WITH an election so soon, the new research from the End Child Poverty Coalition showing that across the UK 29% of children are living in poverty has surely got to put tackling child poverty at the top of every candidate’s campaign cards.
It is concerning to me that UK children are growing up in homes where they go without meals, appropriate clothing or heating. Surely in an age of AI, Deliveroo and space travel, we can eradicate this ail on our society?
READ MORE: SNP's safest Glasgow seat will indicate party's General Election fate
Poverty does not affect all families in the same way. As a young person who grew up in a single-parent home in poverty, the research’s finding that 44% of children in lone-parent families are in poverty after housing costs, compared with just 25% of children in couple-parent families, really struck home. Meanwhile, there remains persistent ethnic inequalities in child poverty across the UK, with 47% of children in Asian or Asian British households, and 53% of those in Black households, in poverty after housing costs. This is compared with just 25% of those where the head of household was white.
I understand that in order to address the increasing numbers of children in poverty, the End Child Poverty Coalition are calling for an end to the two-child limit to benefit payments, as part of their All Kids Count campaign. If the government were to scrap this policy, which prevents larger families from claiming child-related benefits for their third or subsequent child, 250,000 children would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
In the meantime, the Scottish Government should invest further in the Scottish Child Payment, both to increase its value and to provide additional payments for families affected by the UK’s two-child limit until it is abolished. That would make sure that this is not a “cruel summer” for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children.
Michael Heffernan
Edinburgh
IN any good, productive team that wishes to be successful in the world there needs to be balance. Could you imagine a football team that is biased to one side as opposed to the other? It means that one socio-economic group is getting support, and the other side or wing does not get any ball.
The incoming Labour government has taken the Conservatives’ clothes. It seems the Labour and the Conservative parties are occupying the same part of the pitch, leaving the other side vacant.
READ MORE: Brexit proved Scotland is in a 'Westminster knows best' union, says Swinney
Pursuit of power often causes the dumping of historic policy objectives. In this case Labour have apparently dropped their protective cloak from the NHS, according to quotes attributed to Wes Streeting from UK Labour social media.
This change has been ongoing for some time. In 2015 the aspiring Chancellor of Exchequer Rachel Reeves stated “We [the UK Labour Party] are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work.”
Where has the UK left wing to keep the right wing in check gone? Landslides are not good for people or society or politics. Not Conservative, Labour or any other party.
We will regret this quasi-Labour government as another five years of austerity awaits us.
Alistair Ballantyne
Angus
THE Sunday National posed the question, "is the current Stone of Destiny the original?" The answer to that is clear: it is certainly not.
What the original stone was, and where it came from, is not known. Its origin seems to be in per-historic legends, but what is clear is that the stone which was used for coronations in Scotland before 1296 was not from Scone, or indeed from Perthshire. It had been in Argyll for some time before it was brought to Scone. It was reported to have been a heavy black smooth stone, possibly a meteorite, with carvings on it, which was brought to Scotland from Ireland and was claimed to have been brought to Ireland from the Middle East.
READ MORE: John Swinney hits out after Keir Starmer 'gender ideology' comments
This present stone is just a lump of uncommon rock which was cut from a quarry in Perthshire, which I am sure could be scientifically confirmed today.
This substitute stone was used by the monks at Scone Abby in 1296 to prevent Edward I of England taking the real Stone of Destiny from Scone after he defeated the Scottish royal army in the south and came north to get the stone.
It is clear that after the peace agreement between Robert the Bruce and Edward III in 1328, when the stone was supposed to be returned Bruce did not concern himself with getting this stone back. If it was the real stone, this would have been important to Bruce in order to held confirm his son as rightful king.
Bruce would have known if the stone Edward I took was real or not, because his family were close enough to the Scottish monarchy to have known all about the original stone. His lack of interest in the return of the lump of sandstone from Westminster – when he knew he was not long for this world, and that his son would need all the traditional supports he could get to establish his right to the throne – is, I believe, a clear indication the he knew the stone was not the real one and he knew where the real one was.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
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 here