It's been a while since we've heard the phrase "we're all in it together".
It was always a laughable soundbite but the hard reality being experienced by so many Scots is far from funny. This week we learned that one in 10 of the population lives in severe poverty, with a total of 820,000 people in poverty. More than half of the children affected have at least one adult in the household working full time.
Today, as George Osborne rises to the despatch box and Danny Alexander prepares to tour the TV studios - both no doubt claiming some sort of recovery - we must consider the appalling impact austerity has had, and how it has embedded the problem of in-work poverty, particularly for children and women.
Treasury data show that £11.1 billion of the £14.9bn raised from the Coalition's first five spending reviews came from women. The only women who seem to have benefited from the Osborne and Alexander economic slash-and-burn policy are those few who earn more than £150,000. It's worth noting that 85 per cent of higher rate taxpayers are men.
Women are the biggest users of public services and are more likely to be affected by public-sector job losses, pension changes and wage freezes. Any party continuing to talk about cuts clearly hasn't been listening to Scotland's women.
Some 43 per cent of working age adults in severe poverty are in households where at least one adult is in employment. We must stop subsidising employers who pay poverty wages. My party's policy is to make the Living Wage a minimum wage without delay and see that rise gradually to £10 an hour by 2020. Small businesses will need support and all businesses deserve time to plan. But the days of big business paying poverty wages with the taxpayer making up the difference must stop.
We've seen, for example, the Scottish Government giving Amazon a grant of £4.3m with a further offer of £6.3m. Amazon paid just £4.2m in UK taxes last year, despite selling £4.3bn worth of goods. The excuse given by ministers is that Amazon creates jobs but let's examine that claim carefully. How many jobs were promised compared to what's been delivered, and are these jobs well-paid, satisfying and secure? What's more, what jobs have been lost as a result of such a big company being helped to dominate the marketplace, and how comfortable are we that its profits don't recirculate in the local economy?
Thinking of the workers of the future, what message are we sending to young people with an apprenticeship wage of just £2.73 an hour? This means some young people up to the age of 25 are working 30 hours a week for a monthly wage packet of just £327.60. The latest proposal by the UK Government is to raise this by a whopping 57p. It speaks volumes that this meagre offer has "disappointed" the CBI. I recall during the Holyrood economy committee's inquiry into Scotland's financial future that the CBI's then Scottish boss said inequality was an abstract term. It also suggests we're on the right track if the free-market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, says the Low Pay Commission is being used "as a vehicle to reduce inequality".
Another aspect to consider is the differences in equality across Scotland. My own city of Edinburgh is top of the heap for paying at least the Living Wage. But in rural areas such as Angus, and Dumfries and Galloway, and post-industrial areas such as Ayrshire between one quarter and one third of people earn less than the Living Wage. We need to spread the creation of jobs throughout Scotland, along with improving public transport and childcare so people can get to work, education and training.
I know from speaking to constituents that Edinburgh's decent figures mask the reality of benefit sanctions, wages stagnating and a jobs market that has become insecure. I know of parents who have been referred to foodbanks and the social stigma that comes with is simply confidence-shattering.
By tackling in-work poverty we can rebuild Scotland's confidence.
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