HUMZA Yousaf has branded Gordon Brown’s criticism of Social Security Scotland as “highly partisan”.
Ex-Labour leader Brown took issue with the Scottish Government setting up a separate agency in order to deliver additional benefits than provided by the UK Government in an interview with The Scotsman.
He described it as a “waste of money” and said the Scottish Government wanted it for “status reasons”.
Yousaf was asked by The National what his response was to the comments following a climate speech he made in Edinburgh alongside US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry.
READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn backs indyref2 and says Labour should support it
He said: “I’m astonished that an individual who purports to support further devolution believes that Social Security Scotland – whose actions has helped to lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty – is a status symbol or a waste of money, particularly as I genuinely believe Gordon Brown is someone who passionately believes in the reduction of poverty.
“His remarks were highly partisan and I would ask him to think twice about making such comments because they are unfair to the men and women who work so hard at Social Security Scotland.”
Social Security Scotland has delivered 13 devolved benefits, seven of which are only available in Scotland.
The former prime minister claimed that instead of Scotland setting up its own agency, it should have relied upon UK’s Department for Work and Pensions.
Brown said: “Whatever benefits the Scottish Government decide, can be paid through the Department for Work and Pensions.
“So why did the Scottish Government spend £700 million in resources setting up a separate social security agency, when if you wanted a child poverty payment, it could be through the Department for Work and Pensions? I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to that question.”
Many questioned the consistency of Brown’s statement with the apparent pro-devolution stance of his dark money think tank Our Scottish Future including SNP MP David Linden who said he was shocked to see Brown “siding with the Tories” and standing in the way of more powers to tackle poverty coming to Scotland.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel