Davie Gardner

30 April, 2008

WHEN you get to my age you have to be a bit careful. What you may consider to be objective thinking could turn out to be nothing more than a dose of ‘grumpy old man’ syndrome.

As such if you are harbouring a strong ‘gut feeling’ about something you feel is happening to your community, it’s probably best to check it out first with those involved before sounding off about it in public.

For me an ongoing ‘gut feeling’ strengthened recently when projected figures showed that Shetland’s population was likely to decrease by around 10 per cent over the next few years, to around 19,000, and our “elderly population” was equally likely to double during the same period.

Not only does this fly in the face of recent targets set by Shetland Islands Council – a population rising to around 25,000 - but also you don’t need Professor Stephen Hawking to figure out which sector this current population drift and imbalance is affecting – yes you’ve got it, our younger generations.

For some time I thought I’d sensed an increasing apathy, or worse still disillusionment, emanating from young people regarding Shetland and what it currently offers them. Was this a fact, or had I become just one of those forever-worrying and cynical grumpy old men mentioned earlier? Are we really “haemorrhaging young people” (as one local told me recently), which the figures do seem to suggest?

So I thought I’d better check it out with those who should know– the young folk themselves. Lo and behold, most of those questioned, especially in the 14 – 18 age group, fully intend to leave Shetland in the not too distant future, once school is finished.

Of course this is nothing unusual given the increasing range of college courses now available to them. And of course young people leaving to broaden their horizons is a good thing in every respect.

What is concerning though is the fact that very few appear to have any real intention of returning to the islands once their higher education studies or travels are complete - for the foreseeable future at any rate.

So what’s the problem? “There’s just nothing to do or stay here for,” came the all too common reply.

To put it in a nut-shell, young folk see a lack of quality jobs and especially no vibrant social scene, for their age group or older, as a disincentive to staying or moving back to Shetland.

The facts started to spew forth. Sure we have a mass of fantastic leisure centres, but let’s face it not everyone is sporting orientated and few see that as their single social requirement - although local usage figures for these centres are fantastic by any stretch of the imagination.

Equally our extensive network of country halls, great though they are, also came in for some stick, mainly because they don’t encourage or promote the kind of activities young folk enjoy nowadays.

It’s not even a case of young people needing everything provided for them on a plate either. Even when they feel empowered to take matters into their own hands and seek to promote their own events, it seems they find it pretty hard to find anywhere willing to accommodate them, or allow others to promote events especially for them.

Indeed most young folk appear to view Shetland’s current social scene as nothing more than “country halls putting on stuff for older folk”, or the local pub scene with little on offer apart from drinking by way of entertainment - so in their opinion “nothing worth staying here for”.

They do know that current investment priorities like schools, care centres and even wind farms are crucial to Shetland and its economy. Equally, most seem to appreciate the tough fiscal priorities and decisions our councillors have to make in this respect.

However very little of this cuts much ice with our younger generations. It’s simply of little interest or priority to them at this stage, so it would appear they intend to vote with their feet.

And what’s worse still, very few of them having once moved have any intention of returning to Shetland in the short to medium term either. “Until we need a care home that is,” one laughed.

Many young people consider Shetland’s current alcohol and drug related problems stem, partially at least, from a lack of suitable alternative entertainment options. Most also believe that those in authority are more interested in cracking down even harder on them in this respect, rather than actively seeking alternative or sustainable solutions.

So why are they not speaking out and screaming their needs from every public vantage point? Some councillors suggest that given the fact they are not demanding these things in droves (such as Mareel, a bowling alley or a skateboard park for instance) demonstrates that they don’t really want them all that badly.

The truth, from a young person’s perspective at least, currently seems to be very different.

“We’ve been asking for such things for years but nothing ever seems to actually happen, so to be honest we don’t really bother much any more,” said a group of young people I spoke to recently. “They (the councillors) say they are listening to us but they never actually do anything,” said another. “Basically we’ve given up.”

This kind of thinking applies to Mareel itself. “They’re not going to build it, so why should we bother speaking out,” said one.

Overall this is a worrying situation. Young people are the very heart, soul and future of any community. Without them it will lose its attraction as a vibrant and attractive place to live, work or move to. How then will the council meet its ambitious population targets or economic or corporate plans?

Without masses of young people to support our local economy, it cannot but suffer and further constrict. This will inevitably impact on our long term ability to support and sustain other crucial social services such as schools, care homes etc. They will, in turn, have to rely on further public subsidy, and let’s face it, we need ‘young’ people to work in these facilities too. A vicious circle indeed.

It’s interesting to note that much of the current debate revolving around Mareel for instance is based not so much on capital but ongoing revenue costs. “We can’t afford it – it’s a luxury,” is a regular line. But in the wider scheme of things is that really true?

What are the wider benefits of a Mareel, something similar or other such social amenities? Could these be at least part of the answer to the specific population drift and imbalance we are now facing? And if that is the case, what’s their REAL value to this community - economically, socially, culturally and otherwise?

If a vibrant social scene is a ‘driver’ or a priority in this respect, will our local halls, the Garrison Theatre, clubs and pubs still be attractive to FUTURE generations when more dynamic social alternatives evolve and exist elsewhere? We can’t simply think of today, we must look to tomorrow and way beyond if we can.

It’s unlikely there is a facility like Mareel operating entirely commercially anywhere in the UK. Almost all receive public subsidy of one of kind or another. Such amenities, especially in more rural areas, are usually seen as a ‘public service’ worth investing in, because of the wide ranging benefits they bring to the communities where they are located.

It would of course be naïve to suggest such ‘services’ are the only answer to this problem. However if a wider range of quality social and cultural services can help stem the haemorrhage of young people and attract folk into the islands, what then their real value to this community?

Perhaps in this context we need to look outside the current financial line of thinking.

An all-round balance of effective and sustainable services is crucial to the survival of any community. Of course they have to be affordable, but equally can we afford NOT to have them?

This is not an argument for Mareel as such. That’s an issue for those in power to decide upon given all the evidence to hand. To choose not to go ahead for purely financial reasons is an option – however to do or provide nothing in this respect cannot be an option.

One councillor pointed out to me recently that many towns on the mainland have less happening socially than Shetland does. Possibly true – but then on the mainland if something you desire doesn’t exist in your own community you can always drive (or jump a bus or train) to somewhere, usually close to hand, that does have it – and still get home at night. Not so here!!!!

To invest in young people, however that is done, is surely a positive investment for a healthy future. To invest in what other communities regard as amenities and services crucial to their overall well-being can surely be no bad thing for Shetland either.

Population drift happens just about everywhere, but when it happens to an island community the effects are far more devastating, far-reaching and longer term than in communities on the mainland. So if we can, we should try and do something about it – starting with the young?

Such a bleak outlook could simply be the murmurings of a grumpy old man, and sure some young folk will never be satisfied however much is provided for them. But given what the young people seem to be saying themselves, not to mention the statistics in front of us, can we really take that chance?