From Insider today:
‘Employment in Scotland’s life sciences sector increased by 20% over seven years, according to new figures published by the Scottish Government. That represents a 2.6% year-on-year increase, with turnover growing by 90% in the same period to reach £6.5 billion in 2017. This news puts the sector on track to exceed its strategic target of £8 billion by 2025. From 2010 to 2017, company turnover increased by 90% and gross value added (GVA) by 48%. This represents a year-on-year growth of 9.6% for company turnover and 5.7% for GVA.’
https://www.insider.co.uk/news/employment-scottish-life-sciences-grows-21574515
Earlier reports here:
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
John! You are missing the obvious! Look at what Alasdair spotted here:
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/02/25/bbc-scotland-accused-of-burying-13-fall-in-shorter-sentences/comment-page-1/#comment-3447
LikeLike
Sorry, that was overly dramatic, and has nothing to do with the article, which does indeed sound a good improvement. How can they say our economy is failing when so many parts of it are improving all the time?!
LikeLike
Am I being thick here, again. What did I miss? Humour me.
LikeLike
The headline was THOUSANDS (plural)but the actual number was only 1300. I passed O Grade Arithmetic in 1964, but I think 1300 contains only one thousand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tsk, no need for sarcasm.
Remember the days, when you’d focus on the headline – that being the most influential part of a news report – this would be the first thing to point out. For sure, it’s better to counter-news the main thrust of the story as a way of giving people good info, I reckon, but still, it’s imperative we can still spot these things – otherwise we might start believing what,,, okay no, that’s rediculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Contrary. Honestly not sarcasm. Seriously not sure what you meant. My borderline autism may be a factor here.
LikeLike
Oh. No no, I meant Alasdair was being sarcastic! Sorry, that didn’t read well at all. It was just an interesting thing to note!
LikeLike
I was not intending to be sarcastic, but I accept that it can be interpreted so.
LikeLike
Correction! I was intending to be sarcastic but towards the BBC website headline.
LikeLike
😀
Oh dear. I think I’ve caused the most confused commentary ever. I have stopped digging myself further into the hole now!
LikeLike