A ROOM of one's own is one thing, a house of one's own quite another.
It's one of these things you dream about. A house. A car. A better nose. As a post-hip hippy in my youth, I never really cared for such objets de désir (trans: stuff), except perhaps the nose.
I've been trying to catch up ever since. Now I've an imperfect house, an ancient car and, sadly, the same nose.
You can take my car, but you can never take my freedom, which is invested in my house as, indeed, is everything I've ever earned or robbed. It's my space and I'll do what I want with it.
If that sounds adolescent, marvel at the fact that young persons are staying on in the family home way beyond adolescence, yea, even until their thirties.
Presumably, this is out of necessity, rather than desire, though there are desirable aspects to the lack of choice. Free heating, for one. Don't knock it, kids. If you're lucky enough to get a job, the pay will probably be so poor - this being Britain, the mirror-image of Scandinavia - that much of it will be taken up with just staying warm.
If your mother or father is doing your washing - I just put that in to be politically correct; everybody knows it's your maw - then consider how much time that frees up for you to read poetry or listen to heavy metal.
I wonder, though, if you're really happy. Don't you yearn for independence? The figures from the Office for National Statistics are UK-wide, so it's not as if it's just a Scottish phenomenon. Here, the i-word, while strong and virile in normal countries, has been rendered a terrifying concept, liable to set off the trembling lip and knocking knee.
Here, we have an excuse. But the UK-wide figures show that 3.3 million 20 to 34-year-olds were living with their parents last year. That's up by 25%, or 669,000 citizens, since records began 18 years ago.
I'm not knocking it with my knees or anything else. Indeed, I'm encouraged by it. Liberal dafties are forever trying to reduce the age of everything, from proper, state-sanctioned sex to the right to a vote. At a time when we're all living longer, this doesn't make sense. Everything should be stretched out more to accommodate the new longevity, including adolescence, irresponsibility and lack of democracy.
The idea that 16-year-olds have the vote is almost as chilling as the idea that over-16s have it. But democracy has to start somewhere: say, at around 56, my age coincidentally, by which time you're cynical enough to cast your vote responsibly.
Perhaps the decline in independent living among young people has been caused by the virtual demise of the bedsit. Once, that was where we all started. It wasn't perfect but, oh, the thrill of a place of one's own (even if owned by another).
Then there was flat-sharing. Perhaps, in our privatised society, it's increasingly difficult to find like-minded inebriates with whom to share a flat.
But most likely it comes down to lack of cash. Hardly anyone in Britainshire has money. It's the natural order of things, apparently, and there's nothing you can do about it, except perhaps break something, preferably in the privacy of your parents' home.
And what of the parents? How happy are they to have you there? Perhaps, if you've become less surly and opinionated after adolescence has passed, they don't mind.
You probably contribute, if pathetically, towards the bills, and at least they know what you're up to as they hear the ponderous sounds of Satan's Wonky Parrot throbbing through your bedroom door and wonder about the peculiar smells.
Perhaps you're a nice boy or girl. And your father is paternal and your mother maternal, and they're both so tolerant, guiding and understanding. I've heard of such families, but only in 1970s sitcoms. Even then, the offspring were teenagers.
Still, good luck with it all. You'll fly the coop one day. Presumably. But, really, there's no rush. Wee secret: it's not all that great out there on your own.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article