The scale of these flows has waxed and waned, but it is clear cross-border flows of people today are at high levels historically. 7 In London, the fraction of non-UK born residents was almost 3 million or 37% of the population in 2011. And Edinburgh has the largest non-UK born population of any region in Scotland at 16%. Accompanying this co-mingling of ethnicities and cultures has been an evolution, bordering on revolution, in social attitudes. Through the course of several centuries, laws have emerged forbidding discrimination based on race, gender, disability, ethnicity and age. And, during the latter part of the 20th century, there has been rapid growth in a new set of social norms and policies to promote diversity in schools and universities, in the workplace, in sport and leisure activities and in wider society. One interesting window on these changing societal attitudes is provided by looking at the etymological roots and evolution of the word “diversity” itself. These can be traced to the Latin “divertere” meaning “to turn aside” – which in turn led to our word ‘divert’, meaning to change course - and the old French expression “diversite” meaning “difference, uniqueness, oddness”. In other words, the semantic roots of diversity support a dual interpretation, part positive, part negative. 8 That dual interpretation has continued through the ages. Chart 1 plots the incidence of the word diversity in books printed since the 15th Century. 9 Diversity entered the English lexicon in the mid-14th century. At that time, its meaning was broadly neutral.
After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October 2008, the turmoil mutated into a full-blown financial “crisis” and many market segments seized up. The “Great Moderation” gave way to the “Great Recession”, characterised by a massive fall in industrial output and trade. BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  Policy interventions were made by central banks and other public authorities to restore and secure the orderly functioning of markets and economies. I like to think of the interventions by public authorities as “lines of defence” against the crisis. They proved successful in guaranteeing those authorities’ ability to continue delivering macroeconomic and financial stability against the crisis. Let me recall briefly the three main lines of defence: central banks increased their provision of liquidity and financial intermediation services; monetary and fiscal authorities adjusted their policies in order to mitigate the macroeconomic impact of the crisis; and governments implemented a variety of measures in support of the financial sector. The government measures adopted in response to the economic crisis – both those related to fiscal policy and those in support of the banking sector – did not come cheap. This is true not only in the euro area, but – more generally – in all advanced economies. Together with the impact on government budgets of the massive economic contraction recorded during the crisis, they led to a significant deterioration in the public finances of a number of economies in the euro area.