THREE years ago, I found myself in my living room, capturing a moment I wanted to share with my family.
I was unboxing the Baby Box that had just arrived—a simple cardboard box filled with essentials for my soon-to-be-born child. It felt like Christmas morning to me. This box, sent by the Scottish Government, was designed to give every baby in Scotland an equal start in life, regardless of their family’s financial situation.
As I unwrapped tiny baby clothes, a digital thermometer, blankets, and nursing pads, I felt a deep, unexpected connection to my new home. This wasn’t just a box; it was a warm welcome from Scotland.
I absolutely love the Baby Box. It’s genuinely awesome. Have you seen those unboxing videos of it? There’s one with a Scottish mum-to-be, and the reactions in the comments are priceless. People are blown away. I know it sounds cheesy, but I feel so lucky to have received it.
READ MORE: Scottish independence 'different type of nationalism' to Brexit, researchers say
Inside, I also found a poem by Jackie Kay, the then-Scots makar. That poem still hangs in my child’s bedroom today. It was a personal touch, a message from Scotland saying: “We’re here for you and your baby.” The box itself is still in our home, now overflowing with toys. I’ve taken dozens of photos of my baby napping in it, and I’m excited to see it evolve as my child grows — to colour it, cover it in stickers, and continue its journey with us.
Scotland’s Baby Box programme, introduced in 2017 by then-first minister Nicola Sturgeon, was inspired by a similar initiative in Finland. The goal was simple yet profound – to ensure that every child born in Scotland had access to basic necessities from day one. The box contains around £200 worth of essential items and can even double as a cot. Since its launch, nearly 300,000 Baby Boxes have been distributed across Scotland, making it a cornerstone of the country’s social policies.
What sets the Baby Box apart is its universal nature. It’s available to all expectant parents, regardless of income, fostering a sense of equality and shared experience among new families in Scotland. It’s a tangible expression of Scotland’s commitment to its newest citizens.
However, as Scotland faces significant budget cuts, the value and necessity of such universal programmes are increasingly questioned. Despite the pressure to reduce public spending, the Scottish Government has chosen to protect the Baby Box programme.
This decision has sparked a broader debate about the role of universal benefits in times of economic austerity and their implications for the welfare state.
As a result, the Baby Box has come under scrutiny. Critics argue that in times of financial constraint, universal benefits like the Baby Box should be means-tested or even scrapped in favour of more targeted support. They believe public funds should be reserved for those who need them most.
Yet, this perspective misses a critical point – universal benefits are a bulwark against the gradual erosion of the welfare state. Many middle-class families, in Scotland and elsewhere, are wary of means-testing because they see it as a slippery slope towards dismantling social protections.
Their fears are not unfounded — the welfare state is indeed under pressure, and means-testing is often the first step in its reduction.
The appeal of universalism lies in its ability to protect against the gradual reduction of the welfare state.
READ MORE: New cruise from Scotland to Europe to launch next year
When benefits are available to everyone, regardless of income, they enjoy broad public support, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the welfare state. Once benefits are means-tested, they become easier targets for further cuts and restrictions.
Moving away from universal benefits in favour of means-testing risks undermining social solidarity. When benefits are restricted to only those deemed most in need, it creates divisions, with some feeling excluded or stigmatised. This division is particularly dangerous in times of austerity when economic hardship can exacerbate social tensions. The Baby Box, as a universal benefit, is a small but significant part of Scotland’s social contract.
In France, where I come from, there’s a similar debate around the allocations familiales – family allowances that are universally provided from the second child onwards. Historically, these benefits were given to all families regardless of income.
However, it was a socialist government that introduced a significant change. In 2015, a new law adjusted the amount of the benefit based on income. Families with two children and a monthly income of more than €6000 now receive half the standard benefit, while those earning more than €8000 see their benefits reduced by 75%. For families with more than two children, the income thresholds are adjusted upward.
Advocates for means-testing these benefits argue that public funds should be allocated only to those in greater need. Yet, this perspective overlooks an important point – universal benefits are crucial for maintaining social cohesion.
Just as in Scotland – where the Baby Box aims to ensure every newborn gets a fair start – family benefits in France have historically helped maintain a sense of national unity, even during economic downturns. By providing support to all families, regardless of income, these programmes foster a sense of shared responsibility and solidarity, which can be eroded when benefits are restricted.
The debate over Scotland’s Baby Box extends far beyond this single programme; it’s emblematic of the broader challenges facing the welfare state.
At its core, this discussion isn’t merely about whether all parents should receive a box of essentials for their newborns. Instead, it touches on the fundamental principles that underpin our social policies — principles like equality and social cohesion.
The debate about the Baby Box isn’t just about whether it should be universally available. It’s about a broader issue – the future of universal benefits and the welfare state as a whole. Those who question the universality of the Baby Box are potentially opening the door to a slippery slope.
READ MORE: Edinburgh Council announces plans for new eco-friendly neighbourhood
Today, it’s the Baby Box under scrutiny; tomorrow, they might want us to debate whether the NHS should remain free for everyone or become means-tested. They could push for discussions on whether universal free prescriptions should continue or be restricted to lower-income individuals.
Higher education could also come under fire — should it remain accessible to all, or become a privilege reserved for those who can afford it?
These concerns are not merely hypothetical. In times of austerity, when governments face tough financial decisions, the temptation to cut costs by targeting benefits only to the poorest can be strong. Yet, this approach risks undermining the very fabric of our social contract.
This debate is also closely tied to the principle of progressive taxation, which ensures that those with greater means contribute more, helping to fund services that benefit everyone. If we start means-testing benefits, middle and higher-income earners might question why they should continue paying higher taxes for services they no longer receive. This could weaken support for progressive taxation and put the welfare state at risk.
At its core, the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” captures the essence of universal benefits supported by progressive taxation. It’s about creating a society where everyone’s needs are met while ensuring that those who can contribute more do so.
As we look at the future of the Baby Box, we need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to build. The choices we make now will not only impact the Baby Box but also shape the future of our welfare state and the social contract that binds us all.
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