on a

series of policies which we could only describe as in effect, writing

off the city. The designated Glasgow to be a declining city, and instead

focus was on growth away from Glasgow. As part of that process,

the new town zebra built to deal with the population over spill, not

everyone could move to the new towns, you have to have a trade and

the skill and the targeted younger families with children. If you fast

forward to 1981 census and look at the social class composition of the

new towns computer Glasgow, were different. Much lower numbers of

people of so-called lower class. In Liverpool, the new towns of the bill

to deal with that city's problems, it was the same. But the key point

is that they continued even though they were aware of the detrimental

effect it was having on the city and its population. And the continued

for several decades. And the effect of that would be the Glasgow was

poor, it was deprived, it became more poor and more deprived over

time, nothing was done to address that? Yes, and the point is that

although levels of income -based poverty were still similar in the

cities, the conditions that people living in in terms of higher levels

of overcrowding, in terms of worse housing conditions, in terms of the

fact that the sections of the population that had been moved out

of the city, all conspired to make the remaining population much more

vulnerable. Is it fair to blame governments for what was a crisis

right at the heart of Glasgow? Heavy industry was dying, the shipbuilding

industry was dying. The reality was that Glasgow was facing an

existential crisis itself will stop is it fair to say the Government

were responsible for adding to that, or is it that they did not address

those issues properly. ? There were huge problems facing the city.

Problem is that the political decisions that were taken put

Glasgow at a disadvantage. As I said, be prioritised areas away from

Glasgow and that had a detrimental effect on the population. The main

lesson from this research and other research is that political decisions

matter for population health. What, then, can be done to turn this

around? We still have woeful health inequalities in Glasgow, terrible

health record, lots of people dying young. Your report says that

economic overseas matter. What should be done now? That isn't being

done? The point of the report was first of all to highlight and

identify the underlying causes of this excess level of mortality, but

not to stop there, to produce a set of recommendations that could be

acted on. There are 26 specific recommendations aimed at national

Government, Scottish Government and local Government. They are set in

the context of the fact that the important things that are identified

from this report in terms of vulnerability, inequality, poverty,

are closely intertwined. All the recommendations are set around that

backdrop. And we have specific recommendations for Scottish

Government in terms of how, using current and future powers, they

could narrow income inequalities which would have an impact in

narrowing health inequalities, a set of recommendations around addressing

poverty with existing powers. Some of these echo recommendations from

the Joseph Rowntree foundation. And a set of recommendations around how

we can help most vulnerable in society. Partly this relates to

those who are now living with the consequences of these historical

vulnerabilities, but would also point to the importance of dealing

with possible future vulnerabilities in terms of, for example, the UK

Government's so-called welfare reform.

Joining me now to discuss this is Bob Doris from the SNP,

Anas Sarwar from Scottish Labour and in our Edinburgh studio

is the Scottish Conservative MSP Douglas Ross.

Thanks for joining us. Douglas Ross, we heard there that governments

since the war created the conditions for the health crisis we have in

Glasgow. The Conservatives have been empowered post-war for most of that

time. That would make your party largely responsible. And I wrong?

Adding the study has been extensive and it is useful to look into the

past to see what has happened, but I don't think anyone would expect me

as a new young MSP to explain decisions taken decades ago. Quite

often we say, I was a child from these decisions were made, actually

my parents were children when these decisions were made. We have to look

to the future rather than the past, because of the religion to the past

we would say that the local Government which was Labour

dominated was also responsible, because the report highlighted that

Labour lead council did not invest in housing, decided to put more

money into regeneration in the city centre. I don't think anyone comes

out of this well. The important point is to look to the future

rather than looking retrospectively at the past. We will do that in a

moment, but we have to understand what happened before we can move on,

can't we? And what is clear is it is not local Government that was

largely responsible. This report says Government wrote off the city,

they encouraged businesses and better educated folk to move out,

and that is at the heart of why the city is poor and deprived even

though. The report also stated that similar cities such as Liverpool and

Manchester recovered far quicker, that it was local Government

decisions that have a far longer impact on Glasgow itself. But as I

said, I think it is a useful piece of research, it is a very extensive

piece of research and we should use that moving forward. But those

decisions have been taken, the impact has been felt, but the

important points are to use the powers in the Scottish Parliament

going forward. Let me put this to Anas Sarwar. Labour were in charge

for many years in the post-war period. At a national level and here

in Glasgow at a local authority level. Does Labour accept any

responsibility for what happened here? The first thing to say is that

this is a very welcome report and makes clear that unless we are

serious about the deprivation gap and serious about the poverty gap we

will not be serious about transforming the mortality gap. I

can point to positive things that Labour has done to the city of

Glasgow, for example the greatest rudest abusive measures taken in the

history of Scotland, ?1 billion of housing debt was written off in

order to regenerate parts of Glasgow, ?600 million has been

invested in education, the tax credit system, the minimum wage. But

what is more important rather than going over past arguments is what

this report rightly says about what we can do going forward. There are

three key recommendations that I fully support that have come from

this report. One is how we properly do income and health redistribution.

That is why it is right to have a more progressive tax system in

Scotland to address these issues, secondly housing which is crucial,

and thirdly we have to fund local Government. You have mentioned local

Government quite rightly, but it is not right to say we can invest in

Glasgow at the same time as cutting Glasgow's budget by ?130 million

over the next two years. Bob Doris, your party has been in charge for

nine years. Has the SNP even put a dent in the health inequalities we

find in the city? I have to say there has been some progress, but we

have to do far better. It is interesting to give Labour and the

Conservatives blaming each other for which UK Government wrote off

Glasgow is being expendable within the UK, which is absolutely

shocking. I agree with Anas Sarwar in that as far as we should improve

matters and work in partnership to take Glasgow forward. I can point to

improvements in relation to heart disease, in relation to stroke

prevention in relation to cancer detection and improvement. But here

is the big issue, when you improve these things by and large, the

middle classes tend to improve at a greater rate than the working

classes, and What are you going to do with the

powers at your disposal in the Scottish Parliament to turn these

problems around? I have to say there are a few things we are doing. The

first thing we are doing, given income and equality is a huge driver

for health and equality. We are spending ?is 00 million every year

putting money back in fact pockets of the poorest people in the

Scottish society, attacked by UK wealthy reform -- ?100 million.

Doing dramatic investment in health care, hoping to double childcare

provision. That long list s it enough? Bob talks about Labour

verses Tory. Labour was in Government for 13 years, the SNP are

in Government for nearly ten years, they cannot run away from their

responsibility. In terms of the powers of the Scottish Parliament?

The most transformative powers we have are around tax. We can do

something different, redistribution of the tax system and around

housing, we said we should build near 60,000 new homes in the course

of the Parliament. New home building is at the Lows level for a

generation. Local government finance, we have to take it

seriously f we are recognising Glasgow has a specific challenge and

problem, we not at the same time say Glasgow should get the poorest deal

of any local authority and be forced to make ?130 million of cuts over

the next two years. That's pound to affect the most vulnerable people in

our communities. Let me put this to Douglas Ross. You won't raise income

tax in the Scottish Parliament and making cuts to welfare at

Westminster level, that's a recipe for trouble s it not in Glasgow We

have seen so far politicians wanted to atact other political parties.

Unfortunately we are maybe too close to an election to get away from

that. Do you have solutions? I have. This report has highlighted serious

problems. Nicola Sturegon is saying she wants parties to deal with these

problems. It is not saying that Labour has the answers or the SNP or

Conservatives have the answers but we have said during our campaign

that we want to see increased childcare provision, not at three

and four-year-olds that the SNP want but for one and twol-year-olds

because there is already a gap before they get to three and

grierlds. Funding going into education, all these are point, and

it is important we twoshgt A key point in working together is - I'm

in the arguing with the SNP. I think what Nicola Sturegon said today is

an opportunity for us. We would support the SNP if they came forward

with proposals on significant new house building across Scotland. We

would support the SNP if they rightfully decide to do something

meaningful about the council tax reform and support the SNP? This

progressive... The specifics say, make the reduction of income and

wealth inequalities the central objective economic policy. Are you

prepared to do that? So that is That's why we have progressive

taxation, ?2 billion to invest in public services but we are going to

launch a fairer Scotland stwreedge and have an income and pfrty

commission. With you have ruled out higher rates of income tax Let me

finish the point. We are going to have an income and equality

commission, with and poverty advisor. We are going to follow all

the recommendations they have already made and we are going to

drive forward change. That's partnership working. Can I also say

he is saying to look for consensus so the ?750 million Scottish

attainment fund targeted the most deprived areas of Glasgow and across

Scotland. That should be welcomed by the Labour Party. Childcare for

vulnerable three and four-year-olds, that can be welcomed. Hopefully

there is a will the we can agree on. The SNP won the mandate and let's

get together and deliver T You proposed tax rises in your manifesto

and we saw how voters thought about that. It is about being hob host.

You cannot do more with less muvenlt austerity is not the answer, more

cuts is not the answer. Doing nothing about progressive taxation

is not the answer. We can do things different in in Scotland. We have

the powers. The SNP have a strong mandate to do things differently and

we would support them if they came forward with... The the SNP policy

policy is just a platform. We seek to work in partnership across the

parties to deliver for the people of Scotland to tackle the Glasgow

effect. There we must leave T thank you very much indeed.

-- there we must leave it. Next

The amount of whisky exported from Scotland fell last year

and so did the value of overseas sales.

The industry has blamed the decline on the instability

of worldwide markets but says there are some positive signs.

The export figures were released on the day Scotland's latest

We probably make about a million litres of spirit every year. We

aren't even into the summer season yet but there's in shortage of

visitors touring the Glengoyne distillery. Easily accessible from

Glasgow, here it sees more than 70,000 visitors a year but the

industry figures announced aren't as buoyant. Last year's whiskey exports

totalled more than ?3.8 billion. A touch down on the previous year.

Scotch is down almost 3%. Single malts are up, though, now comprising

almost one-quarter of the export market. Good news for malt but the

general slowdown is being laid at the door of some foreign countries

slowing down themselves. Really it does depend on global economic

conditions. And, for example, Brazil, a market that has gone into

a pretty steep recession, one-third of the decline in exports is

explained by what happens in Brazil. So really it depends on the global

conditions of particular countries rather than anything more broad.

Here they are saying they are bucking the trend in some respects,

as last year was their best ever but like others they are benefitting for

the growing appetite for malt whiskey and are keeping one-third of

what is produced in the skills for single malt We are a dissers

havified company. Malt is the fastest-growing for us in our new

distilleries, their sales are up considerably around the world. Blend

is more difficult. More competitive. I think that's the case across the

industry but by in large we still feel positive about the outlook. In

these barrels is the malt whiskey maturing for the future and just how

the whiskey industry does in the future is something of importance

far beyond just those who are involved in the industry. Without

whiskey, the UK balance of payments would have been significantly worse.

As bad as it is. But last year it would have been significantly worse.

It is a very substantial earner of foreign currency which is very

important for the UK economy. A crop of new distilleries springing

up are hoping to bring in even more foreign currency. Perhaps inspired

by the microbrewery trend and Scottish begin, in years to come

there will be even more single malts to savour. This distillery has just

opened and in a decade from now it hopes to tempt with something rather

fragrant. Flavour is the important thing. We are working hard on

flavours, bringing special flavours, something really nice and it is a

bit like a walk in a garden, lots of flowers. And for those of you keener

on the bottom line than top notes, with while the whiskey industry last

year still skipped industry for export at the rate of 34 bottles

every second. So in the time you have been watching this piece,

almost 6,000 bottles of whiskey are heading abroad.

A lot of whiskey. Joining me now for further

discussion of the news is journalist and broadcaster,

Ruth Wishart and Businessman Which heard whiskey exports are down

yet we are still producing something like 1 billion a year. Do you see

the glass half full, half empty? I'm on the half full side on whisky. You

have to recognise that export has doubled over the seven years, up to

2014. What we have seen recently, is foreign exchange affect. The pound

is strengthened by 7% against the euro. Half the whiskey ex#130r9s go

to the EU and they decline by 2.5%. Our exports to the US grew because

the pound we cannened delens the $. A will the is exchange rate effects

and fundamentally an I credibly important and well-positioned

industry. Ruth, we know -- -- the pound declined against the Vlaar.

And it is fundamentally an incredibly important,

well-positioned industry. Ruth, do we place too much reliance

on big ticket industries like oil and Wickesy If you remember at the

time of the referendum it was how much oil and whiskey mattered as

well. Certainly if there is another referendum in the foreseeable

future, that argument is going to have to be reinterrogated in some

detail. I don't actually think - I agree with Kevin, unusually... I

think whiskey has had a slate wobble but in the context of the EU

referendum, mainland Europe, without the UK, is our biggest market. So I

mean, I think the whiskey industry would take a very big interest in

that. In the future we have all of the things we said about the

Scottish economy, in the last election, it was the last election.

We used to be bigger on manufacturing, and a big industrial

nation. Things move on, we have gaming bioteches, renewables.

Tomorrow's financial picture, tomorrow's GDP picture will look

different. Let's move on and talk about the First Minister, we have a

new one, oh, it is Nicola Sturegon again. Here she is speaking to

Parliament today During the election campaign, I described the SNP

manifesto as my application for the job of First Minister and the

election allowed the people of Scotland to deliver their verdict.

The SNP increased our constituency vote share. We won a record number

of constituency seats and became the first party in the devolution era to

secure more than 1 million constituency votes. So, there is no

doubt that the SNP has a mandate to govern, and I have a mandate to

continue as the fist minister of our country. I hope that Parliament will

recognise that clear mandate today. There has There has been a lot of

talk of mandates in the days following the election and again

from the First Minister today. The truth is that it is this Parliament

which holds the real, unchallenged mandate, to decide on our First

Minister, on our Cabinet Secretaries, the ministerial team

and once than is done, to scrutinise their decisions, their actions and

the legislative programme they bring forth, to question and to challenge,

to argue and to offer alternatives, to promote better governance in this

place, not for its own sake but for the people of Scotland. Unusual,

Kevin. We saw today an election of the First Minister. You would have

thought Nicola Sturegon, having led the biggest party by a mile, into

the election, it would be a sort of done deal, but the Parliament still

had to go through that? Yes, it is a bit of a formality, isn't it? It was

really a coronation today. Quite rightly. The point made about the

SNP's mandate is absolutely correct -- you know the Conservatives got

36% of the vote and the SNP... ... 22. Of the vote and the SNP on the

same basis - well if we are going to play that game, got a declining

share of the vote, lost their majority and lost MSPs but

nevertheless have a very strong mandate and of course Nicola

Sturegon should be First Minister and get to work implementing the

manifesto. She talks about the mandate but doesn't have a majority.

What sort of majority do you think it'll be, a Parliament of deals You

could call it deals or more consensual. Famously the last

minority government, the 2007 minority SNP government by common

consent did quite well by having to talk to other opposition parties and

having to, if you like, do deals. But what if they are doing deals

with the Conservatives, a lot of people might be uneasy for that,

having voted for the SNP? I can see that, of course, but there is a lot

about petro chairmenistry in politics. That first minority

Government, Alex Salmond and Annabel Golding got on incredibly W What are

you saying I think they share a similar sense of humour, is what I'm

trying to say in an odd way. I'm not sure about Ruth Davis son and Nicola

Sturegon, I'm not sure if that will work as well. But minority

governments are not unhealthy. The Scottish party last time around

majority, we saw SNP dominating all the committees. It will have to

change. Yes, we know it is a system designed to create minority

governments and we saw in the last Parliament the lack of a

scrutinising chamber a revising chamber, so in this Parliament I

think what we can see is a very healthy process of legislation being

debated and scrutinised and improved through that process, as the SNP

require, to get some consensus on the policies they want to put

forward. Ruth what do you think? Should the party that ends up with

the biggest majority be able to get most of its legislation through.

What do you think? I do think that, by in large, but I also think it is

quite healthy if they are challenged and it is also healthy in my book we

started off in 1999 with a rainbow Parliament. The fact we have six

grooeps now I think is enormously healthy. They will keep, I hope the

SNP Government onnest on the environment and land reform. -- six

Greens. Taxation. If you like, taxation. But everyone will have

their own pitches to make and in order to get votes through, the SNP

government will have to listen as well as led. If you were Nicola

Sturegon, Kevin... A great imagination. Would you try to do

deals with all the parties or would you say - I'm not going to do deals

with the Conservatives, whatever happens, I'm going to lean left? I'm

still struggling with the concept of - if I was Nicola Sturegon, forgive

me. I think what you have to do is work to pro-Dawes good legislation

and that means working with all parties -- produce, and particularly

given the SNP's position on tax, how they fought the last election, they

are closest to the Conservatives, when it comes to those principles of

tax and spend, so of course they need to work with the Conservatives.

In a word, what do you expect? Well I expect more consensus than we are

perhaps imagining at the moment, because the Scottish Conservatives

have distanced themselves some way from the London Conservatives and

the SNP and Lib Dems and Greens have lots in common. OK, so, lots of

surprises ahead no doubt. Ruth, Kevin thank you both very much

indeed. That's it for tonight

and for this week. Shelley is back tomorrow. Bye for

now. This Week's World brings you

world events with a difference, sharing stories and ideas

you might have missed. Or why could the birth of fewer

babies slow down the economy? we'll show you how

the world connects in ways you might not have

seen before.