Where are the best places in Scotland to retire?
The constituency topped the Scottish list in the financial services firm's UK-wide Retirement Readiness Index.
It scored areas across a range of factors that contribute to a happier later life, including access to healthcare, opportunities to build social connections, access to nature, local amenities and financial security.
The index was compiled by scoring areas against six 'pillars' – housing, health, social and community, financial, nature, and amenities.
Mid Dunbartonshire scored highest in Scotland due to strong performance in health, access to green space, and overall wellbeing among its over-65 population.
Stirling and Strathallan, East Renfrewshire, and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine also ranked highly, with the Western Isles (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) rounding out the top five. Other high-scoring areas included Perth and Kinross, Caithness, and Dumfries and Galloway.
Across the UK, Chesham and Amersham in Buckinghamshire was named the overall best place to retire. Areas in Surrey, West Sussex, and Oxfordshire also featured prominently in the top 20.
In Scotland, urban and rural areas performed well across different measures. Edinburgh North and Leith and Edinburgh West were noted for their high level of access to healthcare and local services, while areas like Argyll and Bute scored strongly on environmental and community factors.
Lorna Shah, managing director of Retail Retirement at L&G, said the findings show retirement wellbeing is shaped by a combination of factors.
'Financial security is a key enabler, but it's the combination of health, social connection, the surrounding environment and access to local services that makes the biggest difference.
The data suggests growing regional variation in retirement readiness, with Scotland, Wales, and parts of the South West of England offering strong overall conditions for older residents.
The study comes amid ongoing national debates about retirement planning, housing provision for older adults, and the importance of community services in an ageing population.
1. Mid Dunbartonshire
2. Stirling and Strathallan
3. East Renfrewshire
4 West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
5. Na h-Eileanan an Iar
6. Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
7. Perth and Kinross-shire
8. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
10. Dumfries and Galloway
11. Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire
12, Edinburgh North and Leith
13. Edinburgh West
14. Gordon and Buchan
15. Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
16. Angus and Perthshire Glens
17. Arbroath and Broughty Ferry
18. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
19. North East Fife
20. Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK hedge fund Marshall Wace posted mixed returns for July, source says
LONDON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - British hedge fund Marshall Wace returned mixed results in two of its funds in July, a source close to the matter told Reuters on Monday. Co-founded by British financier Paul Marshall, the $76.9 billion firm returned 1.6% in July culminating in a 6.1% performance for 2025 so far in its Eureka Fund, the source said. The hedge fund's Market Neutral Tops fund returned -0.22% for July and is up 10.99% year to date the source added. Systematic stock trading hedge funds, like Marshall Wace, are up roughly 10% for 2025 so far, said Goldman Sachs on Monday.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Study: Avoiding ultra-processed foods while dieting can double weight loss
By Consuming a diet low in ultra-processed foods could help supercharge weight loss , promising research suggested today. Additive-laden foods such as crisps and sweets have been vilified for decades over their supposed risks, with dozens of studies linking them to type 2 diabetes , heart disease and cancer . Experts have even called for UPFs—typically anything edible that has more artificial ingredients than natural ones—to be slashed from diets. Now, British scientists who tracked dozens of adults have discovered those who ate a diet rich in minimally processed foods and avoided UPFs, lost twice as much weight as those who often consumed UPFs. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, they also found. However, diets high in UPFs had little impact on blood pressure, heart rate, liver function and cholesterol. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' In the study, the researchers tracked 50 people who were already consuming diets packed with UPFs and split them into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. They found those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06 per cent) compared to the UPF diet (1.05 per cent loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, the researchers said. Dr Dicken added: 'Though a 2 per cent reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13 per cent weight reduction in men and a 9 per cent reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4 per cent weight reduction in men and 5 per cent in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1 per cent of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritizing high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, also said: 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on UPFs. 'The small size of the study is a limitation, and the fact that most participants were women limits how much we can generalize the findings to the general population. 'We also can't be certain how closely the diets were followed, as participants self-reported what they ate during the study. 'Larger, longer-term studies will be needed to see if the greater weight loss on the minimally processed diets seen here translates into bigger improvements in risk factors, including blood pressure and cholesterol and blood sugar levels, and a reduced risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases.
