Just seen the Scottish news on tv. The third story is that the Child Poverty Action Group CPAG (Scotland) has issued a report decrying the fact that levels of child poverty in Scotland, after falling, is now on the increase.
But what are we all talking about? What was the headline on the UK and the Scottish news? The bloody Constitution, that's what.
If there ever was an indication of the irrelevance of the Nationalist obsession with "independence" to the everyday existence of the real Scottish people, this is it.
Why oh why are we not working together to solve these real problems, poverty, unemployment, education, health... instead of being blown off course by bogus questions on abstract idiocies like "independence"?
Will your pension provide for your old age?
11 hours ago
yes a very serious situation that should be tackled. but to use it as a dig to get some point scoring against the independence debate is nothing short of puerile.
ReplyDeletenot a dig, a fact.
ReplyDeletewe're wasting all our political time and energy on the constituion, and we will be doing so for years when there are real problems to address. now.
That'll be why most of the flapping about the "bloody constitution" has come from the opposition parties at Holyrood then...
ReplyDeleteAllan
ReplyDeleteit doesn't matter who it comes from (in fact I've seen more of AS and NS on telly and rasdio in the last three days than in the last three weeks)...
...it matters that we are wasting our energies on abstract questions of the constitution when, as I point out in the post and which you don't address, child poverty is increasing and we have other real problems that need addressing now.
An "independent" Scotland would not help one child currently struggling in poverty, it would build not one new school, or hospital, or employ not one new nurse or doctor or policeman.....
I don't care about abstractions, I care about people.
Over to you.
No over to you and your party who loved the rich and famous over everything else.
ReplyDeletesign the petition to David Cameron for tax justice
Are you Allan...?
ReplyDeleteLabour has had over 50 years to address problems like that and done nothing, why assume they might have a solution now? You could easily make a case for arguing that labour has exacerbated those sort of problems if anything. The so called shift to the middle of the political spectrum, really a move to the right, a trajectory that Miliband is firmly still on, doesn't fill any of with confidence that Labour might do anything here.
ReplyDeleteActually, looking at Tom Harris's recent ramblings on this sort of thing, he makes it clear Labour will focus on working people rather than the poor generally -- he actually states that, after all, Labour is not a charity -- and makes much of the fact that Labour means work and gives a totally twisted version of the party's history in terms of it being created to singularly advance the interests of workers... You'd have to ask him where the welfare state etc fits in to that warped analysis.
Bye bye Scottish Labour -- you used to have a soul, now you have YouTube.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteChild poverty had been falling and is now on the increase.
"independence" will probably make it worse.
And squabbling about it while the poverty worsens is an excruciating waste. My position is: why not join together to address child poverty NOW, rather than banging on about the constitution...?
It's such a waste of time and energy which children don't really have.... while we're arguing their growing up in poverty.
I care. Don't you?
You're on the wrong side and you simply can't be a good soldier in a bad war.
DeleteThe very arguments you and other unionists are using on this issue as well as many others were used to thwart independence movements in India and Egypt and elsewhere.
Only once a country achieves independence does it have a chance of eradicating poverty and making meaningful developments with its economy. History is replete with examples of that and, conversely, is replete with examples of countries that didn't achieve independence and remained economically and politically weak.
Oh, btw, if you think poverty should be some sort of priority in politics, why don't you tell the Labour party? It isn't a priority for Miliband, that's been made clear. The prevailing view in your Labour party as well as in the Tory and liberal parties is that the poor caused e recession -- not the banks -- and the poor have to pay for it.
DeleteSo if it takes ten years to get "independence", child poverty can wait....
ReplyDeletevery humane
very nice
All for a constitutional change which will probably make child poverty even worse.
I'm on the right side in this battle. You're on the wrong side, but you seem unable to face the facts.
I repeat, you're making the same arguments that colonialists, their cohorts and lackeys used in opposition to independence movements all across the world. You're arguments, then, can and should be directed at Indians, Chinese, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Irish, etc, etc... Do you think the independence movements in those countries had no concern for issues like poverty? You ask for facts, history books are full of facts that show independence movements were motivated by socialist ideas in most countries, chief amongst them was a concern for ending poverty and improving living conditions.
ReplyDeletecolonialists, cohorts, lackeys...!!!???
ReplyDeleteAnon, are you really Wolfie Smith?
http://www.tootingpopularfront.com/
Talking to a cadre like you about the (labour) party, I feel more like Winston Smith... still, fairly easy stuff.
ReplyDeleteSo, if it takes 10 years to get "independence", child poverty can wait....
ReplyDeletenice to know where you stand, W.
Poverty generally rises during times of recession and that goes without saying; in fact, it's tautological (recession could be defined as a time when poverty rises, generally speaking). In connection with that general rise, it's hardly surprising that child pverty has apparently risen to. But that's not to trivialise the subject at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat you need to look at here, if your long-term goal is to eradicate or minimise poverty, is 1) the causes of recession, and 2) the response.
In terms of causes, I'm not one of those who blindly blames the Labour Party although we would have to admit they had some responsibility in terms of policy or the lack of it in relation to the activities of banks etc. You'd have to look at other factors too, like policies on employment, industrial policy (or the lack of it), health, welfare, etc.
Thus, the causes of poverty are complex and widespread. I don't think there's a person on the planet who could doubt that.
It's when you look at the response to this recession you get into the real heart of the issue, though.
Interestingly, as I have pointed out before, it's noted that New Labour, The Tories, and Lib-Dems, all seem to have the settled view that things like welfare and pensions and wage levels in the public sector, etc, are in some way responsible. Certainly, by cutting back in these areas they believe they can resolve the problems the economy faces and for most of thus amounts to attributing blame to the wrong people. This, of course, is morally reprehensible and simply fallacious.
The Labour Party, in particular, the so called party of the people, the guardian of working class values and aspirations, etc, etc, ought to be ashamed here. Instead of defending its core support base, defenceless working class people who really had no responsibility in causing the recession, it has clearly decided to abandom them and (astonishingly) side with the tories in terms of making them pay for this mess.
We don't really see anyone doing much to hold the bankers and investors responsible. On the contrary, banks etc are making huge profits again. Recent reports suggest they are making more than they ever did both here and in the US. They got bailed out with trillions, of course, and away more than Scot-free.
So, some of us would have opted for a different response here in Scotland to the recession. A response that might include increased capital investments, employment creation programs, investment in industry, etc. All the stuff Labour used to care about before it sold its soul to middle England.
None of that is possible under the current consitutional arrangement. Tax varying powers would take money from the wrong place, create further resentment, and isn't potent enough as a tool for creating the levels of the investment that would be required to stave of recession. Note that Australia in recent years made huge investments in schools, for example, the very sort of thing I am alluding to, and they have not suffered a recession -- their economy contineus to grow year on year.
Only by achieving independence will we be able to address these problems properly. As I have said, history is replete with examples of countries who have achieved independence and went on to become economically powerful, alleviating poverty hugely in many cases and even entirely in others (Norway, for example).
So, to get back to your point. Your sticky plaster solution might allow you to pretend you have the moral high ground. A few lackey politicians might get to pull pious faces and talk about the poor kids in front of cameras. In Scotland, Labour have failed over the last 60 years to do anything about poverty, why should we expect any more from them now when they are steadily adopting Tory spending policies and cuts as their own in the background?
Gortch
Anon
ReplyDeletea long and thoughtful comment, but it misses the point. The point being: how can we do any of the stuff you outline when we are wasting our time and energy chasing "independence" which may or may not come but, if it does, will take years... meanwhile Scottish children grow up in poverty.... while politicians chunter on about the constitution.
It's unconsciensable IMO.
Since you're clearly a Labour supporter, why not ask that very question of Labour? Whilst you're at it, why not ask them why it hadn't been dealt with before too, when the economy was stronger?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it's possible to do more than one thing at once. So, we can argue the case for independence whilst addressing issues of poverty at the same time. The SNP isn't the one trick pony people accused it of and to its credit it has tackled poverty-related issues with things like prescription charges etc.
The problem of alcohol is also relevant -- a lot of children that are in poverty would be better off if their parents were not drinking so much. As you know, the SNP has addressed that too.
But, I would stress, you can't look at any single issue in the abstract. You need to look at the socio-political context as a whole, if you really want to get an understanding.
"why not ask them why it hadn't been dealt with before too, when the economy was stronger?"
ReplyDeleteUnder the Tories child poverty trebled. Labour committed to eradicate it by 2020. They had halved it when they lost the election in 2010. TBH I'm surprised you don't know these facts.
Indeed, I'm surprised that you feel the need to get involved in the discussion when you so obviously don't know the facts....
for instance, when you claim "The SNP isn't the one trick pony people accused it of and to its credit it has tackled poverty-related issues with things like prescription charges etc", you obviously don't understand that most people didn't pay prescription charges anyway.
The young, students, the over-60s, the unemployed, those on benefits, pregnant mothers etc and etc did not pay.
The main beneficiaries of the abolition of prescription charges were those in work, not young or old, who could easily afford to pay for it. About 10% -20% of the population benefitted. The abolition of prescription charges did nothing to relieve poverty.
On the other hand, it took £50 -£60 million out of the NHS. Money that could have been better spent.
Anon, forgive me if I am wrong, but I sense that you are a young person who has been fed all the Nationalist propaganda and rehearsed answers and are just regurgitating them. You really need to get hold of the facts and to think for yourself. Otherwise the nats will continue to feed you nonsense and you will continue to swallow it.
You're wrong on about 22 different levels. For a start, I'm not young. I could make an issue of your obvious dim view of young people, but I see no point.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I have better things to look at than isolated numbers that don't really explain or mean anything in the abstract. Poverty rises during a recession, I've already said that, so naturally child poverty would too -- this is so basic that it's not worth repeating but you give me little choice. You are attempting to attribute the general rise in poverty to the SNP which is ludicrous.
I gave the prescription charges as an example. According to you, that isn't going to help the impoverished -- again, this is ridiculous. For your information, there are a lot of people in work who are struggling financially. Those people can now count on free prescriptions where they could not before.
There are plenty of other issues too that I could mention, all of which have contributed to helping people who are struggling financially -- free care for the elderly, etc, etc -- but you are so obtuse and weak in terms of imbibing basic points that it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort.
Actually, I think you have shown that you are completely ignoring every point I have made and just repeating the same old pious line "what about the poor children, are we going to waste 10 years talking about independence when the poor children are siffering" sort of guff. Now that Michael jackson has mmoved on, maybe you could fill the gap he left behind in feigning concern for the children of the world. When it comes to politics, you are weak. A light-weight. You should be grateful that I even waste my time contributing to your totally insignificant blog.
Gortch
"You are attempting to attribute the general rise in poverty to the SNP which is ludicrous."
ReplyDelete"again, this is ridiculous. For your information, there are a lot of people in work who are struggling financially. Those people can now count on free prescriptions where they could not before."
I'm sure some people who needed it benefited. But the great majority of people who paid for prescription charges before (like me) could well afford it. And you've ignored that the £60m could be better spent on other health matters.
"There are plenty of other issues too that I could mention, all of which have contributed to helping people who are struggling financially -- free care for the elderly, etc, etc --"
not sure what you mean. free care for the elderly was brought in by Labour/Lib Dems before the nats got power..... so. what about it?
Actually, I think you have shown that you are completely ignoring every point I have made and just repeating the same old pious line "what about the poor children, are we going to waste 10 years talking about independence when the poor children are siffering" sort of guff.
I don't think suffering children is guff. Not at all. I do think "independence" is guff.
"Now that Michael jackson has mmoved on, maybe you could fill the gap he left behind in feigning concern for the children of the world"
Now you are just being offensive. And ridiculous.
I am not, although the SNP is in "government" is it not? So why wouldn't they share the blame.
Anyway, I'm not. I'm saying that, while we argue about the constitution and "independence", child poverty, which I think is a much more important issue, is not gettig the attention it desreves.