Scottish Surveys Core Questions 2014
Official statistics publication on equality groups across a range of measures from harmonised questions across the major SG population surveys.
Annex A: Comparison with Census
In this chapter we compare estimates produced from the SSCQ 2014 data with the population of Scotland on census day 2011. The census tables used for the following comparisons are available to download from the Scotland-level bulk data file [60] .
Table A.1: Tenure of Scottish households
Tenure |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Owned |
27.80% |
30.6% |
± 0.8% |
Mortgaged |
34.20% |
29.4% |
± 0.8% |
Social rented |
24.30% |
24.9% |
± 0.8% |
Private rented |
11.10% |
14.7% |
± 0.6% |
Other rented |
2.60% |
0.1% |
± 0.1% |
Census source table: KS402SC
Census figures are close to being within the confidence intervals of the SSCQ tenure estimates. However, SSCQ estimates there to be fewer mortgage-holders (-3 p.p.) and more private renting tenants (+2.4 p.p.) than reported by census. Some of the differences are likely to be as a result of changes in the underlying composition of household tenure between 2011 and 2014. The Scottish Household Survey Annual Report 2014 [61] sets out trends in tenure between 1999 and 2014. This highlights for example that the proportion of households in the private rented sector has estimated to have grown steadily from 5 per cent in 1999 to 14 per cent in 2014.
Table A.2: Number of cars accessible by household members
Car Access |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014 |
|
---|---|---|---|
None |
30.50% |
31.8% |
± 0.8% |
1 |
42.20% |
43.5% |
± 0.8% |
2 |
21.60% |
19.9% |
± 0.7% |
3+ |
5.60% |
4.7% |
± 0.3% |
Census source table: KS404SC
Estimates of car access by household are very accurate compared to census figures.
Table A.3: Country of birth of adult population
Country of Birth |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014 |
SSCQ 2013 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scotland |
81.50% |
80.3% |
± 0.8% |
81.1% |
± 0.7% |
Rest of UK |
10.80% |
10.5% |
± 0.6% |
10.8% |
± 0.5% |
Rest of EU |
3.30% |
4.5% |
± 0.4% |
3.7% |
± 0.3% |
Rest of World |
4.40% |
4.6% |
± 0.4% |
4.4% |
± 0.4% |
Census source table: DC2103SC
Estimates of country of birth from the SSCQ are in very close agreement with census figures. SSCQ noted an increase in respondents born in the EU outside the UK. An increase in people born in the EU outside the UK in 2014 was also noted in the Annual Population Survey at the UK level [62] .
Table A.4: Ethnic group of adult population
Ethnicity |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 201 |
|
---|---|---|---|
White Scottish |
83.40% |
78.4% |
± 0.8% |
White other British |
8.60% |
12.3% |
± 0.6% |
White Polish |
1.10% |
1.8% |
± 0.3% |
White other |
3.30% |
3.8% |
± 0.4% |
Asian |
2.50% |
2.4% |
± 0.3% |
All Other |
1.10% |
1.1% |
± 0.2% |
Census source table: DC2101SC
83% of census respondents were white Scottish, and 8.6% white other British. SSCQ puts these at around 78% and 12% respectively. Other ethnicities are in line with census figures.
Table A.5: Religion of adult population
Religion |
Census 2011 |
excl. Missing |
SSCQ 2014 |
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Refused/ DK |
6.70% |
- |
0.7% |
± 0.1% |
None |
34.30% |
37% |
44.1% |
± 0.9% |
Church of Scotland |
34.80% |
37% |
29.0% |
± 0.8% |
Roman Catholic |
16.00% |
17% |
15.5% |
± 0.7% |
Other Christian |
5.80% |
6% |
7.7% |
± 0.5% |
Muslim |
1.20% |
1% |
1.4% |
± 0.2% |
Other |
1.20% |
1% |
1.7% |
± 0.2% |
Census source table: DC2107SC
A large proportion (6.7%) of census respondents did not provide information about their religious belief. Excluding these missing cases from census responses indicates that SSCQ picks up fewer Church of Scotland respondents, and more non-religious, non-Church of Scotland Christians and "Other".
Table A.6: Economic activity
Economic Activity |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014 |
|
---|---|---|---|
In Employment |
57.70% |
55.8% |
± 0.9% |
Unemployed |
5.10% |
3.5% |
± 0.4% |
Inactive |
37.20% |
40.6% |
± 0.9% |
SSCQ reported marginally lower levels of employment and unemployment, and higher levels of inactivity than the census estimates.
Table A.7: Highest achieved qualification
Top Qualification |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014 |
|
---|---|---|---|
No qualifications |
26.80% |
18.2% |
± 0.7% |
Other qualifications |
- |
4.5% |
± 0.3% |
Level 1 |
23.10% |
20.4% |
± 0.8% |
Level 2 |
14.30% |
16.2% |
± 0.7% |
Level 3 |
9.70% |
11.4% |
± 0.6% |
Level 4 and above |
26.10% |
28.6% |
± 0.9% |
Census source table: DC5102SC
SSCQ reported similar levels of higher qualifications and a distinction between 'no qualifications' and 'other qualifications' when compared to census estimates.
Table A.8: Self-assessed general health
General Health |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Very good |
46.00% |
34.9% |
± 0.9% |
Good |
33.00% |
38.8% |
± 0.9% |
Fair |
14.30% |
18.9% |
± 0.7% |
Bad |
5.10% |
5.6% |
± 0.4% |
Very bad |
1.60% |
1.7% |
± 0.2% |
Census source table: DC310SC
Reported levels of 'very good' general health were higher in census responses than in the SSCQ. However further reports of 'good' general health in SSCQ bring the National Indicator combining these top two categories close (79% versus 74%). The responses were similar in reporting 'bad' and 'very bad' general health.
Table A.9: Adults providing unpaid care
Unpaid care |
Census 2011 |
SSCQ 2014 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Provides Care |
11.22% |
17.7% |
± 0.7% |
No care |
88.78% |
82.3% |
± 0.7% |
Census source table: DC6301SC
The proportion of adults providing unpaid care was significantly higher in the SSCQ and the three constituent surveys than in the census. This may be because carer were more accessible to interviewers whereas no bias of this sort would be expected in the census. However it may also be due to proxy respondents in census. When SHS moved from a proxy respondent in 2013 to the random adult respondent in 2014 the measured rate of care provision increased dramatically (from 8.6% in 2013 to 17.2% in 2014). It may be that the proxy respondent (giving information on behalf of all members of the household) perceives this activity differently to the individual providing care.
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback