
Young Scots are rightly furious at a housing emergency that proves the system is against them
Access to family wealth - and not what you do for a living - has quickly become the single biggest determining factor of whether you can afford to buy a home, or whether you are left taking your chances with an overheating rental market.
In 1974, the average cost of a home in the UK was £10,027. Last year, the figure stood at £265,012 - an increase of £254,985. Needless to say, average wages have not kept pace. If house prices had risen only in line with salaries they would be £76,000 - or 29 per cent cheaper than they are.
There was a "modest improvement' in affordability across Britain last year as wage rises outpaced house price growth and mortgage costs fell slightly. But first-time buyers still typically pay about five times their earnings for a home.
This isn't because younger generations have become more picky about where they live. Few first-time buyers would have any expectation they could afford to live in central Edinburgh, for example. The capital has long been viewed as a mini-London in property terms, but the shortage of affordable homes in the city is now at crisis levels.
There are more children stuck living in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh than in the entirety of Wales. Local councillors pay lip service to this scandalous state of affairs, but they know they are effectively powerless to intervene.
The number of expensive hotels, private student accommodation developments and short-term rentals have exploded over the last 20 years. Social housing struggles to get a look-in. The knock-on effect is areas like West Lothian, west Fife and increasingly Falkirk have become dormitories for the capital's workforce, massively inflating local housing costs in the process.
In Glasgow, with its booming university sector and associated tech industries, the private rental market has exploded since 2010. The cost of renting a two-bed flat jumped by 22 per cent in 2022 alone. Parts of the city's west end and southside are now as every bit as expensive as Edinburgh.
Scotland's biggest cities are where the majority of well-paid jobs are. People are drawn to them because of economic reality, not for their trendy coffee shops. Some 70 per cent of Scots live along the M8 corridor across the central belt.
There may be multiple new housing developments alongside the motorway, but supply is still failing to meet demand. And where the market fails, the Government usually intervenes.
So why hasn't Holyrood done more? The short is answer is money, or a lack of it. The SNP Government was ahead of the game in ending the disastrous right-to-buy scheme, which decimated social housing stocks across the UK. But Scotland desperately needs more affordable homes built. We can't make do with the existing stock.
It's a crisis that can't be ignored. Housing deserves to be a key issue at next year's Holyrood election campaign.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
36 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Farmers Union of Wales reacts to Sustainable Farming Scheme
Last week, the Welsh Government published the final version of the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS). This Scheme will be the primary mechanism through which farm businesses in Wales will be able to apply for farm support from 2026 onwards as the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) is phased out over the coming years. Since the initial Brexit and Our Land consultation in 2018, the FUW, its officials and staff have invested a remarkable amount of resources into lobbying, negotiating and challenging the Welsh Government in order to try and secure a workable Scheme for the future of our thriving, sustainable family farms and food production across Wales. We can assure FUW members and the wider agricultural community that we left no stone unturned over the past seven years in our ambition to secure a viable post-Brexit farm support framework. We therefore welcome key successes, including securing a total budget for the Universal Baseline Payment and BPS taper combined of £238 million, providing workable payment rates and much needed stability for the sector. This includes the provision of universal payments for common land rights holders. Our lobbying efforts have also retained and strengthened the application of capped and redistributive payments, a longstanding policy position for the FUW and one that maximises the amount of money going to typical Welsh family farms and rural communities. However, we accept that the Scheme is not perfect. The 10% habitat Scheme Rule will be a concern for many as will the Scheme-level ambition to plant 17,000 hectares of trees by 2030. The shorter BPS transition will also be a bitter pill, with the BPS payment now falling to 60% in 2026 and reducing by 20% per year thereafter. We have been consistent in our calls for the BPS transition to follow five equal reductions starting at 80% in 2026 as was initially proposed by the Welsh Government. This Scheme will be different to what we have historically considered as direct farm support or subsidies. I therefore urge all Welsh farmers to consider the Scheme requirements and payment rates in the context of your own businesses. Whether farmers decide to enter the SFS at any point in the future, or continue with the tapering BPS and operate without farm support thereafter, the FUW is here to support you and your businesses throughout the transition period and beyond.


Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
NASA says 20% of workforce to depart space agency
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Reuters) - About 20% of the employees at the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration are set to depart the space agency, a NASA spokesperson said on Friday. Around 3,870 individuals are expected to depart, but that number may change in the coming days and weeks, the spokesperson said, adding that the remaining number of employees at the agency would be around 14,000.


Times
6 hours ago
- Times
How I plan to survive retirement without a state pension
Generally speaking, I'm not a huge fan of risky moves. I would rather wait an extra hour at the airport than stress over missing a flight, I find it hard to negotiate on price for fear of losing a deal completely and I refuse to get behind the wheel if I've had a single drink. With all these decisions, the anxiety caused by the potential loss outweighs any positive that the risk brings. Rushing through security to walk straight on to a flight may be exhilarating for some, but my heart rate would still be elevated when I landed at my destination. There is one area, however, where I'm simply going to have to take more risk: my pension pot. As a young (ish) saver, the safest thing to do is to assume that the entire responsibility of funding my retirement will fall to me. And that requires more risk. This week the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, said she was 'formally announcing' the next government review of the state pension age. As the last review concluded in 2023 — and the government only has to review the age every six years — this was earlier than expected. It's looking likely that the age at which you get your state pension will rise sooner than planned. The state pension age is 66, increasing to 67 between 2026 and 2028. Another jump to 68 is pencilled in for 2046, but will probably be moved forward. To assume that the state pension age will stay at 68 by the time I get there (in about 38 years) would be foolish. In fact, to assume there will be any state pension at all is unwise. The state pension is a financial headache for the government. It costs about 5 per cent of GDP, up from about 3.5 per cent in the year 2000, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and is forecast to be 7.7 per cent by 2070. It's also getting harder to find the cash to fund it. People are living longer and having fewer babies — aka future taxpayers. The UK's old-age dependency ratio, the population aged 65 and over as a percentage of those of working-age (16 to 64), is set to increase from about 33 to 50 by the mid-2060s, according to the OBR. So my private pension is going to have to do the heavy lifting in my retirement — at least if I want to stop working before I'm 75. And the easiest and cheapest way to boost my pot is to increase my level of investment risk. • How to get a nation of savers investing 'It's important for younger savers to take risks with their pension — that just means investing in the stock market, not taking a punt on bitcoin. If you have 30 or 40 years until retirement, your pension should be heavily, if not exclusively, invested in shares,' said Laith Khalaf from the investment firm AJ Bell. 'The exception would be if you have a nervous disposition and can't bear to see a fall in the value of your savings. Even then, the fact that you are saving regularly into a pension means you get a smoother journey even with a relatively high content invested in the stock market.' Historically, the stock market has provided the best investment returns in the long run. If, 30 years ago, you had invested £1,000 in the Investment Association's global sector of funds that are invested entirely in stocks, you would have £8,150 today. The sector of funds that are 40 to 85 per cent invested in the stock market would have returned £5,657, while the 20 to 60 per cent stocks option would have returned £4,362. But most pensions are not invested in 100 per cent equities, even for workers who are just starting out. Most pension savers are automatically enrolled into workplace pensions and put into 'default' funds — a one-size-fits-all option that has to be appropriate for 20-year-olds and 50-year-olds. This means that many default funds will only have about 60 to 70 per cent of their pot invested in shares. The rest will be in assets such as cash or bonds, that are considered less volatile but are also unlikely to grow at the same rate. Effectively, these pots are simply the least worst fit for the workforce as a whole. • How to stop the taxman taking a big slice of your pension I confess that this is still how my pension savings are invested. James Coker from the wealth manager Quilter Cheviot said this was unlikely to be my best chance at building a hefty pension pot. He said: 'Moving your pots into an equity portfolio will serve you well over the long term. Someone in their thirties or forties is arguably decades away from retirement and stocks have the greatest inflation-adjusted growth potential. Stocks have to form the basis, if not all, of your portfolio.' With the ever-increasing likelihood that my income in retirement will be on my shoulders alone, it's time to make the move. The cheapest way for me to do this is to move my pension pots into a global tracker fund, a low-cost option that replicates the performance of global stock markets. It may feel risky, but the alternative — a pot that doesn't plug the hole left by a disappearing state pension — feels even riskier. • Top of the pension pots: the best place for your Sipp