Why you won't hear about child poverty improving in Scotland
A study carried out by The Big Issue magazine reports that the incidence of child poverty in Scotland has dropped by 12% since the Scottish Government introduced reduction targets into law in 2017. This is equivalent to 21,000 children who are no longer living in poverty.
However, over the same time period, the incidence of child poverty in England and in Labour-run Wales increased by 15%. The magazine writes that England and Wales must follow the lead of Scotland and set legal targets to reduce child poverty.
READ MORE: Nato chief calls Donald Trump 'Daddy' during press conference
An analysis of UK child poverty statistics which was conducted alongside the publication of a new Big Issue report, highlights the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, which introduced statutory targets for reducing child poverty, as marking a divergence in the trajectories of the issue of child poverty in the various nations of the UK. Since the passing of the Act in Scotland, there has been a 27% divergence in the incidence of child poverty between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other.
The Scottish government's landmark act, which received royal assent and passed into law in December 2017, was the cause of the start of a significant divergence in child poverty levels between the home nations. Before 2018, Scotland had seen similar rises in relative child poverty to England and Wales.
Child poverty in Scotland rose by 19% between 2015 and 2018, only marginally slower than England and Wales at 23%. The Big Issue is calling on the UK Government to introduce similar statutory targets for reducing child poverty in England and Wales, citing Scotland as an example of how significant progress can be made.
(Image: PA)
The rise of poverty in the UK over recent decades is a shameful story of government failure and the capitulation of the British government to the interests of the wealthy. Currently in the UK, 3.8 million people are living in destitution, the most extreme form of poverty. This is defined as when people struggle to keep themselves warm, clean, fed, and clothed. Shockingly, this number is rising markedly; destitution has more than doubled in the UK over the last 7 years.
Meanwhile, income inequality has grown more rapidly in the UK than in other developed economies. The UK is now the ninth most unequal economy out of the 38 OECD countries. Wealth inequality in the UK is far worse than income inequality, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the top fifth of the population take 36% of the UK's income and hold 63% of its wealth, while the bottom fifth of the population have only 8% of the income and a mere 0.5% of the wealth.
It is categorically not that there is no money to tackle poverty, it's that the rich are jealously hoarding it like a dragon curled up on a pile of gold and jewels, and governments are full of politicians who are in effect clients of the dragons, bought and paid for with political donations.
(Image: PA)
Scotland's government lacks the full powers of an independent state, but even with the limited economic levers at its disposal, the Scottish Government has achieved a remarkable success in reducing the incidence of child poverty in Scotland. As part of the UK, Scotland is subject to the economic constraints imposed upon it by the government in Westminster, but has still managed to reduce child poverty in Scotland. What this proves is that the rise in child poverty in the rest of the UK is a political choice, a damning political choice which tells us that Westminster is morally bankrupt.
A report on the findings of the latest British Social Attitudes survey has laid bare the disconnection between the Labour government, the main British political parties and what people actually want. This disconnection is starkest when it comes to the issue of Brexit. A large majority of people in the UK, 63%, would support rejoining the EU if the issue was put to them in a referendum. This figure is even higher in Scotland where some polls have put the figure at 70%.
Most of those who voted Labour in last year's Westminster general election supported rejoining the EU. Yet despite this Labour doggedly doubles down on Theresa May's red lines and refuses to countenance even rejoining the European single market and customs union.
Meanwhile, new polling from YouGov finds that voters who have deserted Labour since last year's general election are much more likely to vote Green or Lib Dems, than Reform. Green and Lib Dem defectors are also much more likely to consider switching back to Labour than Reform voters who overwhelmingly say they're committed to Farage's party.
But Starmer continues in his quixotic and damaging pursuit of Reform UK, adopting policies which ramp up the performative cruelty against migrants and asylum seekers and throwing the LGBT community under the bus.
Today, Labour government figures are still insisting that they intend to follow through on their deeply damaging cuts to benefits payments to the disabled, some of the most vulnerable in society, in the face of a growing rebellion amongst its own backbenchers. Yesterday 108 Labour MPs had signed an amendment to the government's bill, which would effectively kill it.
In response, the government reportedly called Labour MPs to tell them that the vote would effectively be a vote of confidence in Keir Starmer, whereupon the number of Labour MPs who signed the amendment rose to 120. It is believed senior cabinet ministers, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Health Secretary Wes Streeting, called MPs who had signed the amendment to try to convince them to vote with the government, with very little success. Never mind being a government that is disconnected from its voters, Starmer's government is disconnected from its own MPs.
Pressure is also growing on Anas Sarwar, who had expressed his support for the cuts, after a tenth Labour MP representing a Scottish constituency signed the amendment opposing the cuts.
Glasgow North East MP Maureen Burke added her name to the amendment yesterday, joining fellow Labour MPs Patricia Ferguson, Brian Leishman, Tracy Gilbert, Scott Arthur, Richard Baker, Lilian Jones, Elaine Stewart, Kirsteen Sullivan, and Euan Stainbank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
The Documentary Podcast Inside the US trans military ban
One of the first executive orders that President Donald Trump signed in his second term of office stated that being transgender is incompatible with the 'rigorous standards necessary for military service'. It set the stage for a ban on trans people serving in the military, regardless of ability, rank or service history. Official figures say there are 4,240 transgender service members in the US armed forces, however research commissioned by the US Defense Department in 2016 estimated there could be up to around 10,000. Over the past four months the BBC has been following the stories of two trans service people as the executive order took effect. Both have served 17 years in the military, and are now facing the threat of a dishonourable discharge. Archive sources: NBC News, FOX News, CBS News, CNN, Chicks on the Right, Newsmax, 9 News, WKYC, ABC News, US Army's School of Advanced Military Studies
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
In defence of exorcism
British politics and ghosts are subjects that rarely meet. Sometimes an MP or parliamentary aide might report a sighting of one of various spirits that inhabit the Palace of Westminster. It is said, for instance, that the ghost of the assassin John Bellingham haunts the Commons lobby at the spot where he gunned down Spencer Perceval. And last year the diary secretary to speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle excited the tabloids with her claim that once, in one of parliament's side rooms, she felt a phantom dog nuzzling against her leg. In general, though, politicians aren't preoccupied with the paranormal. One exception is David Bull, the former TV presenter of Most Haunted Live! and the new chairman of Reform UK. On Good Morning Britain earlier this month, he was asked by Richard Madeley whether he had ever seen a ghost. Not only did Bull admit to having driven with a ghost in the boot of his car, he also told how a poltergeist had taken hold of the celebrity medium, Derek Acorah, and tried to strangle him. This story was retold the other week with sceptical merriment at The Spectator's weekly editorial meeting. Feeling that I should intervene in support of the supernatural, I confessed to the editor and his crew that I once hired someone to perform an exorcism at my house in Maida Vale. Merriment turned to suspiciously demonic laughter. What were the supernatural events that led to my experience with exorcism? I am a heavy sleeper, but even I was occasionally woken by the banging of doors on the second floor. But not as much as friends who had to sleep in the guest room. They also reported sudden chills and apparitions. The man I turned to for help was not a priest but a dowser. He was a big cheese in the British Society of Dowsers. He was not at all 'new age'; he looked and spoke like an accountant. He identified the spirit of a young girl crouching in the corner of the room and thought that she had probably been a prostitute. Villas built in Little Venice in the 19th century, often for mistresses, became brothels in the 1920s. The Warrington public house on Randolph Avenue, close by my home, was a famous house of ill repute. Some have suggested that the word 'randy' (lustful) derives from the location. To release the ghost from her physic imprisonment, I was encouraged to knock a double door between two guest rooms at great expense. It worked. No more banging doors. I was so convinced by my dowser that when I later bought a pied-à-terre in Kensington Gardens Square, I got him to give it a psycho-spiritual once-over. My account leaves one big unanswered question. Why did I believe so readily in the presence of a pesky ghost in my house? The answer is simple. I have previous experience of the supernatural. Some years earlier I was sitting in my apartment in Bombay when I was called to the telephone. A woman called Rita Rogers wanted to speak to me. She told me that my father, Frank, who had died some years earlier, was sending me a message. He wanted me to have his gold Rolex watch. Not only had I never heard of Rita (who later became famous as the clairvoyant who gave advice to Princess Diana), nor she of me, but she could not have known about my father or his watch. I rang my mother, who told me that she had been meaning to give it to me. It was handed over. As communication from beyond the grave goes, it did make me wonder why my father had sent me such a humdrum message. Despite my own supernatural experiences, I still find it difficult to take ghost stories seriously – even my own. As a historian and geopolitical analyst, I live in a world of facts, evidence and logic. When friends or acquaintances tell me about the time they saw a ghost, I pass it off as an amusing anecdote in which I only half-believe. By contrast, for most of history society has taken this stuff very seriously. The best-known early account of exorcism took place at Gerasene, near the Sea of Galilee. Here Jesus met a lunatic possessed by demons (literally 'unclean spirits' in Greek) and asked his name. 'My name is Legion, for we aremany.' Legion begged Jesus to 'send us among the pigs'. The demons were duly despatched into a nearby herd of pigs, which rushed into a lake and drowned. But exorcism predates Christianity. In the first millennium bc, shamans in Mesopotamia called asipu performed exorcisms. The Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus recorded how a holy man called Eleazar called on King Solomon to draw demons out ofthe noses of victims. Meanwhile, demons in the Islamic world, jinn, have always been dealt with by exorcists called raqui. In the West, the publication of De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam ('Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications') in 1614 defined the practice of exorcism until minor adjustments were made in Vatican II. These changes stressed the connection between exorcism and baptism. It's a connection heavily emphasised in the Orthodox churches, which do exorcisms all the time. 'At every baptism we spit on Satan – literally,' one accomplished icon painter told me. The practice of exorcism today is seen by some to be an archaic medieval hang-over. But Pope Francis in an interview warned against the 'spiritual lukewarmness' that left people open to 'diabolical possession'. According to Vatican News, the demand for exorcisms in Italy has tripled in recent years and annual requests exceed half a million. Some attribute this to an increased use of recreational drugs and psychiatric disorders. In Britain, exorcisms are carried out by specially trained priests – in the Church of England there are 42, one for each diocese. And although they don't like to publicise it, NHS consultant psychiatrists have been known to work with exorcists (or 'deliverance ministers', as the C of E calls them) to treat patients with mental health problems. The belief in ghosts is an important part of human history. And despite the sceptics, it still has a place in modern life. It would be a great subject for Reform's new chairman to get his teeth into.
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
What a carve up! The British flair for disastrous partition
We think of the Raj as controlling only India and Pakistan, and its infamous breakup happening in August 1947. It's a story told and filmed so often, and whose echoes reverberate today with such nuclear sabre-rattling that surely there is little left to add. And please nobody mention Edwina Mountbatten's possible affair with Jawaharlal Nehru ever again. But there is a wider, and fascinating, history which has itself been partitioned off and ignored. We forget that more than a quarter of the world's population was ruled by the Viceroy from New Delhi, in a zone that spread from the Red Sea to the borders of Thailand – an empire within an empire, which included Burma, parts of Yemen and Gulf states such as Dubai. The division of this single and much larger British 'Indian Empire' created almost all of the conflicts that plague Asia today. These include civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka, the ongoing insurgencies in Baluchistan and north-east India, the Iranian revolution, the rise of the Taliban and the Rohingya genocide. It was high time that these wider divisions should have been examined in detail, and Sam Dalrymple does so in some style. Shattered Lands has a huge range, and the material is deftly handled to describe how a single, sprawling dominion, using the Indian rupee throughout, became 12 modern nations. Burma (as it then was) is particularly fascinating, as Dalrymple upends the common assumption that somehow there was a natural frontier between that country and India which was just waiting to be restored. Far from it. When the Simon Commission arrived in 1928 – with the young Clement Attlee as a junior member 20 years before he oversaw actual Indian independence – it was tasked with making proposals about the colonies' futures. It found that the idea of separating off Burma met with huge opposition – from the Burmese themselves, many of whom were concerned that without India their thriving economy would fail. The most senior politician, U Ottama, a disciple of Gandhi, argued that Burma was an integral part of the Indian nation. Gandhi himself was more equivocal – not least because he was already drawn to the idea of recreating Bharat, the Hindu Holy Land of the ancient Mahabarata epic. This was to make him a far more divisive figure in India than the West often allows; and neither Burma nor Arab states such as Dubai could be any part of that. Nor, of course, could a significant Muslim presence. Dalrymple is excellent on how Gandhi ('cosplaying as a sadhu') and his follower Nehru exploited the fact that for personal reasons the Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah took his eye off an inswinger ball at a crucial moment; and how the 'Nehru Report' could suggest dispensing with separate electorates for Muslims or reserved seats in parliament, a crucial requirement for a more unified nation. Those personal reasons are also moving. The tall, patrician figure of Jinnah, known for his reserve and serious approach as a barrister and politician, fell deeply in love in 1918, aged 42, with Ruttie Petit, the 18-year-old daughter of a Parsi baronet. Sir Dinshaw Petit was not amused and put Jinnah in the dock, alleging abduction. The case failed; but so did the marriage, and Ruttie soon became a sad, drug-dependent casualty who died, aged 29, leaving Jinnah a shadow of his former self. Jinnah, not Gandhi, comes across in this account as the politician most concerned at an early stage to have a secular India where the two majority faiths could live together; and a larger India to include Burma, so as to further leaven a multi-faith state. Dalrymple tells the subsequent story of the Japanese invasion of Burma (woefully unforeseen by the British) and the exodus by its Indian inhabitants. There is a brilliant mix of narrative history with moving personal accounts of those who took part in what was a long, gruelling march through the jungle. If there is one common theme that emerges from his description of the further partitions that followed, it is the cack-handed and casual way many British colonial officers drew border lines on the map for 'administrative convenience'. These arbitrary divisions were to cause generational conflicts – including in Afghanistan, with the division of the Pathans from Pakistan, and the current conflicts in Myanmar with the Rohingya. What is it about the British temperament that made us so capable of running an empire but so hopeless when it came to dividing it? A lack of emotional intelligence and empathy? Our habit of compromise might be admirable for day-to-day administration but is less useful for the building of new nations, when what was needed were clean lines not fudged ones. The shards left from such clumsy partitions in southern Asia are still drawing blood. This is a book full of what-ifs and how it could all have gone a different way. At one point just before 'the Great Partition', the tantalising idea of a federal India emerged, supported by Jinnah. This would have been on the model of the United Kingdom, in which Pakistan and India would have coexisted; and would have done so alongside other states, such as the Gulf ones. At the time considered deserts and of no value, these would later have wielded such oil riches as to make 'United India' a dominant economic power in the world. Instead, Mountbatten pressed the button on full partition and allowed only ten weeks to prepare for it ('Everyone will be shocked into action'), with disastrous consequences: at least a million deaths, at a conservative estimate, in the Punjab alone. Dalrymple delivers his account at pace and with a keen eye for the telling detail. The ambition for what is his first book is impressive, and there is an admirably inclusive set of maps for those who don't know their Srinagars from their Sri Lankas. It's quite something for an author to claim that he has conducted his interviews in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Konyak, Arabic and Burmese. This is a book that combines scholarship with a flair for narrative story-telling of the highest order. And the story of India's 'other partitions' has remained untold for too long.
