‘More than double the number of properties are (sic) at risk from flooding in Scotland than previously thought.’ (BBC Scotland, today 07:27)
Repeated nine times today, I predict, this was the broadcast and website headline for BBC Scotland. I don’t know where the speech marks were in the TV broadcast version, but they should certainly have been more accurately placed around the ‘number.’ I’m happy that SEPA classifications of flood risk are pretty objective and require no doubtful wee speech marks but it was clear that SEPA themselves wanted to qualify the meaning of the word ‘number’. Here’s what is admitted further down:
‘Steve McFarland, of Sepa’s flood risk planning and policy team, said the rise in the figure for “at risk” homes, was largely down to improved modelling and knowledge, rather than an increased physical risk.’
The website, nevertheless, went on to say:
‘The number of Scottish homes and businesses considered at risk of flooding has more than doubled in three years. The new National Flood Risk Assessment estimates that around 284,000 properties are vulnerable to rising river and sea levels. This compares with 108,000 found to be under threat in 2011 and 2015.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46638329
Not mentioned there but in the broadcast version:
‘It comes from a major recalculation now including larger sites like universities which are made up of a number of properties.’
So, instead of University of the West of Scotland, Ayr Campus halls of residence, right next to the river, what was one property is now 600? Repeat this kind of thinking across the country and I’m surprised we don’t have a far greater increase than reported here but these are not ‘properties’ at all. All the halls are the property of the University, insured by them as one owner and at the cost to them as one owner. In financial terms here, nothing has changed.
If we were to strip out, even just the tens of thousands of apparent additional entries here, for student rooms, might the figure for the whole of Scotland actually be falling? Might SNP-led spending on flood prevention be causing that?
Is SEPA pushing for more funding? Is BBC Scotland News full of solid effleunts?
Further reading:
SNP Government invests more than £25 million in one flood defence scheme
Calls for Environment Agency (England) to be stripped of responsibility for flooding
Flooding: has Scottish government done more to keep our heads above water?
Despite the deluge, is flood protection stronger and better funded in Scotland?
Talking-up Scotland 
I haven’t read the report but am curious about this: “‘Steve McFarland, of Sepa’s flood risk planning and policy team, said the rise in the figure for “at risk” homes, was largely down to improved modelling and knowledge, rather than an increased physical risk.’ I cannot for the life of me figure out what that means.
Modelling and knowledge has improved, but the actual buildings have not moved(surely?). So, therefore, if the physical risk had NOT increased how can more homes be at risk? What am I missing?
LikeLike
Now counting all the homes in a block even if only the ground floor would actually flood?
LikeLike
“Any lie in a storm” for the failing state propaganda division as reading their autocues they see the writing on the wall and hear it in their hollow words as they trample democracy and law underfoot.
LikeLike
Headline:
“Scottish Student Forced to Live in Crannogs in Ayr”
See that SNP….. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
We’ve got a crannog? More than one?
LikeLike
Ah, me and my typos again! I think you probably have more than one student down there in Ayr to fill the crannogs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Advertised as —“Get away from it all, with our luxury retro island homes. Commune with nature—a swim round Paddy’s milestone before breakfast”!
“Going fast”.
LikeLiked by 1 person