The latest child poverty poster from YesScotland is an insult to every low income parent and child in Scotland.
The latest child poverty poster from Yes Scotland is an insult to every low income parent and child in Scotland, writes Peter Russell
The accompanying press release is clear about this image:
“a waist-down image of a little girl in scuffed and battered footwear, dirty ankle socks and a ragged skirt.”
So what is the problem, why is a middle-aged middle class Labour voter so livid about it? Here’s why.
First, it is an outright and foul insult to every low income parent and child in Scotland and the UK, through its depiction of them as dirty, scruffy and negligent.
I took up the issue with CPAG Scotland whose director, John Dickie, confirmed:
“As you will see from our own written and visual material we are always very careful to reflect the reality that parents go to extraordinary lengths to protect their children from the poverty they face, very often going without basics themselves in order to ensure their children don’t have to go without.”
I am still at a loss to understand why CPAG Scotland did not also take me up on the challenge that they should condemn this denigration of low income families (but that is on their conscience.)
But here is a second reason to be furious about the poster: the figure of 100,000 extra children in poverty by 2020. This is in direct contradiction to the Scottish government’s own White Paper which tells us that by the same date the increase will be by 50,000.
Any single child being forced into poverty is of course an outrage, and certainly 50,000 is too high, but the point here is that there is a discrepancy of 100 per cent between the Scottish government and Yes Scotland.
Why should anyone believe either figure, both of which are being used for partisan propaganda purposes?
In the poster, the small print says in advocating independence:
“There is only one guaranteed way to reverse the growing number of children living in poverty.”
This is a lie.
There are other ways; above all changes in government policy at a UK level, which would also benefit children in poverty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This may require a change of government, but is does not require independence.
And there is no ‘guarantee’ that independence will reverse the trend.
Anyone reading the poster would imagine that there is a comprehensive, fully-costed proposal for the alleviation of child poverty on the table. However, like the rest of the SNP White Paper, all we have is vague assertions on child poverty: no costings, no projections, no guarantees at all.
And in fact, we know from their actions that the SNP cannot be trusted on poverty and equality issues. For example, they recently voted down a proposal to require the Scottish government’s contractors and suppliers to pay the Living Wage; similarly, they voted down a proposal for an inquiry into wage inequality.
Most tellingly, we can take the SNP’s proposal for Scandinavian-style ‘transformational’ childcare provision as an example of how it approaches policies for children and families.
It has transpired since the publication of the proposals, in the White Paper, that there is no evidence for claims which are made. No modelling, no projections, no costings: and FoI requests for this information have been rejected as being ‘not in the public interest’ (which is a laugh in itself: how is the public interest not served by information which will help it make its mind up in the referendum?).
These examples all show that the Nationalists are only interested in child poverty as a propaganda tool, and as a stick with which to beat the UK.
There can be no greater contrast than with the UK Labour governments 1997-2010, which introduced the Minimum Wage and Working Families Tax credits as well as many other measures which reduced child poverty by nearly 1,000,000 across the UK including 100,000 in Scotland (these were described as “heroic” by the UK CPAG, and were surely just well appreciated by its Scottish arm.)
An incoming Labour government could do the same again, across the UK. What is needed is not a change of nationality for Scots, but a change of government and a change of policies.
The difference is clear: it is between those who see child poverty and will act to fight it, and those in Yes Scotland and the SNP who are concerned only as far as it suits their narrow partisan agenda.
The public should now know:
- They will use disgraceful images of people in poverty which suggest that low income families neglect their children, and allow them to go dirty and a scruffy, if they think it will win votes.
- If there is any doubt, Nationalists and their misguided supporters will choose the highest available figure to inflate their claims.
- They will make claims which are unsupported and they know they cannot support, and when asked to do so, they will claim it is not in the public’s interest to know about such things.
There are three conclusions which we can draw from this disgraceful episode.
The first is that YesScotland is desperate and will do anything, and say anything, to get a referendum vote.
The second is that the SNP Scottish government has only a skin-deep commitment to equality and to tackling child poverty.
And the third is that if there is a little girl with dirty legs, a frayed skirt and scuffed shoes, what she needs is a bath, some new clothes and some shoe polish.
A greater income for her parents, be they in work or unemployed, is what will help with these, while independence will not help in the slightest.
Peter Russell blogs at Planet Pedro!
116 Responses to “Why am I angry about Yes Scotland’s latest poster on child poverty? Let me show you”
bobduncan
The argument is that recent history demonstrated that the current constitutional arrangement will lead to a massive increase in child poverty, while independence gives us the opportunity to create a more equal society and reverse this trend. While the former is guaranteed, at least in the medium term, I agree that the latter is not. It is possible that a future Scottish Labour government of an independent Scotland could be as neoliberal as the current UK Labour party, and kill off the equality project in a single term of office. However, that is based on a number of unlikely assumptions, such as any manifesto of this type gaining popular support in an iScotland, given the political revolution which is underway right now.
As usual, all I see here is faux outrage at a truly democratic mass movement which is trying to actually achieve what the remaining left of the Labour party can only talk about now. Take some time to actually come to Scotland and speak with the real socialists who are campaigning for a better way.
Sean Branney
As opposed to Labour and their £450 better off after cutting VAT ad campaign, with a background full of 0% VAT items…
Rob Kay
OK, lets have a picture of a well-fed, well-dressed, attractive child as an illustration of child poverty? C’mon! Get real, this is perfectly legitimate. At least she has shoes 😉
Rob Kay
Well said, Bob. And many of us call ourselves Greens, and have no truck with Nationalism: we are Internationalists.
Mat Bob Jeffery
As someone who grew up in a working class background, who has shitty clothes with holes in them, too small, rarely washed etc… My question to you is this.
Why the fuck should I give a shit about your views? You… the middle aged, middle class labour voter whose experiences are completely removed from what people like me have gone through? My poverty wasn’t due to negligent parenting, it was down to a system which didn’t go anywhere near enough helping my family. I don’t see what you see in this poster. I see a desire to want to ensure that no child has to go through what I, and sadly many other children have gone through.
And you know what? As an Englishman who grew up around 450 miles away from scottish borders, I think they’re right. The only way to guarantee a consistent progressive politics in Scotland, where the most marginalised are looked after, is for Scotland to govern themselves.
The next time you feel entitled to speak about poverty, just don’t.