Scotland's 2031 census planning underway — how you can help shape it
New topics for the last census in 2022 included UK Armed Forces Veterans and sexual orientation.
National Records of Scotland (NRS) said that it will work closely with other UK statistical bodies on the design and build of the census, as it has done in previous years.
READ MORE: Hate crime figures fall but disability attacks reach record high
The consultations asks: "Should the National Records of Scotland add topics to the 2031 Census that were not included in the 2022 Census?"
The public are then asked to suggest new questions or topics to be explored.
NRS chief executive Alison Byrne said: 'No other survey provides the richness and range of information that the census does, enabling governments and other public bodies to plan the services we all rely on, and telling the story of Scotland's people for generations to come.
'We look forward to hearing from data users across Scotland in the coming months.
'Their responses will help us to understand the best way to meet their needs as we plan for a 2031 Census.'
NRS said that census data is vital for gathering a vast range of information about Scotland's people which local and central government, the NHS and a range of other service providers and data users in the public, private and third sectors need.
More than one billion statistics were published from Scotland's 2022 Census on topics including education, transport, religion, migration and national identity.
Scottish Government ministers have confirmed that they have accepted in principle NRS's recommendation to hold a census in Scotland in 2031, with further detailed plans to follow.
A census has been taken every ten years since 1801 in Scotland, except for 1941, while the 2021 census was delayed until 2022 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sturgeon is no feminist: she tried hard to destroy women's rights
Women had been trying to warn Ms Sturgeon and her Government years before, within and outside her party. MSP Joan McAlpine wrote a long open letter to her explaining clearly and unambiguously the issues with self-ID concerning the very real threats to women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy. She also alerted parliamentarians as early as 2018 to the way data collection was suggested in the Census Amendment Bill, introducing voluntary questions on transgender status and sexual orientation in the 2021 Census, redefining the meaning of sex to include gender. She was pilloried for her pains. To this day Nicola Sturgeon still cannot bring herself to say that Adam Bryson is a man. She will not acknowledge, let alone apologise to, the women who have been steadfast in their refusal to be cowed and silenced, and who, in defending the belief (and fact) that sex matters have been vilified, while some lost their livelihood. I think it is perfectly justified to claim that women's rights went under Nicola Sturgeon's SNP bus, and that yes, she tried very hard to destroy women's rights. Women didn't threaten to kill, "decapitate", rape anyone. Trans activists did. So, enough of the "both sides were toxic" argument. Dr Mireille Pouget, Dollar. Read more letters Who governs Scotland? It is shocking that the SNP administration refuses to implement the necessary measures contingent on April's Supreme Court judgment on biological sex being the criterion for the operation of the Equality Act, 2010. John Swinney drags his heels about enforcing the provisions of the Act, claiming that he first requires guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Yet on April 25 the EHRC published "An interim update on the practical implications" of the judgment. This spells out unambiguously that biological sex determines conditions in public services and sporting bodies, emphasising that "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use women's facilities". It could not be clearer. The SNP leadership has gone curiously quiet on gender, with only a very anaemic statement from Shona Robison on the furore over Kate Forbes's appearance at Summerhall, saying: "I don't think it sends out the right signal over freedom of speech". What an understatement! That could be said of much of SNP government, with Freedom of Information requests ignored or the relevant materials supplied with almost total redaction. The Salmond Inquiry was the classic case of evidence being redacted. It is therefore not surprising that For Women Scotland has felt the need to take legal action once again, demanding that the Supreme Court's judgment be implemented in Scotland's schools and prisons. Why is Mr Swinney resisting this? Is he actually in charge? Given the National Library's ridiculous removal of The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht from its centenary exhibition because of demands made by its "LGBT+ network" ("NLS could face 'thousands of legal claims' over gender critical book removal", The Herald, August 16), it is worth asking whether there is a similar network agitating for pro-trans policies within the Scottish Government, perhaps among its civil servants. Who governs? Is it politicians, or is it Stonewall? Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. A charmless mediocrity I am sure that many of your readers will share my appreciation for Alison Rowat's excellent review of Nicola Sturgeon's memoir ("Review, Frankly: Sturgeon psychodrama suddenly makes sense", heraldscotland, August 18). The key observations made by Ms Rowat are "almost comically dull"; "a pattern of thinking emerges. Nothing is ever Nicola's fault"; "writing which reads at times like a bad Mills and Boon parody"; "For a political memoir, Frankly is remarkably light on policy"; and most damningly in conclusion: "Deep as a puddle to the end". So how could someone who was described as such a political genius and presented herself as having such acute literary taste have produced a book of so little political value and of no literary distinction? It is now clear from her own account that Nicola Sturgeon was a charlatan all along, and her political and literary prowess were always delusions. The next question for the likes of Ms Rowat – and for all of the other commentators who have suddenly had the scales fall from their eyes – is why they played along with the pretence all this time, instead of unmasking it from Day One. Some of us saw through it all along: Nicola Sturgeon is a charmless mediocrity who has failed in everything she has attempted. She would be well advised to enjoy the attention that is currently being lavished on her, as she does not deserve to be remembered for long, except as an exemplar of how not to do things. Peter A Russell, Glasgow. Misleading claims 'The SNP spent £2700 per head in Scotland more than the rest of the UK.' These were the words of Dennis Forbes Grattan (Letters, August 16) which are misleading on a number of different levels. First, the SNP does not spend public money, it is the Scottish Government that spends funds significantly calculated according to spending commitments of the UK Government. Second, in order for the Scottish Government's budget to pass it must be balanced and requires, as the SNP does not have a majority in Holyrood, the backing of at least one other party. Third, not only is much of the so-called spending of the Scottish Government determined by decisions taken at Westminster (90 per cent according to Finance Secretary Shona Robison), much of it is 'notional' because Westminster allocates Scotland a share of UK Government spending, such as for defence where expenditure of £5.1 billion was listed but only £2.1bn was actually spent in Scotland. Finally, as recently pointed out in Alex Orr's letter (August 14), to claim that this Westminster-imposed financial predicament 'underlines the complete folly of independence' is also misleading, especially as SNP politicians (assuming the party does not disband after independence is achieved) would likely be in the minority in future independent Scottish parliaments. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. JK Rowling, one of Nicola Sturgeon's fiercest critics (Image: PA) A damning indictment I have recently undergone a hearing test appointment, after waiting two years. I have had hearing aids for a number of years but was amazed at the difference once these were recalibrated to account for the drop in certain sound tones over the past years. I can honestly say the improvement is night and day. My appointment took place on a Sunday afternoon, which I thought was unusual. It was not until I discovered that the SNP Government has admitted that it will now not deliver on a promise to raise community audiology services on a par with eye care that I understood the reason for the long wait that I had, and that audiology staff are working hard to try to reduce the waiting times. Experts have stated that the ballooning waiting list could be cleared by the spend of £9 million in three years, but the SNP 's Public Health Minister has admitted that the money, originally ring-fenced, has been spent elsewhere. This is a damming indictment on the SNP Government and is further proof that it puts sound bites before policy and is gaslighting the Scottish people, and has in fact given up trying to improve the elements of healthcare that so many people are dependent on. The sooner the people of Scotland understand that things will only get worse the longer this Government remains in power and take action at next year's election, the better. Douglas Eadie, Alexandria.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Frankly, the worst revelations are in Scotland's official statistics
PA This year's GERS read more like a horror story Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Last week the most shocking revelations about Scottish politics came to light. It should leave us worried. It should make us angry. Based on hard facts rather than unsubstantiated tittle-tattle and tasteless rumours, the evidence cannot be treated lightly or dismissed as wild imaginings. I write, of course, about the Government Expenditure and Revenue (GERS) report for 2024/25 that deserved to be taken more seriously than competing publications claiming to be fact but having all the look of wild fiction. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This year's GERS read more like a horror story worthy of Robert Louis Stevenson (Jekyll and Hyde) or Edgar Alan Poe (The House of Usher) than a dry statistical perambulation around Scotland's public spending and tax revenues. Back in 2019/20 only five years ago – public spending in Scotland was £82.8bn, yet it is £117.6bn today. That is an explosive increase of 42 per cent in just five years. If the rate of spending growth had risen in line with inflation it would have been £103bn this year. The additional £14.6bn has gone on what exactly? The increase in public spending last year alone was by 5.5 per cent – double the rate of inflation – reaching a total per household of £44,882. These sordid economic facts should be the stuff of festival fringe dramas where tragedy and comedy of the absurd is employed to explore the scheming, evasion, and delusion of SNP politicians taking decisions that cost us millions that amount to billions. Plays such as 'Who pays the Ferry, man?' or 'Recycling for Dummies' would look at great schemes that even now are still costing huge sums with no end in sight. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Just yesterday the Scotsman reported exclusively the willingness of Scottish Government politicians to test our public finances to destruction. Having established (late as usual) their shiny new political toy, called the Scottish Benefits Agency, the wilful deviation from how things are done in the rest of Britain means the Scottish taxpayer could be on the hook for an additional £36 million. Why? By not seeking to collect overpayments or errors in benefit pay-outs. Of course, were the Scottish dis-Benefits Agency to not deviate from the norm then the obvious question would be why did we create our own new bureaucracy in the first place? So we can expect more of these policies, higher or different 'benefits' than what were paid out before, at greater cost. And all from a pool of money that the Scottish Government does not have. Remember, the Scottish public finances are spent up to the limit, with any budget underspends quickly reallocated to other departments rather than returned to the taxpayer as a rebate against the next year's taxes. The public borrowing that is available is also maxed-out – which is exactly why the no new borrowing powers should be allowed, it would simply be used to extend the line of credit to an even higher amount rather than more properly provide the headroom for emergencies such as pandemics or disaster relief. Why has it come to all this? The cast of characters is substantial, not just the current finance minister Shona Robison, but stretching back to Kate Forbes, Douglas Mackay and John Swinney – all have had a hand. Presenting their past claims and contrasting them with the reality would hardly make great Fringe comedy, for no one would be laughing – although the potential of exploring the well-being economy devised by Kate Forbes could provide many ironic jaw dropping moments. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Record drug-related deaths anyone? Scottish education standards in English, maths and science falling against those of other countries where we previously built schools and taught the masses? The Book Festival could interview past ministers on how it became possible for Scots pupils to gain English qualifications without having read a novel. We should all be deeply concerned about the waste of money, the rush to book international receptions, the offices we don't need, the staff complement that only knows how to grow and where redundancies are not allowed. The free bus travel with daily excursions to shoplifting centres for under twenty-fives. Improv stand-up could take a new form of spontaneous dialogue delivered by foregoing actors and picking participants from the audience to have a serious discourse around a staged kitchen table. Hard questions could be asked with the actors role-playing the politicians but only allowed to ad-lib their answers – as making it all up seems to be how it's normally done anyway. Likewise, documentaries on devolved disasters could be made for Film Festival premiers. What GERS tells us is that while the UK public finances are bad (and yes, I have written about that too) they are but a pale imitation of the depressing Scottish public finances. When devolution commenced the size of the Scottish state accounted for 43 per cent of the economy. Now the tartan behemoth is a swaggering 55.4 per cent of GDP before oil, falling marginally to 52 per cent when including oil revenues. It is unsustainable without a sponsor, and that sponsor just happens to be Westminster. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The message from GERS is simple but indisputable; until nationalists can show they can deliver a dynamic, vibrant, prosperous, revenue-raising, job-creating economy the path to secession cannot be found because it does not exist. Ironically, if Holyrood were to come to its senses by the electorate giving it an administration that seeks to live within its means by eliminating waste and allowing compulsory redundancies then the economy could transform. Taxes could be reduced, the economic activity could rise and Scotland's wellbeing would be happy again – just not the way the current politicians would like it. It could even make separation possible, but then why would we want to? Frankly, Holyrood is a farce presented as a pantomime – and no one can rewrite any differently.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: The Kirk may be dying, but the need for faith remains
A retired minister has little faith in the future of the Church of Scotland but believes people still need something to believe in Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As a retired minister, I have my beliefs, but don't attend church. I find it difficult, if not impossible to believe in the church any more, and I know full well that I'm not the only one. My only point of agreement with Doug Morrison (Letters, 18 August) is deploring the uncomfortable fact that the Church of Scotland is one of the biggest landowners, if not the biggest, in Scotland. All this in the name of a Saviour, who, famously, had 'nowhere to lay his head'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Church of Scotland may well be dying, and may deserve that fate. Faith may be dying, but the need for faith lives on, most obviously in the 70 per cent of young people who profess to have no faith at all. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in session at New College, Edinburgh, in May this year (Picture: Andrew O'Brien) Someone famously said that 'if you believe in nothing, you'll believe in anything', and that's dangerous, given the depression, despair and even suicide, which comprise the legacy of us adult generations to our young people today. I suspect that Jesus, humble as he was, was embarrassed to be dubbed and, even worshipped, as a Messiah. His teaching includes many gems, one of which is that our lives must be grounded in rock, not sand. That rock is faith, religious or otherwise. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Plastic takeaway Scientific research increasingly shows that eating and drinking from plastic containers can harm our health and young people may be most vulnerable. Yet for many, the risk still feels too far from their home to change daily habits. Convenience serves the masses. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During our three weeks in Scotland recently takeaway cups and boxes were offered everywhere, even in national parks. We travel with stone coffee cups and a reusable carrier for scones and tarts, and the reactions we got were mostly surprise. The worst 'inconvenience' we experienced? Friendly smiles, laughs at the slogans on our cups, and conversations with lovely Scottish people. So flip the default. Instead of assuming customers will take food or drink in a plastic-lined cup or 'recyclable' box and walk straight into a national park, assume they'll have it in their own containers. Imagine the mountain of cups you would avoid using each year. Even if the long-term health and environmental benefits feel far away, the instant reward is there: human connection. Lotte Roelofs, Amsterdam, Netherlands Chamberlain's back Donald Trump, aka Neville Chamberlain, thinks he is securing 'peace for our time' by which presumably the former British Prime Minister meant 'peace for a time', and just like in 1938, placates the aggressor. Donald, Donald, when are the scales going to fall from your eyes? You think Vladimir Putin regards you with respect. Let me disabuse you. He thinks you are a patsy, all bluster, no substance, all threats, no action. He is running circles round you. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ultimately, maybe you don't care. After all, the Ukraine conflict is a 'quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing' and, just like Chamberlain, you are not interested. But if you get the Nobel Peace Prize after all this, then the award is utterly devalued. Trevor Rigg, Edinburgh Bonnie JD JD Vance, will ye no' come back again? Please – no come back! Steve Hayes, Leven, Fife Sturgeon's legacy Nicola Sturgeon is the most capable female politician to emerge from any part of the UK during the last 30 years and to suggest as D Millar does (Letters, 16 August) that she has no legacy is as ludicrous as it is detached from reality! Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Conducting daily media briefings as she did throughout the Covid pandemic could by no means have been an easy or pleasant task and must ultimately have imposed a massive strain on the then First Minister. Mr Millar, though, criticises her efforts in doing this and allegedly 'keeping the nation petrified' (better petrified than dead, surely?) and 'continually ordering the nation to stay at home'. It sounds like he is suggesting Ms Sturgeon was exaggerating the threat posed by Covid and unnecessarily strict as far as preventative measures were concerned. Would Mr Millar have been happier with no lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing etc which would, of course, have resulted in thousands more deaths? Perhaps he could enlighten us? What I would suggest is that Mr Millar reads what Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott have to say about Britain's handling of the Covid emergency in their book Failures Of State. The book outlines gross failings on the part of the UK Government and the waste of billions of pounds on equipment and systems that didn't work. It is made crystal clear therein that Nicola Sturgeon's management of the pandemic in Scotland was much more professional, considered and effective than Boris Johnson's south of the Border. Alan Woodcock, Dundee Double standards It is depressing to read the media's take on Kate Forbes being banned after having previously been given the right to speak at the Summerhall arts venue. This was apparently because employees and others felt threatened by Ms Forbes's views on issues such as same-sex marriage. I struggle with this. I believe that employees in a venue that has debate and freedom of expression as part of its raison d'être should have thought about that before applying for a job there. The same goes for those who choose to perform there as well as visitors. If you object then simply avoid the place or change shifts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Notwithstanding that, an employer has a duty of care to take employee concerns about their work environment into account. However. the media seem to take a different view – believing that in publicly accessible venues it is unacceptable for employee rights to be given primacy over the rights of others. Fair enough. But contrast that stance with the media's treatment of Sandy Peggie, an employee who also felt unsafe in the presence of somebody whose beliefs she was opposed to. In that case the employer responsible for a publicly accessible venue had decided a trans woman could use a female changing area. But the employee refused to accept that decision and all attempts by the employer to address or mitigate the employee's concerns were either rejected or were deemed unworkable. Ms Peggie's argument was that she felt unsafe in the presence of a particular individual as a consequence of her employer's decision. But those at Summerhall also felt unsafe in the presence of a particular individual as a result of an employer decision, only to find that their stance is denounced and ridiculed by the very same journalists championing Ms Peggie's cause. Bemused? Join the club. Robert Menzies, Falkirk Wedge issue What is this current obsession with gender identity politics? The reason I ask is that it is not an obsession shared by my wife of 25 years or my teenage daughters. In fact, my eldest daughter has no time for such views or those of JK Rowling, Reform UK or the Tories. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So if the three women in my household don't have time for such things, is it just a 'wedge issue' to drum up support for political parties like the Tories and Alba and those politicians that have an issue with Nicola Sturgeon? Is the problem not males in general who have no respect for women rather than simply the transgender community? Peter Ovenstone, Peterhead, Aberdeenshire Mea maxima culpa Whilst I was surprised and pleased to read Brian Wilson's article, 'Scotland's men need to stop being so willing to wheesht' (16 August), he should not be satisfied with his mea culpa, no matter how deserved it is. He has identified that so many politicians, universities, employers, the art world, almost in its entirety, closed their eyes and minds to the biological facts of gender and the repression of any challenge to Nicola Sturgeon's gender orthodoxy, but that seems to be the end of his reflection. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Can we look forward to Mr Wilson, in his next article, offering suggestions about how MPs and MSPs might have the courage to call out sophistry when it is being forced down their throats by an autocratic leader or powerful minority group? Lovina Roe, Perth, Perth & Kinross Big spenders Politicians seem to delight in spending other people's money. One could be forgiven for expecting some cognisance of this fact but this appears to be, frankly, unrealistic. SNP ministers are intending to write off a £36 million benefits debt (Scotsman, 18 August). Did anyone ask those who are paying? Even at a local level, Glasgow City Council is also calling for government help as a £66m bill looms to house refugees who make up nearly half of the homeless in the city. Financial prudence does not seem to figure in all of this, particularly since it is taxpayers who are not only getting this bill but, in all probability, are expected to find even greater sums in the future. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The blame will be put upon Westminster as usual but this has long lost its political impact upon the Scottish economy as the GERS figures show. When, if ever, is the taxpayer going to get some relief from this endless spiral of overspending, reduction in services and higher taxation, all running in tandem and it begs another question: just what are our highly paid politicians actually doing? Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Write to The Scotsman
