Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Being fair to Mr Yousaf, he is about to register another significant achievement on April 1st when his catastrophically badly drafted hate crime law comes into force.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

One of the immediate consequences if the current campaign on social media comes to fruition is that Police Scotland will be snowed with complaints about Humza's very own "everybody's white" speech / rant. So that should be fun.
 
Of course it's an achievement. Mr Yousaf has broken through the glass ceiling in a country that's almost pure white.

You're assuming there was a ceiling to break and that the statistic you quote of 96% is relevant.

It's about attitude. Regardless of what Mr Yousaf might try to assert - the patterns of prejudice in Scotland will not have been a block to him.

There are several reason for this. First off in general people are OK. Second off the actual tangible prejudices that swirl are not based on colour. So being perceived as English or "Tory" is bad news in some sectors, there has been a Irish and Catholic/Protestant dimension in west central Scotland, being a Scot of Asian heritage means being less of a target for any of that sort of thing. The barriers for say a practising Catholic or member of the Free Church are probably higher than they are for Mr Yousaf - but they are not as visible as ethnicity and nor is there any "diversity" leverage or other virtue signalling to get past them.
 
Being fair to Mr Yousaf, he is about to register another significant achievement on April 1st when his catastrophically badly drafted hate crime law comes into force.

Holyrood isn't very good at lawmaking.

Mr Yousaf was a particular proponent of this bad law - but IMO the whole of Holyrood is culpable because they don't seem to be able to debate and argue these things cohesively.

One other aspect is that Holyrood's ineptitude is more exposed because there is no second House to act as a any sort of check.
 
One other aspect is that Holyrood's ineptitude is more exposed because there is no second House to act as a any sort of check.
Which should be something that the HoL abolitionists in England ought to take note of.
 
Which should be something that the HoL abolitionists in England ought to take note of.

I'm a HoL abolitionist in Scotland.

I'm troubled on the issue now because of Holyrood. My core says the HoL is a Bad Thing in terms on so many levels (Hereditary peers, CoE Bishops, political appointees by patronage or back scratching. But I'm increasingly of the view that Scottish lawmaking without the HoL is worse than it would be with.
 
My core says the HoL is a Bad Thing in terms on so many levels
I'm generally of that mindset (for many of the same reasons listed) but I do think there needs to be a second chamber with responsibility for applying checks and balances on the lower House. The antics of Holyrood have reinforced my view in that respect and I'm firmly in the "abolition, no, reform, yes" camp.
 
I didn't say the science was showing a downward trend, merely that the graph was. I have no theory. I just see a line starting to turn down. You are the one that seems to think a line turning down is not a decline! All the comment you make above is just speculation.

I'm happy if its a blip and the line turns up again in the future - I have no evidence one way or the other. So yes, I literally see a downward trend and so can you! What it does in the future is anyone's guess
Has the trend turned downwards?

A seven year improvement in male life expectancy over four decades is an upward trend. We don't need a Masters in Trend Analysis to see that.

(It's unfortunate for the women, but they did ask to enter full time lifelong employment, leaving the home for stressful work, and start drinking Prosecco like fish. So now they're catching up with their menfolk)

Now, if you see regular repetition of Covid-19 like infection and the disastrous health, social and economic consequences of lockdown across Europe, that would be a different matter.

But male life expectancy returning to 72 ? It's not obvious.
 
Has the trend turned downwards?

AIUI

I think there was a general assumption that the upward trend had flattened over the last decade.

And then Covid came along and turned it down. It might be reasonable to assume that the curve should flatten if Covid continues to pick off few extra people at a low sustained rate - or it might rise again of Covid is no longer having any noticeable effect.

I would add that people tend to think of life expectancy being about 'natural' death - disease and old age. However once we have a larger population of 70+ who are active and get involved in more accidents (a minor accident is more likely to lead to early death in a geriatric) then the upward curve may naturally flatten a bit simply because older people are doing more.
 
Has the trend turned downwards?

A seven year improvement in male life expectancy over four decades is an upward trend. We don't need a Masters in Trend Analysis to see that.

(It's unfortunate for the women, but they did ask to enter full time lifelong employment, leaving the home for stressful work, and start drinking Prosecco like fish. So now they're catching up with their menfolk)

Now, if you see regular repetition of Covid-19 like infection and the disastrous health, social and economic consequences of lockdown across Europe, that would be a different matter.

But male life expectancy returning to 72 ? It's not obvious.
Ok, I see what you mean. You are looking at the whole data and effectively regressing it all.
 
AIUI

I think there was a general assumption that the upward trend had flattened over the last decade.

And then Covid came along and turned it down. It might be reasonable to assume that the curve should flatten if Covid continues to pick off few extra people at a low sustained rate - or it might rise again of Covid is no longer having any noticeable effect.

I would add that people tend to think of life expectancy being about 'natural' death - disease and old age. However once we have a larger population of 70+ who are active and get involved in more accidents (a minor accident is more likely to lead to early death in a geriatric) then the upward curve may naturally flatten a bit simply because older people are doing more.
So your view is that in this past decade has life expectancy flattened, and that the trend is not downwards?

So, this concept of "natural death."
Is that "natural death as in 1800 when life expectancy was 40
Or 1900, when life expectancy was 46
Or 1940 when it was 62
Or 2000 when it was 77 ?

Life expectancy has improved with the professionalisation of medicine, the creation of antibiotics, the near elimination of death in childbirth and under five, and the reduction in the rate of industrial disease, accidents, smoking and atmospheric pollution.

Isn't it pessimistic to suggest that no further progress can be made in heart disease, stroke, cancer, respiratory disease, dementia, self-harm and HCAI ?

(I know that there's a statistical issue with "early death" of elderly Asians who have come to the UK with inherited and lifestyle (obesity / diet / smoking / overcrowded) health conditions and who "muck up" the overall statistics because the population of the UK is not actually comparable to the population of the UK in 1980, but the broadly for long term UK residents, the trend does still seem to both optimistic and upwards)

Re Covid-19, even at full impact, isn't the general assumption that the whole epidemic and lockdown harms only"knocked off" 1.6 years off the global life expectancy, so it seems pessimistic that there's still a continuing burden of Covid-19 which is going to make a further significant impact on future mortality. (Obesity, alcoholism, and drug abuse: that's a different issue)

Here's the Lancet statistical paper that suggests that the Global burden of Covid-19 was 1.6 years off global life expectancy.
(Bearing in mind that in Eastern Europe, and the Americas, the rate of death was well beyond that seen in the UK)




Screenshot 2024-03-28 at 17.55.40.png
 
Last edited:
Ok, I see what you mean. You are looking at the whole data and effectively regressing it all.
Yes, looking at trend not the immediate, well documented, health impact of Covid-19, HCAI and lockdown.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736(24)00476-8

There is no downward trend visible over the last decade or century.

The contribution of the health and pharmaceutical industry, and improvements in quality of life aren't as awful as you suggest that they are.
 
Last edited:
So your view is that in this past decade has life expectancy flattened, and that the trend is not downwards?

I think that has been the case. Downward moves recently would appear to be Covid. But we presumably have to wait a bit to see the effects and trend over several years and whether it reverses.

I would add that without some major new discovery we are seeing life expectancy having become improved in ever smaller increments. Hygiene and understanding of disease transmission, nutrition and food, drugs/medicines/antibiotics, procedures and medical technology/techniques, health and safety, regulation and education of things like smoking.

Some improvements may be self-defeating - eg. improved availability of food and new lifestyle options mean more obesity - but maybe offset by better medical care for health impacts of these conditions. More cars means more car accidents as people buy more cars and drive more miles - but then we see improvements in safety and roads and road user education.

The meaning of life expectancy also needs to be considered - it's a 50:50 thing - the term usually means from a given starting point that half will survive - there's the half who do not.
 
I think that has been the case. Downward moves recently would appear to be Covid. But we presumably have to wait a bit to see the effects and trend over several years and whether it reverses.

I would add that without some major new discovery we are seeing life expectancy having become improved in ever smaller increments. Hygiene and understanding of disease transmission, nutrition and food, drugs/medicines/antibiotics, procedures and medical technology/techniques, health and safety, regulation and education of things like smoking.

Some improvements may be self-defeating - eg. improved availability of food and new lifestyle options mean more obesity - but maybe offset by better medical care for health impacts of these conditions. More cars means more car accidents as people buy more cars and drive more miles - but then we see improvements in safety and roads and road user education.

The meaning of life expectancy also needs to be considered - it's a 50:50 thing - the term usually means from a given starting point that half will survive - there's the half who do not.
Ah, so you think that life expectancy won’t improve for millennials, who haven’t, like me, spent a significant part of their life in smoke filled rooms? Or for people who, unlike @markjay have spent a great chunk of their life in cities with high levels of air pollution. Or for people who exercise in a way far beyond that which was normal just 25 years ago? Interesting
 
Ah, so you think that life expectancy won’t improve for millennials, who haven’t, like me, spent a significant part of their life in smoke filled rooms? Or for people who, unlike @markjay have spent a great chunk of their life in cities with high levels of air pollution. Or for people who exercise in a way far beyond that which was normal just 25 years ago? Interesting
I don't think it will improve significantly.

Yes - less smoking, more H&S. But also more subtle forms of pollution and exposures to cancer. And increases in anti-biotic resistance.
 
The meaning of life expectancy also needs to be considered - it's a 50:50 thing - the term usually means from a given starting point that half will survive - there's the half who do not.
Twas ever thus. In their seventies, my father in law died from early diabetic symptoms, my brother in law from work related asbestosis, my sister from poor diet. My point is that the next generation is simply less statistically likely to follow them. We’ve got smarter, but some … not so much

The point is that education, technology, pharmaceuticals and even Medics continue to increase life expectancy.

(Despite “Our NHS” - it’s a global thing)
 
I don't think it will improve significantly.

Yes - less smoking, more H&S. But also more subtle forms of pollution and exposures to cancer. And increases in anti-biotic resistance.
A man who doesn’t remember walking through factories and pubs where the air was yellow.

And someone who doesn’t remember a time when no-one, but no-one… “went for a run.”

The world’s changed, and continues to change. Education works. Despite the pessimists and Naysayers
 
Last edited:
A man who doesn’t remember walking through factories and pubs where the air was yellow.

And someone who doesn’t remember a time when no-one, but no-one… “went for a run.”

The world’s changed, and continues to change. Education works. Despite the pessimists and Naysayers
I’ll raise you with McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Uber eats etc where you don’t even have to walk to the takeaway.
In other words obesity
 
I’ll raise you with McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Uber eats etc where you don’t even have to walk to the takeaway.
In other words obesity
That's the visible stuff. Add a thriving unregulated drugs market with substances adulterated with who knows what crap and a cocaine epidemic in London (and elsewhere too) that is a a ticking heart attack time bomb.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom