1

Social Exclusion

in ScotlandDr Roger Cook

July 2012

2

‘ We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.’

Voltaire

© 2012 The Scotland Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from The Scotland Institute.

3

Dear friends;

0[�PZ�^P[O�NYLH[�WSLHZ\YL�[OH[�0�PU[YVK\JL�[OPZ�ÄYZ[�YLWVY[�MYVT�[OL�Scotland Institute. Founded in June 2012, the Institute’s mission is to build an economy which is sustainable and competitive, a society where wealth is fairly distributed, and a politics which tackles social exclusion and deprivation as a matter of course.

Recognising Scotland’s marginalized communities as the untapped potential for change, this paper seeks to bring together current thinking on poverty in Scotland, in particular the concentration of poverty in particular urban areas. The aim is to bring objective and intensive scrutiny to existing statistics and reports and to bring a new perspective to old problems.

Social Exclusion in Scotland therefore explores areas beyond the \Z\HS�Z\IQLJ[Z�VM�[OL�JH\ZLZ�HUK�LɈLJ[Z�VM�WV]LY[ �̀�0[�SVVRZ�H[�[OL�\ZL�of taxation to create a more just society, the issues of low wages and ILULÄ[Z��[OL�^H`Z�[OH[�[OL�JVUJLW[�VM�H�SP]PUN�^HNL�JHU�IL�HWWSPLK�and how public/private alliances be made productive.

Social exclusion creates lasting economic costs for wider society. It is not a natural and inevitable outcome but is a product of deliberately chosen policies that it can be addressed. Scotland has prided itself on its more egalitarian society, its tradition of enlightened thinking and its educated and productive communities. To continue this proud history takes commitment; the Scotland Institute is committed to providing the research and innovative ideas to help bring this about.

I am proud to present this paper, Social Exclusion in Scotland, as the ÄYZ[�Z[LW�PU�JYLH[PUN�H�MHPYLY��OLHS[OPLY�HUK�^LHS[OPLY�ZVJPL[ �̀�^OLYL�HSS�communities have an equal footing and equal opportunities to achieve for themselves, their neighborhoods and Scotland.

Sincerely,Dr Azeem IbrahimExecutive Chairman

4

ForewordBy Martin Crewe, Director Barnardo’s Scotland

)HYUHYKV»Z�:JV[SHUK�ZLLZ�ÄYZ[�OHUK�L]LY`�KH`�[OL�KL]HZ[H[PUN�PTWHJ[�[OH[�social exclusion and persistent poverty can have on Scotland’s families and the long term prospects of their children.

Many of the children and young people we work with are from areas of high deprivation and low income. Children born into poverty by virtue of their geography, ethnicity, disability or their parent’s lack of work often spend their lives in a state of social exclusion with little chance of escape. It is well known that those from the poorest backgrounds have the poorest health, the lowest life expectancy, and the least chance of entering higher education or securing sustained employment. This should not be their birthright and it is the duty of a fair and socially just society to do everything it can to prevent it.

With upcoming reforms to the welfare system likely to push more children HUK�MHTPSPLZ�PU[V�WV]LY[`�[OL�ULLK�[V�YLKV\ISL�V\Y�LɈVY[Z�[V�[HJRSL�WV]LY[`�and its huge impact on our children has never been greater.

To address child poverty there needs to be a clear move in Scotland from crisis management to sustainable early intervention and prevention. Government must also work to address the experiences of the very poorest and lift the most challenging families out of poverty and not just focus on those on the margins, as a way of easing the statistics.

Family income is an essential starting point. It is crucial that wages are Z\ɉJPLU[S`�OPNO�MVY�[OVZL�LHYUPUN�[V�Z\WWVY[�[OLTZLS]LZ�HUK�[OLPY�MHTPSPLZ�^P[OV\[�YLS`PUN�VU�ILULÄ[Z�[V�[VW�\W�[OLPY�PUJVTL��>L�RUV^�[OH[�[OVZL�on the lowest of incomes remain caught in the poverty trap and that this WHY[PJ\SHYS`�HɈLJ[Z�[OVZL�SPRL�[OL�`V\UN��ZPUNSL�TV[OLYZ�^L�^VYR�^P[O��who can often be faced with making the choice of heating their homes or feeding for their families.

;OL�:JV[[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[�OHZ�^VYRLK�OHYK�[V�TP[PNH[L�[OL�HɈLJ[Z�VM�poverty with the powers available to it, through concepts like the ‘Social Wage’. Free prescription charges, free school meals, the council tax freeze, and free higher education have gone someway to relieving the pressure on family budgets. However, more can be done. Barnardo’s Scotland fully supports the introduction of a living wage in Scotland across all public ZLJ[VY�QVIZ�HUK�[OL�TV]L�[V^HYKZ�NYLH[LY�WYV]PZPVU�VM�MYLL�HUK�HɈVYKHISL�childcare, as a way of supporting more parents back into work.

Education is also essential to ending poverty. Those children and young people from the poorest backgrounds generally have lower attainment SL]LSZ�PU�LK\JH[PVU��HUK�[OPZ�KPYLJ[S`�HɈLJ[Z�[OLPY�LTWSV`TLU[�JOHUJLZ�and earning potential. In particular, we are still failing too many of our looked after young people, who all too often leave school early with poor X\HSPÄJH[PVUZ��@V\[O�\ULTWSV`TLU[�PZ�H[�P[Z�OPNOLZ[�SL]LS�PU�TVYL�[OHU�H�decade and if we are to prevent another ‘lost generation’ who never get a proper foothold in the world of work, then we need to ensure that our JOPSKYLU�HUK�`V\UN�WLVWSL�HYL�JVUÄKLU[��^LSS�LK\JH[LK�HUK�WYLWHYLK�MVY�work.

We live in very uncertain economic times, where the pressure on government resources and family income is likely to get worse before it gets better. There has never been a more urgent need to put in place opportunities for families to pull themselves out of poverty. Not to do so will run the risk of failing as a society and developing a permanent class of excluded and impoverished children and the resultant poor social outcomes that this creates.

We welcome the publication of this report, which highlights the persistent nature of poverty for children in Scotland, and examines some of ways that government can tackle these issues both now and as the constitutional settlement progresses.

5

About the Author

Dr Roger Cook is the Research Director at The Scotland Institute. He has a long history of research and analysis of issues connected with Social Exclusion including recruitment and success in Higher Education, mental health issues for teenagers and young adults and comparisons between various social welfare systems across Europe.

6

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION 11CHAPTER 3: SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN SCOTLAND 153.1 Current Situation 153.2 Poverty and low Income 15 3.2.1 Poverty and Income 15 3.2.2 Child Poverty 17 3.2.3 Pensioner Poverty 19 3.2.4 Persistence of Poverty 203.3 Access to, and Progression within, the Labour Market 23 3.3.1 Unemployment and Under-Employment 23 3.3.2 In-work Poverty 253.4 Access to, and Progression within, Education 263.5 Access to Health Services and Health Outcomes 29 3.5.1 Children and Health 29 3.5.2 Life Expectancy at Birth 31 3.5.3 Mental Health 323.6 The Most Deprived Areas 323.7 Rural Poverty 363.8 Social Exclusion in Terms of the Equality Agenda 373.9 Addressing Social Exclusion 36 3.9.1 Current Approaches 39 3.9.2 Further Options 41CHAPTER 4: COMPARATIVE DATA 45CHAPTER 5: THE DEVOLUTION FRAMEWORK 505.1 Assumptions 50 5.1.1 Status Quo 50 5.1.2 Devo-Max 50 5.1.3 Independence 505.2 Status Quo, ‘Devo-Max’ or Independence? 51CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS 52REFERENCES 53

7

FIGURES AND TABLESFiguresFigure 3:1 Trend in Relative Poverty (Before Housing Costs) 1999-2010 16Figure 3:2 Proportion of Income Going to the Poorest 30% 16Figure 3:3 Child Poverty in Scotland (Various Measures) 18Figure 3:4 Proportion of Children in Persistent Poverty 19Figure 3:5 Proportion of Pensioners in Persistent Poverty 20Figure 3:6 Percentage of Individuals in Persistent Poverty 21Figure 3:7 Income by Source by Income Decile 22-PN\YL��!��7YVWVY[PVU�VM�[OL�>VYRPUN�(NL�7VW\SH[PVU�>OV�HYL�<ULTWSV`LK��036�+LÄUP[PVU� 24-PN\YL��! �6\[�VM�>VYR�)LULÄ[Z�I`�:JV[[PZO�*V\UJPS�(YLH 25Figure 3:10 Proportion of Individuals in Poverty Before Housing Costs 26-PN\YL��!���7LYJLU[HNL�VM�������`LHY�VSKZ�^P[O�:*8-�3L]LS���8\HSPÄJH[PVUZ�VY�)LSV^ 27Figure 3:12 Primary 1 Children with No Obvious Dental Decay 1987-2010 30Figure 3:13 Children (2-15) Outside the Healthy Weight Range 1998-2010 30Figure 3:14 Healthy Life Expectancy at Birth 32Figure 3:15 Relative Poverty (2005-09) by Ethnic Group 38Figure 3:16 Public Sector Employment in Scotland, Q4 2011 43Figure 4:1 Alcohol Related Deaths Across the EU 48Figure 4:2 Death Rates per 100,000 Across the EU 49TablesTable 1-1 Summary of Poverty Indicators 9Table 3-1 Proportion of People in Low Income Households 2004-2009 16Table 3-2 Savings Levels by Income Decile 21Table 3-3 Income Deprivation by Local Authority 23Table 3-4 Proportion of Young Working Class Entrants to Degree Level Study 28Table 3-5 Overlap Between Particular Indicators and the Overall 5% Poorest Areas 35Table 3-6 Overlap Between Particular Indicators and the Overall 15% Poorest Areas 35Table 3-7 Relative Low Income After Housing Costs 36Table 3-8 Relative Poverty After Housing Costs (Disability) 37Table 4-1 Proportion of the Population at Risk of Poverty 45Table 4-2 Proportion of the Population with Severe Material Deprivation 46;HISL�����.PUP�*VLMÄJPLU[Z�HUK�*OHUNLZ���������� 46Table 4-4 Life Expectancy at Birth 47

8

Chapter 1: Executive Summary Scotland, since devolution in 1999, has shown a commitment to tackling the problems of social exclusion. However, overall, the outcomes have been mixed. In many cases, the areas with the greatest failings are also those where responsibility has been retained by the Westminster Parliament, but in other respects Scotland actually underperforms the rest of the UK1. The main gaps in current policies can be summarised in four related areas:

1. The provision of services for low income households – including long term savings, HJJLZZ�[V�IHZPJ�ÄUHUJPHS�ZLY]PJLZ��WVVY�X\HSP[`�OV\ZPUN�HUK�SV^�WYV]PZPVU�VM�JV\UJPS�services in certain communities;

2. The problem of in-work poverty – low hourly wage rates and lack of access to Z\ɉJPLU[�OV\YZ�VM�^VYR"

3. Educational and health outcomes – in particular access to key services and progression within education post-16 and into tertiary education;

4. Provision of support for workless families – in particular where under-employment is as much a problem as unemployment and where those families with disabled adults are particularly likely to face poverty. Equally there is a clear evidence that ethnicity is correlated to poverty.

The Scottish Government has tended to focus on the consequences of social exclusion rather [OHU�[OL�ÄUHUJPHS�JH\ZLZ�VM�WV]LY[ �̀�0U�WHY[�[OPZ�YLÅLJ[Z�[OL�L_[LU[�[OH[�KLJPZPVUZ�HIV\[�[H_H[PVU�and welfare income transfers are reserved to the Westminster Government2. Compared to the Nordic countries3 the UK lags badly behind on every indicator of social inclusion including income inequality and variations in education and health outcomes. However, compared to the rest of [OL�<2��PU�ZVTL�HZWLJ[Z�:JV[SHUK�OHZ�WLYMVYTLK�IL[[LY�HUK�PU�V[OLYZ�^VYZL��;̀ WPJHS�VM�[OL�ÄYZ[�is the rapid decline in pensioner poverty4�I\[�[OL�ZLJVUK�PZ�L_LTWSPÄLK�I`�H�YHUNL�VM�PUKPJH[VYZ�that capture the persistence of poverty over time5. This in turn indicates the core of the problem in Scotland, where social exclusion and poverty is highly concentrated, particularly in the West of Scotland6 and more generally in urban areas7. However, in rural areas and small towns, social L_JS\ZPVU�HUK�WV]LY[`�[HRLZ�VU�H�KPɈLYLU[�MVYT�HUK�OHZ�KPɈLYLU[�JVUZLX\LUJLZ8, and, as such ULLKZ�H�KPɈLYLU[�WVSPJ`�HWWYVHJO��;OL�V]LYHSS�WH[[LYU�PZ�X\PJRS`�Z\TTHYPZLK�PU�[OL�[HISL�ILSV^!

1 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

2 Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.3 EuroStat 2011. Europe in !gures: Eurostat yearbook 2011. Luxembourg: European Commission, EuroStat. 2012a. Income

and Living Conditions [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012], EuroStat. 2012b. Population Statistics [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012].4 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree

Foundation.5 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics.6 EuroStat. 2012b. Population Statistics [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/

portal/population/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012].7 Scottish Government 2009c. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 Report. Edinburgh.8 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012], Skerratt, S., Atterton, J., Hall, C., McCracken, D., Renwick, A., Revoredo-Giha, C., Steinerowski, A., "omson, S. & Woolvin, M. 2012. Rural Scotland in Focus 2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural College.

9

Table 1-1: Summary of Poverty Indicators

Measure CommentaryRelative Poverty Steady decline to 2008, indications of an increase

since thenPersistent Poverty Only a slow decrease, slower than the rest of the UKPensioner Poverty Steady decline to 2009, faster than the rest of the UKChild Poverty Slower decline than the rest of the UKIncome Inequality Overall higher proportion of income going to the

WVVYLZ[�����HUK�SV^LY�.PUP�JVLɉJPLU[�[OHU�[OL�YLZ[�of the UK

In work poverty Remains at 17%, very slow decline, slower than the rest of the UK

Education Improved attainment for all at 16, lower entry of working class students into Higher Education than the rest of the UK

Health Overall better health outcomes than the rest of the UK except in the West of Scotland. High rates of death from alcohol and overall morbidity compared to the EU norms

Equality and Diversity Poverty related to both disability and ethnicity

This quick summary presents a complex picture even compared to the rest of the UK. It shows that overall the numbers living in relative poverty have declined faster than the UK average from 1999-2009, but that the number living in persistent poverty has declined much more slowly. This tends to support an argument that policy at both the UK and Scottish Government level has been helpful in easing poverty for those on the margins but has done little to address the persistent problems caused by a continuation of low income over time. Overall, Scotland has remained TVYL�ZVJPHSS`�LX\HS�[OHU�[OL�YLZ[�VM�[OL�<2��I\[�[OPZ�H]LYHNL�THZRZ�ZPNUPÄJHU[�WYVISLTZ�^P[OPU�Scotland, in particular the concentration of poverty in particular urban areas.

Most reports on social exclusion in Scotland tend to note that the areas where Scotland is making little or no progress are those reserved to the Westminster parliament9, in particular the \ZL�VM�[H_H[PVU�[V�[YHUZMLY�^LHS[O��[OL�SL]LS�HUK�HWWYVHJO�[V�ZVJPHS�ZLJ\YP[`�ILULÄ[Z�HUK�[OL�problem of in-work poverty due to low wages. However, there are areas that fall within the current YLTP[�[OH[�JV\SK�IL�\ZLK�TVYL�LɈLJ[P]LS �̀�PU�WHY[PJ\SHY�[OL�HIPSP[`�[V�LUZ\YL�[OH[�HSS�WHY[Z�VM�[OL�Scottish public sector pay the ‘living wage10’ and the advisability that the Scottish Government makes use of its role as a buyer of goods and services to put pressure on private sector companies.

This is important because, as this report argues, the basic cause of social exclusion is poverty HUK�[OL�IHZPJ�JH\ZL�VM�WV]LY[`�PZ�SV^�^HNLZ��PU[LYTP[[LU[�VY�PUZ\ɉJPLU[�^VYR�HUK�H�ÅH^LK�HWWYVHJO�[V�[H_H[PVU�HUK�ILULÄ[Z��(SS�VM�[OLZL�HYL�WV^LYM\S�LSLTLU[Z�\UKLYS`PUN�[OL�JH\ZLZ�VM�social exclusion11. Largely due to the current devolution settlement, the Scottish Government 9 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree

Foundation, Scottish Government 2010a. Child Poverty in Scotland: a brief overview of the evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

10 Scottish Living Wage Campaign 2011. Submission from Scottish Living Wage Campaign. SLWC.11 OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.

10

has had to concentrate on trying to mitigate the consequences of social exclusion12 instead of tackling the root causes of the problem.

;OPZ�SLHKZ�[V�H�ULLK�[V�KPZJ\ZZ�Q\Z[�^OH[�JHU�IL�HJOPL]LK��ÄYZ[S`�^P[OPU�[OL�J\YYLU[�KL]VS\[PVU�settlement, secondly if more responsibility was to be ceded from Westminster (devo-max) and ÄUHSS`�^P[O�M\SS�PUKLWLUKLUJL�HZ�WYVWVZLK�I`�[OL�:JV[[PZO�5H[PVUHSPZ[�7HY[ �̀�>OPSL�[OLYL�JSLHYS`�are policy gaps that could be addressed the consensus is that the Scottish Government is using its current powers to address social exclusion as far as is practical.

There are three key policy areas:

1. The ability to raise and spend a much greater proportion of the Scottish Government’s budget without having to follow UK Government policy

2. ;OL�HIPSP[`�[V�[HPSVY�[OL�ZVJPHS�^LSMHYL�Z`Z[LT�[V�YLÅLJ[�[OL�L]PKLUJL�VU�ZVJPHS�exclusion rather than the ideological claims of the Coalition Government. Linked ^P[O�[OPZ�PZ�H�ULLK�MVY�H�KPɈLYLU[�HWWYVHJO�[V�LTWSV`TLU[�WYV[LJ[PVU"

3. The ability to use the tax system to address income inequalities.

This is returned to in detail in section 5. The debate is complicated as neither the SNP nor the Westminster Government are prepared to set out in detail what they mean by the concept of ‘devo-max’ (ie more powers for Scotland but within the UK). The assumption is that Scotland will retain a much higher proportion of its income and have a much greater degree of discretion over its expenditure. However, while it is possible that such powers would include the ability to raise or lower tax rates it is likely that the basic structure of the tax system would remain at the UK level. In addition, even under the current proposed independence model, it seems likely that the wider THJYV�LJVUVTPJ�HUK�ÄZJHS�WVSPJ`�^PSS�IL�ZL[�H[�>LZ[TPUZ[LY��HZZ\TPUN�[OH[�Z[LYSPUN�PZ�NVPUN�[V�be retained. The ability to divert large sums from projects such as Trident’s replacement to social investment will not exist if Scotland’s defence policy remains part of the UK

These limits are important when the focus is on what can be done in a purely Scottish context, assuming a UK government with little commitment to tackling income inequality and poverty13. This argument can be used for full independence or to acknowledge that until Scotland has the JHWHJP[`�[V�HKKYLZZ�P[Z�WHY[PJ\SHY�WYVISLTZ�^P[O�WV]LY[ �̀�[OPZ�TH`�IL�TVYL�LɈLJ[P]L�^P[OPU�H�<2�wide framework.

12 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www. scotland.gov.uk/About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012], Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Scottish Government 2010a. Child Poverty in Scotland: a brief overview of the evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Scottish Government. 2012a. Employability & Tackling Poverty [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.employabilityinscotland.com/poverty/ tackling-poverty-in-scotland [Accessed 8 May 2012].13 Joyce, R. 2012. Households with children to lose most from tax and bene!t changes in coming year [Online]. London: IFS. Available: http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/taxben_080312.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2012].

11

Chapter 2: Introduction

Scotland prides itself on being a socially inclusive society where opportunities are open to all. Unfortunately a series of reports paints a more depressing picture14��^P[O�HYLHZ�HɈLJ[LK�I`�T\S[PWSL�ZV\YJLZ�VM�KLWYP]H[PVU�SLHKPUN�[V�ZPNUPÄJHU[�KPɈLYLUJLZ�PU�[LYTZ�VM�LK\JH[PVUHS�H[[HPUTLU[�HUK�W\ISPJ�OLHS[O��6U�H�WVZP[P]L�UV[L��HU�PTWVY[HU[�ÄUKPUN15 is that up to 2007 Scotland was doing better than England and Wales in terms of lower unemployment and greater reduction in the rates of child poverty. The latter gain has been maintained but unemployment is now above the average in the rest of the UK. Unfortunately, “the recession also exacerbated KPɈLYLUJLZ�^P[OPU�:JV[SHUK��OP[[PUN�TVZ[�HYLHZ�^P[O�OPNO�SL]LSZ�VM�^VYRSLZZULZZ�OHYKLZ[��HUK�accelerating the shift towards more fractured and less dependable work16”.

Despite this, overall levels of social exclusion and poverty have remained stable17since 2008, I\[�^P[O�[OL�PTWHJ[�VM�H�ZSV^PUN�LJVUVT`�HUK�THQVY�JOHUNLZ�[V�[OL�ZVJPHS�ZLJ\YP[`�HUK�ILULÄ[Z�system this is unlikely to be sustained. Although there are major problems, there is evidence that social exclusion in Scotland is somewhat less than in England and that, at least up to 2008, policies adopted since devolution had had some positive impact18. The Scottish Government cannot be accused of ignoring the issue of social exclusion and it is a major policy focus19. The Government has made a great deal of easily accessible data freely available20 in many ways in advance of that produced for the UK as a whole21.

This report acknowledges two basic premises. First, that social exclusion carries costs for the wider society and secondly, that it can be addressed through well designed policies that emphasise the importance of well paid work, of appropriate social transfers and the value of publicly provided goods (health, education, transport, green spaces etc) as tools to reduce both the prevalence and the impact of income inequality.

The relatively rapid rise of social inequality, whether measured in wages or as family income, has been a dominant economic trend since the 1970s in most of the OECD nations22. The trend Z[HY[LK�PU�Z[H[LZ�Z\JO�HZ�[OL�<2�HUK�[OL�<:�HUK�I`������P[�^HZ�ILJVTPUN�H�ZPNUPÄJHU[�MLH[\YL�even in the traditionally more egalitarian societies such as Scandinavia and France. This raises 14 Scottish Government 2009c. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 Report. Edinburgh, Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012], Scottish Government. 2012c. Scottish Health Survey [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/scottish-health-survey [Accessed 24 April 2012].15 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.16 Ibid., p. 217 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics.18 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.19 Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics.20 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012], Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012], Scottish Government. 2012e. Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.sns.gov.uk/ [Accessed 11 April 2012], Scottish Government. 2012a. Employability & Tackling Poverty [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.employabilityinscotland. com/poverty/tackling-poverty-in-scotland [Accessed 8 May 2012].21 Aldridge, H., Parekh, A., MacInnes, T. & Kenway, P. 2012. Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2011. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.22 OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.

12

three critical questions that need to be answered within the context of Scotland:

1. 0Z�[OPZ�[YLUK�PU�LɈLJ[�PUL]P[HISL��HUK��PM�ZV��ZOV\SK�[OL�MVJ\Z�IL�ZPTWS`�VU�THUHNPUN�the consequences?

2. 0Z�P[�MLHZPISL�[V�HKKYLZZ�[OPZ�[YLUK�^P[OPU�[OL�JVUÄULZ�VM�H�ZTHSS�JV\U[Y`�[OH[�^PSS�remain part of the wider globalised economy?

3. If so, what policies might be adopted and can this be done within the current situation, or with more devolution or only in the context of full independence?

A number of bodies including the OECD23 and European Union24 have indicated concern at the costs and consequences of social exclusion as well as the extent to which the current situation PZ�[OL�YLZ\S[�VM�ZWLJPÄJ�WVSPJ`�JOVPJLZ�YH[OLY�[OHU�HU�PUL]P[HISL�WYVK\J[�VM�[YHKL�HUK�LJVUVTPJ�policies. A recent OECD25 report suggests there are direct economic costs as a consequence of social inequality, including:

�� Slow social mobility, preventing talent being available and rewarded;�� Intergenerational earnings mobility being low in high inequality countries;�� Social resentment;�� Direct costs in terms of the impact on public health.

(�ZWLJPÄJ�PZZ\L�PZ�[OL�LUK\YPUN�UH[\YL�VM�WV]LY[`�HUK�ZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU��(U�PTWVY[HU[�HUK�substantial volume of research indicates that once an individual or a household, slips into poverty, they tend to stay there. Research has also shown that most people remain in the same quarter of income distribution as their parents26��0U�MHJ[��[OL�JOHUJL�VM�ILPUN�IL[[LY�VɈ�[OHU�[OLPY�WHYLU[Z�OHZ�gone down for people who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, compared with people who grew up in the 1960s.

Thus, social exclusion is not a natural and inevitable outcome but is a product of deliberately chosen policies. This means rejecting the key concept of the New Right in social welfare, that inequality is simply the consequence of the dynamism of capitalism and any attempt to address it in the short term leads to longer term problems27. One key tenet of both New Labour and the Coalition Government’s approach to social exclusion has been the importance of work in solving these problems. These approaches can be characterised as assuming that once someone has become employed, then social exclusion is no longer an issue. However, there is steadily emerging evidence that low paid, low skilled work can become a trap and a barrier to any attempts to reduce social exclusion28. Research by the OECD is also indicating that the regulation of the labour market has a substantial impact on both the distribution of income across society

23 Ibid.24 Brink, A., Nordblom, K. & Wahlberg, R. 2007. Maximum Fee vs. Child Bene!t:A Welfare Analysis of Swedish Child-Care Fee Reform. Bonn: Institute for the study of Labor, European Union 2008. Child Poverty and Well-Being in the EU: Current status and way forward. European Commission, European Union 2010b. Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Brussels, European Union. 2010a. Beyond GDP [Online]. European Union. Available: http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/ [Accessed 3 August 2010], Smith, M. & Bettio, F. 2008. Analysis Note: the Economic Case for Gender Equality. European Union.25 OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.26 Blanden, J. & Gibbons, S. 2006. "e persistence of poverty across generations: A view from two British cohorts. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.27 Esping-Andersen, G. 1996. Welfare states in transition: national adaptations in global economies, London, Sage.28 Goos, M. & Manning, A. 2007. Lousy and Lovely Jobs: "e Rising Polarization of Work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 118-133, Roberts, S. 2012. No snakes, but no ladders’: Young people, employment, and the low skills trap at the bottom of the contemporary service economy. Resolution Foundation.

13

HUK�[OL�L_[LU[�[V�^OPJO�ZVTL�QVIZ�VɈLY�ZJVWL�MVY�M\Y[OLY�PTWYV]LTLU[�PU�YLHS�SP]PUN�Z[HUKHYKZ29.

Social exclusion and poverty in Scotland is complex. It is heavily concentrated in particular areas of the major cities30 and marked by concentrations of ill-health, joblessness, low wages and wider social deprivation such as poor local infrastructure and high crime rates. In turn, many parts of Scotland are characterised by a low population density spread across areas with relatively dispersed infrastructure. This may not give rise to poverty in the urban sense but does create its own set of problems.

The bulk of this report is focussed on drawing together the substantial range of material that already exists, published by bodies as diverse as the Scottish Government, the Joseph Rowntree Trust and international organisations such as the European Union. This material is drawn together to provide a background on social exclusion and poverty in terms of:

1. Income (and this looks at the problems of persistent low income, in-work poverty, children and pensioners);

2. ,TWSV`TLU[��WH[[LYUZ�VM�\ULTWSV`TLU[�HUK�[OL�PTWHJ[�VM�[YHUZP[VY`�VY�PUZ\ɉJPLU[�work;

3. Education (including access to Higher Education and variations in educational attainment);

4. Health;5. The impact of multiple deprivation in particular areas;6. Rural poverty; and,7. Social exclusion and the wider equality agenda (including the impact of ethnicity

and disability).

The next section then compares some of these indicators to other countries and the EU as a whole. In most cases, the comparisons are to the rest of the UK and the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In combination, this information paints a complex picture of successes and failures in contemporary Scotland. However, the real challenge is how to build on the successes and address the persistent problems. As noted above, this has been an area of great concern to successive Scottish Governments since devolution31, and emphasises the need to learn from other countries and to develop new approaches. For example, Norway has been very successful in tackling both rural poverty and depopulation32 through a programme of investment, education and work dispersion. Other comparable countries, such as Finland, have had far better public health outcomes since the 1980s, despite some similarities in terms of traditional diet and lifestyle expectations33 .

However, relevant policy proposals need to be based on what is feasible given the current devolution settlement and the current debate on independence or of changing the range of WV^LYZ�H]HPSHISL�[V�[OL�:JV[[PZO�7HYSPHTLU[��6UL�NVHS�PZ�[V�ÄYZ[�KL]LSVW�H�YHUNL�VM�WVSPJPLZ�[OH[�could address some of the more persistent policy problems and then consider what degree of

29 OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.30 Scottish Government 2009c. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 Report. Edinburgh.31 Scottish Government. 2012a. Employability & Tackling Poverty [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.employabilityinscotland.com/poverty/tackling-poverty-in-scotland [Accessed 8 May 2012].32 Arter, D. 1999. Scandinavian politics today, Manchester, Manchester University Press.33 Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., Huttunen, J. & Teperi, J. 2006. Health in Finland. Helsinki: National Public Health Institute.

14

devolution from the UK would be needed for their implementation. In this respect, three scenarios are tested:

�� More or less as now, with the ability to set spending priorities and control over education, health and local government;

�� Enhanced devolution with control over a range of spending decisions and some degree of revenue raising powers. This also assumes responsibility for the great majority of UK domestic ministries such as DWP, DBIS and so on;

�� Full independence.

There has been some previous work in this respect as part of the Allander series of lectures in 2003-434�[OH[�SVVRLK�H[�^OH[�:JV[SHUK�JV\SK�KV�[V�HKKYLZZ�P[Z�V^U�WYVISLTZ�^P[OPU�[OL�JVUÄULZ�of the then devolution settlement. However, those lectures concentrated on issues of economic competitiveness rather than social inequality.

As part of any policy discussion, it is essential to be clear as to what is meant by social exclusion and what is seen as the basic cause. This is less simple than it might sound as the concept of ºZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU»�OHZ�ILLU�\ZLK�PU�KPɈLYLU[�^H`Z��-VY�L_HTWSL��[V�3PILYHS�+LTVJYH[�SLHKLY��5PJR�Clegg the issue is clear35:

“ Social mobility is what characterises a fair society, rather than a particular level of income equality. 0ULX\HSP[PLZ�ILJVTL�PUQ\Z[PJLZ�^OLU�[OL`�HYL�Ä_LK"�WHZZLK�VU��NLULYH[PVU�[V�NLULYH[PVU��;OH[»Z�^OLU�ZVJPL[PLZ�ILJVTL�JSVZLK��Z[YH[PÄLK�HUK�KP]PKLK��-VY�VSK�WYVNYLZZP]LZ��YLK\JPUN�ZUHWZOV[�PUJVTL�PULX\HSP[`�PZ�[OL�\S[PTH[L�NVHS��-VY�UL^�WYVNYLZZP]LZ��YLK\JPUN�[OL�IHYYPLYZ�[V�TVIPSP[`�PZ�¹

Similar to the concept used by New Labour36, income inequality itself should not be the focus MVY�JOHUNL��:VJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU�JHU�IL�HKKYLZZLK�LɈLJ[P]LS`�PUZ[LHK�I`�Z[YLZZPUN�LU[Y`�[V�^VYR�HUK�access to education opportunities. However, in practice, low incomes are at the heart of social L_JS\ZPVU�HUK�HZ�Z\JO��YLSH[P]L�WV]LY[`�PZ�PTWVY[HU[��;OPZ�JVUM\ZPVU�IL[^LLU�JH\ZL�HUK�LɈLJ[�has resulted in a number of ways in which the concept of social exclusion can be framed. The fundamental argument in this report is that poverty and social exclusion are the result of low income and this means the real focus has to be around tackling poverty. As long as both relative and absolute poverty persist so will social exclusion, and so will the costs to individuals and to Scottish society.

The consequences of social exclusion will be discussed in more detail in forthcoming reports by the Scotland Institute but can be summarised37 as a threat to the social integration of individuals, households and areas. In this respect, the democratic and legal system is important for civic integration, the labour market promotes economic integration, the welfare system assists social integration and family and community links create interpersonal integration. One consequence of policy both by New Labour and now the Coalition has been to weaken all these ties.

34 Miers, T. 2012. Have the wheels come o# the plan to make Scotland a global player? Sunday Herald, 8 April, p.36.35 Clegg, N. 2010. Inequality becomes injustice when it is passed on, generation to generation [Online]. London: "e Guardian. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/inequality-injustice-nick-clegg [Accessed 22 November 2010].36 Page, R. M. 2007. Without a Song in their Heart: New Labour, the Welfare State and the Retreat from Democratic Socialism. Journal of Social Policy, 36, 19-37.37 Shucksmith, M. & Chapman, P. 1998. Rural Development and Social Exclusion. Sociologia Ruralis, 38, 225-242.

15

Chapter 3: Social Exclusion in Scotland

3.1 Current Situation

This section draws together both a range of recent reports and data drawn from key data sets such as the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)38 and the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (SNS)39 to build up a picture of the current situation in terms of social exclusion and relative poverty in Scotland. The main issues behind inequality in Scotland are40:

1. Poverty and low income;2. Access to services;3. Access to and progression within the labour market;4. Access to and progression within education;5. Access to health services and variations in health outcomes

3.2 Poverty and low Income

As set out in the introduction, a key argument in this report is that poverty and social exclusion are the product of low incomes. This is connected to major changes in the Social Security systems over the last 30 years and related problems of in-work poverty41

3.2.1 Poverty and Income

One of the simplest ways to understand social exclusion is to see it as a product of relative poverty. Relative poverty is usually estimated on the basis of either family or personal income in relation to the median income. So it is always changing according to the average income. 9LSH[P]L�WV]LY[`�PZ�JVU]LU[PVUHSS`�KLÄULK�HZ�OH]PUN�HU�PUJVTL�SLZZ�[OHU�����VM�[OL�H]LYHNL�OV\ZLOVSK�PUJVTL��HKQ\Z[LK�MVY�OV\ZLOVSK�JVTWVZP[PVU��HUK�YLÅLJ[Z�ILPUN�\UHISL�[V�HɈVYK�[OL�standard of living that is seen as normal in the wider society42.

:JV[SHUK�ZH^�H�ZPNUPÄJHU[�PTWYV]LTLU[�PU�[OL�WLYPVK�� �������0U�� ������VM�[OL�WVW\SH[PVU�was low income, but by 2004 this had dropped to 18% and by 2008 was down to some 17% (870,000)43 of the population. Unfortunately, as is the case elsewhere in the UK, numbers PUJYLHZLK�HNHPU�K\L�[V�[OL�LɈLJ[�VM�[OL�LJVUVTPJ�ZSV^KV^U��Z[H[PJ�VY�MHSSPUN�^HNLZ��HU�PUJYLHZL�in those unable to work the hours they desire and an increase in unemployment) and of the Coalition Government’s welfare changes. Table 3:1 shows the trend (without taking account of housing costs) since the creation of the Scottish Parliament.

38 Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012].39 Scottish Government. 2012e. Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.sns.gov.uk/ [Accessed 11 April 2012].40 Equality and Human Rights Commission 2010. Signi!cant inequalities in Scotland: Identifying signi!cant inequalities and priorities for action. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.41 OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.42 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.43 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].

16

Figure 3:1 Trend in Relative Poverty (before Housing costs) 1999-201044

Another way to estimate poverty in Scotland is to look at the number of people who live in SV^�PUJVTL�OV\ZLOVSKZ��;OPZ�PUKPJH[LZ�[OH[�WV]LY[`�H[�[OL�OV\ZLOVSK�SL]LS�WHY[PJ\SHYS`�HɈLJ[Z�children. However, one positive aspect is the relatively fast decline in the rates of pensioner poverty in Scotland, as compared to England, across this period.

Table 3-1: Proportion of people in low income households 2004-200945

;OL�ÄUHS�\ZLM\S�TLHZ\YL�VM�PUJVTL�WV]LY[`�PZ�[V�JVUZPKLY�[OL�YLSH[P]L�KPZ[YPI\[PVU�VM�PUJVTL�PU�ZVJPL[ �̀�0U�NLULYHS��KLZWP[L�[OL�HWWHYLU[�NHPUZ�PU�ÄN\YL��!��HUK�[HISL��!���[OLYL�OHZ�ILLU�UV�YLHS�improvement in the proportion of income going to the poorest 30% in society, with this actually dropping slightly from 14.4% in 2004 to 13.2% in 200946 ;

Figure 3:2: Proportion of income going to the poorest 30%47

44 Ibid.45 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation., p. 946 Ibid.47 Ibid., p. 11

17

This is important because low income leads to vulnerability to short term variations in income HUK�L_WLUKP[\YL�HZ�^LSS�HZ�[OL�TVYL�Z\Z[HPULK�LɈLJ[�VM�ILPUN�\UHISL�[V�I\PSK�\W�H�Z[VJR�VM�^OH[�is called ‘domestic capital48’. Low income means that a short period of improved income can THRL�UV�SVUN�[LYT�PTWHJ[�VU�H�OV\ZLOVSK»Z�ÄUHUJLZ�VY�^LSSILPUN��;V�W\[�[OPZ�KH[H�PU[V�JVU[L_[��the consequence of raising everyone in the lowest 20% out of poverty would be achieved by LUZ\YPUN�[OH[�[OL�NYV\W�PKLU[PÄLK�PU�ÄN\YL��!��^LYL�PU�YLJLPW[�VM����������VM�V]LYHSS�PUJVTL49 compared to the 13-14% that has been the norm across this period.

Up to the start of the recession in 2008 and the impact of current welfare changes, Scotland was seeing slow but steady progress on some measures. There was a reduction in the number of individuals in relative poverty and a noted improvement in the situation of pensioners. However, WV]LY[`�OHZ�JVU[PU\LK�[V�HɈLJ[�T\JO�[OL�ZHTL�U\TILY�VM�OV\ZLOVSKZ�HZ�ILMVYL��PUKPJH[PUN�that the deep seated problems of low income have not been addressed. It remains heavily concentrated in certain households and areas, with the lowest share of income going to the poorest 30% and the relative concentration of income-deprivation in areas of the West Coast of Scotland.

3.2.2 Child Poverty

Child poverty in Scotland is complex. The good news is a relative decline over the last decade I\[�KLZWP[L�LɈVY[Z�I`�[OL�:JV[[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[��^L�SHN�ILOPUK�[OL�YLZ[�VM�[OL�<250��:WLJPÄJHSS �̀�up to 2008, child poverty was falling as the number of overall individuals in relative poverty declined51. However, as in table 3:1, it is clear that number of children in poor households has actually increased, indicating a substantial problem. Child poverty is related to a number of KPɈLYLU[�WYVISLTZ��*OPSKYLU�PU�WV]LY[`�SP]L�PU�OV\ZLOVSKZ�KLWLUKLU[�VU�ILULÄ[Z��[YHWWLK�PU[V�SV^�wages, sometimes with a disabled family member or in ethnic communities52.

Both the Scottish and the UK governments now face the legal expectations set out in the 2010 Child Poverty Act53 to meet four related targets:

1. The Relative Low Income Target: that less than 10% of children live in households with a household income of less than 60% of median household income;

2. The combined low income and material deprivation target: that less than 5% of children live in households with a household income of less than 70% of median household income and experience material deprivation;

48 Gordon, D., Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Patsios, D., Payne, S. & Townsend, P. 2000. Poverty and social exclusion in Britain Josephy Rowntree Foundation, Townsend, P. 1987. Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16, 125-146.49 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.50 Scottish Government 2010a. Child Poverty in Scotland: a brief overview of the evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].51 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.52 Watson, J. 2007. Child Poverty in Scotland. Edinburgh: Barnado’s.53 Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

18

3. The absolute low income target: that less than 5% of children live in households with a household income of less than 70% of the median household income; and,

4. ;OL�WLYZPZ[LU[�WV]LY[`�[HYNL[!�JVUZPKLYZ�[OL�L_[LU[�[OH[�[OL�ÄYZ[�PUKPJH[VY�WLYZPZ[Z�over three years in any four year period.

;OL�[YLUK�KH[H�HNHPUZ[�[OL�ÄYZ[�[OYLL�VM�[OLZL�TLHZ\YLZ�PUKPJH[LZ�ZVTL�PTWYV]LTLU[�ZPUJL�[OL�creation of the Scottish Parliament but with this showing signs of reversing in the early stages of the recession;

Figure 3:3: Child Poverty in Scotland (various measures)

The main fear is that the recession will not only draw more children into poverty, but it will worsen the plight of those already caught in poverty as low wages are reduced54 and social welfare payments are lost55.

;OL�ÄUHS�[HYNL[�PZ�[V�YLK\JL�[OL�U\TILY�VM�JOPSKYLU�PU�:JV[SHUK�^OV�SP]L�PU�WLYZPZ[LU[�WV]LY[ �̀�Unfortunately this has remained stuck at roughly 13% of all children in Scotland and there is little evidence that this decline any further56 without intervention.

54 Ibid.55 Joyce, R. 2012. Households with children to lose most from tax and bene!t changes in coming year [Online]. London: IFS. Available: http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/taxben_080312.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2012].56 Ibid.

19

Figure 3:4: Proportion of children in Persistent Poverty57

Persistent child poverty is a product of a combination of low wages and limited hours and also of low levels of income transfers leaving children locked in poverty58. The wider evidence suggests that the solution to persistent child poverty lies not in relying on either welfare payments or entry to work but a combination of the two, with particular attention being paid to easing the return to ^VYR�I`�JOLHW�HUK�LɈLJ[P]L�JOPSK�JHYL�HYYHUNLTLU[Z59.

3.2.3 Pensioner Poverty

Whereas in terms of child poverty, Scotland lags behind the UK, there is evidence that the policies adopted since devolution have improved the position of the elderly. Nonetheless, 17% of pensioners are still in relative poverty (ie with 60% or less of average income) and 10% were materially deprived (ie lacking key household goods)60.

57 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics.58 UNICEF 2007. Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries.59 Whiteford, P. & Adema, W. 2007. What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Bene!t or Work Strategy? : OECD.60 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics.

20

Figure 3:5: Proportion of Pensioners in Persistent Poverty

Improvements in income, better social care arrangements and other support have led to a steady reduction in the number of pensioners in persistent poverty from around 17% in 1999 to 5% in 2008, and even if the problem of relative poverty endures, individuals move in and out of poverty as their income and domestic expenses vary.

3.2.4 Persistence of Poverty

Once an individual or household enters income poverty, then it tends to persist61 and to lead to concentrations of such household groups in particular areas62. Data from UNICEF indicates that IL[^LLU����HUK� ��VM�HSS�JOPSKYLU�YLTHPU�PU�[OL�WVVYLZ[�ÄM[O�VM�OV\ZLOVSKZ�MVY�Ä]L�JVUZLJ\[P]L�years63�HUK��HZ�KPZJ\ZZLK�HIV]L������HYL��PU�[\YU��KLÄULK�HZ�SP]PUN�PU�WLYZPZ[LU[�WV]LY[`�HZ�H�consequence of low familial incomes. So far these numbers have been static and there is little likelihood of change if underlying issues remain64��;OL�WYVWVY[PVU�VM�PUKP]PK\HSZ�KLÄULK�HZ�SP]PUN�PU�persistent poverty is shown below:

61 Stevens, A. H. 1995. Climbing out of Poverty, Falling Back In: Measuring the Persistence of Poverty over Multiple Spells. Cambridge MA: NBER.62 Blanden, J. & Gibbons, S. 2006. "e persistence of poverty across generations: A view from two British cohorts. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.63 UNICEF 2000. Report Card No.1: A league table of child poverty in rich nations. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.64 Piachaud, D. & Sutherland, H. 2000. How E#ective is the British Government’s attempt to reduce Child Poverty? London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

21

Figure 3:6: Percentage of individuals in persistent poverty65

In turn, those in the lowest income levels are also likely to have low savings and over 62% of those in 30% lowest deciles have savings under £1,50066 leaving them vulnerable to sudden KLTHUKZ�VY�ZTHSS�YLK\J[PVUZ�PU�PUJVTL��0U�LɈLJ[��Z\IZ[HU[P]L�ZH]PUNZ�HYL�H�YLZ\S[�VM�OPNO�PUJVTL��UV[�HZ�H�YLZ\S[�VM�WLYZVUHS�JOVPJL�VY�MHPS\YL�[V�THUHNL�PUJVTL�LɈLJ[P]LS`!

Table 3-2: Savings levels by income decile67

Income decile

Less than £1,500

From £1,500 up to £3,000

From £3,000 up to £8,000

From £8,000 up to £20,000

Over £20,000

Does not wish to say

1 63 7 8 6 9 72 64 8 6 8 9 43 62 12 8 5 9 44 55 11 11 6 14 35 50 13 10 9 14 46 41 15 10 10 18 67 38 16 12 12 17 48 29 11 17 15 24 49 21 10 17 14 32 6

10 19 5 11 14 46 5

The concentration of lack of work and income poverty is clear when the relative dependency on ILULÄ[Z�PZ�JVUZPKLYLK��/V^L]LY��P[�PZ�PTWVY[HU[�[V�UV[L�[OH[�V]LY�����VM�[OL�PUJVTL�MVY�[OL�����poorest is from wages, indicating the role that low wages play in sustaining poverty68:

65 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics. P.1566 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].67 Ibid.68 Ibid.

22

Figure 3:7: Income by source by income decile69

Scotland has seen a steady increase in the numbers described as ‘income deprived’ from ��������PU������[V��� �����PU���� ��KLZWP[L�[OL�VɈZL[[PUN�PTWHJ[Z�VM�JOHUNLZ�Z\JO�HZ�^VYRPUN�family tax credits70. However, this remains highly concentrated and Glasgow in particular accounts for around 20% of the total income deprivation in Scotland:

69 Ibid.70 Scottish Government 2009c. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 Report. Edinburgh.

23

Table 3-3: Income Deprivation by Local Authority71

The concentration of deprivation in Glasgow is particularly notable with the Parkhead and )HYYV^ÄLSK�HYLH�PU�[OL�,HZ[�,UK�ILPUN�[OL�TVZ[�KLWYP]LK�KPZ[YPJ[Z�PU�:JV[SHUK��6]LYHSS�������VM�[OL�KPZ[YPJ[Z�PU�.SHZNV^�HYL�PU�[OL�TVZ[�KLWYP]LK�MVY�PUJVTL�JH[LNVY �̀�;OPZ�HSZV�HɈLJ[Z�V[OLY�areas in the west of Scotland as Inverclyde has 38.2%, West Dumbartonshire has 26.3% and North Ayrshire 24%72��;OL�VUS`�3VJHS�(\[OVYP[`�V\[ZPKL�[OL�>LZ[�*VHZ[�[OH[�PZ�PU�[OL�[VW�Ä]L�PU�this respect is Dundee with 30.2%.

3.3 Access to, and progression within, the Labour Market

3.3.1 Unemployment and Under-Employment

(JJLZZ�[V�[OL�SHIV\Y�THYRL[�HɈLJ[Z�WV]LY[`�HUK�ZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU�PU�H�U\TILY�VM�^H`Z��-PYZ[��H�high proportion of the poorest households are out of work for one reason or another. Household YLSPHUJL�VU�\ULTWSV`TLU[�ILULÄ[�[YHUZMLYZ�PZ�H�THQVY�YLHZVU�MVY�JOPSKYLU�MHJPUN�WLYZPZ[LU[�WV]LY[ �̀�:LJVUK��SV^�^HNLZ�[LUK�[V�HɈLJ[�[OVZL�Q\Z[�LU[LYPUN��VY�YL[\YUPUN�[V��[OL�SHIV\Y�THYRL[�and ensures they are unable to create the sort of household capital that is the critical step to

71 Scottish Government 2010c. SIMD 2009: Publication of Revised Income Domain and Overall Index - Explanation of Revision and Analysis of Results. Edinburgh: Scottish Government., p. 372 Ibid.

24

escaping recurrent periods of poverty. Third, and of growing importance, part time means that for THU �̀�[OL�H]HPSHISL�^VYR�PZ�PUZ\ɉJPLU[�[V�NLULYH[L�HU�PUJVTL�JSVZL�[V�[OL�TLKPHU�

Since the start of the 2008 recession, unemployment has steadily increased and by the end of ��� ��������VM�[OL�WVW\SH[PVU�^HZ�PU�YLJLPW[�VM�ILULÄ[Z�YLSH[LK�[V�QVISLZZULZZ���\W�MYVT�������in 2007. The relative growth of part time rather than full time work has had a direct impact on men meaning that male unemployment has grown relatively faster73.

Figure 3:8!�7YVWVY[PVU�VM�[OL�^VYRPUN�HNL�WVW\SH[PVU�^OV�HYL�\ULTWSV`LK��036�KLÄUP[PVU�74

(Z�PZ�JSLHY�MYVT�ÄN\YL��!���\ULTWSV`TLU[�PU�:JV[SHUK�SHNNLK�ILOPUK�,UNSHUK�\W�[V��������HUK�ZPUJL�[OLU�OHZ�ILLU�SV^LY�[OHU�[OL�YH[L�PU�[OL�YLZ[�VM�[OL�<2��HS[OV\NO�[OL�TVZ[�YLJLU[�ÄN\YLZ�indicate this trend has reversed). However, the pattern of worklessness is not spread evenly across Scotland as Glasgow, North and South Lanarkshire, North Ayrshire and Inverclyde are WHY[PJ\SHYS`�HɈLJ[LK!

73 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.74 Ibid., p.4

25

Figure 3:9!�6\[�VM�^VYR�ILULÄ[Z�I`�:JV[[PZO�*V\UJPS�(YLH75

It was mainly those areas with already high unemployment that have seen the largest increases since 2007.

3.3.2 In-work Poverty

It has become conventional, especially in pronouncements by politicians, to argue that relative WV]LY[`�PZ�YLSH[LK�[V�QVISLZZULZZ��/V^L]LY��HZ�ÄN\YL��!���THRLZ�JSLHY��H�YLSH[LK�WYVISLT�PZ�[OH[�PU�^VYR�WV]LY[`�PZ�JH\ZLK�I`�H�JVTIPUH[PVU�VM�SV^�^HNLZ�HUK�VY�PUZ\ɉJPLU[�^VYRPUN�OV\YZ��;OL�most recent data76�PUKPJH[LZ�[OH[�[OLYL�HYL�ZVTL���������HK\S[Z�PU�^VYR��^P[O�JOPSKYLU��^OV�Ä[�[OL�KLÄUP[PVU�VM�SP]PUN�PU�YLSH[P]L�WV]LY[ �̀�(S[OV\NO�[OLYL�OHZ�ILLU�ZVTL�PTWYV]LTLU[�PU�[OL�U\TILYZ�living in relative poverty, the proportion in in-work poverty has remained stubbornly at 7% of the overall population.

75 Ibid., p.776 Ibid.

26

Figure 3:10: Proportion of individuals in poverty before housing costs77

0U�^VYR�WV]LY[`�OHZ�[^V�YLSH[LK�JH\ZLZ���SV^�^HNLZ�HUK�HU�PUHIPSP[`�[V�HJJLZZ�Z\ɉJPLU[�^VYR�to generate a living income. Since 2009/10, in-work poverty accounted for almost 40% of the individuals living in poverty in Scotland and it is a very important element of the wider issue of ZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU��(�Z\IZ[HU[PHS�U\TILY�VM�[OVZL�PU�YLJLPW[�VM�/V\ZPUN�)LULÄ[�HUK�^VYR�YLSH[LK�credits would fall into this category but for the income-transfer provided by the wider welfare systems. Despite the claims, work is not always a solution to poverty78.

OECD research has indicated that the main reasons for growing inequality in the work place and low wages is not globalization as such79. Instead the underlying reason lies in the relative bargaining power within companies , particularly for those in low waged, marginal employment . Employment policies, employment protection and relative tax rates all have a greater bearing on PUJVTL�KPɈLYLU[PHSZ�[OHU�[OL�LɈLJ[�VM�HU�VWLU�LJVUVT`80. In turn, low wages make the overall cost of living higher due to a need to access expensive forms of credit in order to make up shortfalls between regular income and major items of expenditure. These themes are returned to in the discussion of potential means to address social exclusion and poverty.

3.4 Access to, and progression within, Education

Education, as with health has a complex relationship to social exclusion. Relatively low levels of educational attainment are often a useful indicator of the likelihood of social exclusion. There is clear evidence that relative poverty has an adverse impact on both the commitment to education and the ability to sustain a period of learning.

77 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics. 78 Goos, M. & Manning, A. 2007. Lousy and Lovely Jobs: "e Rising Polarization of Work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 118-133, Goulding, C. 22 February 2012. Workfare - How about some evidence. Available from: http://www.jrf. org.uk/blog/2012/02/workfare-how-about-some-evidence [Accessed 3 May 2012].79 OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.80 Treck, T. v. 2012. Did inequality cause the U.S. !nancial crisis? Düsseldorf: Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK).

27

One issue of access to education is the problem of adults with severe literacy and numeracy problems. The consequence for these individuals is often a degree of self-exclusion as well as being unable to access services or the labour market. The question becomes one of how to WYV]PKL�H�YLHZVUHISL�SL]LS�VM�PUJVTL�MVY�[OL�WYVWVY[PVU�VM�HK\S[Z�^P[O�SV^�VY�UV�X\HSPÄJH[PVUZ��-VY�[OPZ�W\YWVZL��[OL�:JV[[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[�KLÄULZ�[OL�PZZ\L�HZ�[OL�¸WYVWVY[PVU�VM�HK\S[Z�HNLK�������^P[O�SV^�VY�UV�X\HSPÄJH[PVUZ��:JV[[PZO�*YLKP[�HUK�8\HSPÄJH[PVUZ�-YHTL^VYR��:*8-��3L]LS���VY�below81”, and indicates this has steadily declined over the last 6 years :

Figure 3:11!�7LYJLU[HNL�VM�������`LHY�VSKZ�^P[O�:*8-�SL]LS���X\HSPÄJH[PVUZ�VY�ILSV^82

+H[H�VU�[OL�PTWHJ[�VM�ZVJPHS�JSHZZ�HUK�LU[Y`�[V�OPNOLY�LK\JH[PVU�PZ�KPɉJ\S[�[V�PU[LYWYL[�HUK�PZ�provided across the UK by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). A number of relevant TLHZ\YLZ�HYL�VɈLYLK�PUJS\KPUN�VUL�[OH[�HSSV^Z�JYVZZ�<2�HUHS`ZPZ��LZ[PTH[LZ�IHZLK�VU�WVZ[�JVKL�HYL�KPɉJ\S[�K\L�[V�KPɈLYLU[�TL[OVKZ�ILPUN�HKVW[LK�PU�,UNSHUK��:JV[SHUK�HUK�5VY[OLYU�0YLSHUK83). ;OLYL�HYL�PTWVY[HU[�KPɈLYLUJLZ�PU�[OL�Z[Y\J[\YL�VM�WVZ[�JVTW\SZVY`�LK\JH[PVU�HUK�PU�WHY[PJ\SHY��PU�Scotland, a larger proportion of students initially study for an award below degree level and many subsequently progress to study for a degree. However, the table below shows the proportion of students from NS-SEC social classes 4-7 (i.e. from a working class background) who enter higher LK\JH[PVU�PU�[OL�<2�HUK�[V�ZWLJPÄJ�:JV[[PZO�<UP]LYZP[PLZ�

81 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].82 Ibid.83 Cappellari, L. & Jenkins, S. P. 2007. Summarising Multiple Deprivation Indicators. In: Jenkins, S. & Micklewright, J. (eds.) Inequality and Poverty Re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press, NISRA. 2010. Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2010 [Online]. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Available: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/ deprivation.htm [Accessed 14 February 2011].

28

Table 3-4: Proportion of young working class entrants to degree level study84

Region or University 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11Total UK 32.3 30.0 30.6

Total England 32.4 30.1 30.7

Total Wales 32.5 30.2 31.0

Total Northern Ireland 41.2 39.1 39.4

Total Scotland 28.2 25.8 27.2

The University of Aberdeen 25.6 22.7 24.7

University of Abertay Dundee 36.7 30.4 35.8

The University of Dundee 25.4 24.4 27.9

Edinburgh College of Art 24.9 26.2 21.5

Edinburgh Napier University 34.9 33.5 29.7

The University of Edinburgh 18.6 16.5 17.1

Glasgow Caledonian University 36.8 34.1 33.9

Glasgow School of Art 31.4 19.0 19.5

The University of Glasgow 24.5 20.2 19.1

Heriot-Watt University 29.7 27.6 30.2

Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh 37.4 32.4 30.0

The Robert Gordon University 34.9 34.3 35.1

The University of St Andrews .. 13.7 15.0

Scottish Agricultural College 41.6

The University of Stirling 30.5 34.2 28.3

The University of Strathclyde 27.7 26.3 27.2

University of the Highlands and Islands 41.9 29.7 39.0

The University of the West of Scotland 38.8 38.0 37.2

This table needs to be read with some care. It indicates the proportion of the total entry for that \UP]LYZP[`�^OV�Ä[�[OL�JYP[LYPH�VM�^VYRPUN�JSHZZ�VU�[OL�IHZPZ�VM�MHTPS`�VJJ\WH[PVU��0[�PZ�UV[�PUKPJH[P]L�of the proportion of working class students who enter higher education. Even with this caveat and acknowledging there is missing data, it is clear that Scotland is lagging behind the rest of the UK. In particular, both the University of Edinburgh and the University of St Andrews take a very low proportion of working class students. This is important as one cause of social exclusion is the complex route into certain professions85, with certain institutions acting as ‘gate-keepers’. This can be due to the limited spread of courses in subject areas such as medicine or the bias shown I`�YLJY\P[LYZ�PU�ÄLSKZ�Z\JO�HZ�HJJV\U[HUJ`�HUK�SH^86, and what matters is both the overall access rate to higher education and access to particular institutions.

Some educational institutions look for certain attributes and activities outside formal study, for L_HTWSL��JOPSKYLU�VM�^LSS�VɈ��^LSS�JVUULJ[LK�WHYLU[Z�HYL�TVYL�SPRLS`�[V�IL�H^HYL�VM�[OPZ�HUK�[V�LUZ\YL�HJJLZZ�[V�HWWYVWYPH[L�VWWVY[\UP[PLZ��-PLSKZ�Z\JO�HZ�IHURPUN�HUK�ÄUHUJL�HYL�TLYP[VJYH[PJ�I\[�OH]L�H�]LY`�ZWLJPÄJ�KLÄUP[PVU�VM�[OL�[`WL�VM�HJ[P]P[PLZ�HUK�HJOPL]LTLU[Z�[OH[�JVUZ[P[\[L�HU�HJJLW[HISL�WYVÄSL��6[OLYZ�Z\JO�HZ�SH^�HUK�TLKPJPUL�YLJY\P[�MYVT�ZWLJPÄLK�<UP]LYZP[`�JV\YZLZ��In theory these are open to all who meet the (substantial) entrance requirements of the key

84 HESA. 2012. Widening participation of under-represented groups [Online]. HESA. Available: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2060&Itemid=141 [Accessed 5 March 2012].85 Ibrahim, A. 2009. Initial Suggestions to Widening Access to the Professions Panel, Crawford, C., Johnson, P., Machin, S. & Vignoles, A. 2011. Social Mobility: A Literature Review. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.86 Crawford, C., Johnson, P., Machin, S. & Vignoles, A. 2011. Social Mobility: A Literature Review. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

29

universities but in reality all are run within the ‘Russell Group’ of Universities that have made no progress over the last 15 years, across the UK, in widening access (in social terms). In this respect the Universities are as much a barrier as the professions87 themselves in their attitudes and approach to widening access.

In consequence, the relative success of some Scottish Universities in terms of widening access does not fully compensate for the relative failings in others.

3.5 Access to Health Services and Health Outcomes

Health, like education, has a complex relationship with social exclusion. Sustained ill-health is often associated with reliance on welfare transfers and consequently, creates low household income. It is also associated with higher than average living costs. Mental health is typical of this JVTWSL_�PU[LYHJ[PVU��;OVZL�^P[O�Z\Z[HPULK�TLU[HS�OLHS[O�KPɉJ\S[PLZ�HYL�SLZZ�SPRLS`�[V�IL�HISL�[V�sustain periods of full time, relatively well paid, employment88. At the same time, the stress of low income, and living in a poor quality physical environment are likely triggers to further periods of mental ill-health89.

3.5.1 Children and Health

It is often useful to use health indicators as measures of wider problems related to poverty. 6UL�VM�[OLZL�PZ�KLU[HS�OLHS[O�HZ�P[�JHU�YLÅLJ[�WVVY�KPL[�HZ�^LSS�HZ�[OL�LɈLJ[P]LULZZ�VM�WHY[PJ\SHY�interventions. Accordingly, one major indicator for the Scottish Government has been the WYVWVY[PVU�VM�7YPTHY`������`LHY�VSKZ��^P[O�UV�VI]PV\Z�KLU[HS�KLJH �̀�(�U\TILY�VM�ZWLJPÄJ�W\ISPJ�health initiatives have been launched90, leading to a steady improvement:

87 Ibid.88 Perkins, R. & Rinaldi, M. 2002. Unemployment rates among patients with long-term mental health problems: A decade of rising unemployment. Psychiatric Bulletin, 26, 295-298.89 Clark, C., Myron, R., Stansfeld, S. A. & Candy, B. 2007. A systematic review of the evidence on the e#ect of the built and physical environment on mental health. Journal of Public Mental Health, 6, 14-27, Mind. 2010. Mental health and the environment [Online]. Mind. Available: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/ecominds/ecominds/mental_health_and_the_ environment [Accessed 30 December 2011], Payne, S. 2006. Mental Health, Poverty and Social Exclusion. In: Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. & Levitas, R. (eds.) Poverty and social exclusion in Britain: the millennium survey. Bristol: Policy Press.90 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].

30

Figure 3:12: Primary 1 children with no obvious dental decay 1987-201091

A related useful measure of public health is the incidence of children who are either under or overweight92. As in many western countries, the main challenge now is obesity which in childhood can lead to low self-esteem, depression and physical health problems such as diabetes and heart disease. Obesity is also recognised as less a product of too much food and more as reliance on food that is cheap but with low nutritional value.

Figure 3:13: Children (2-15) outside the healthy weight range 1998-201093

Poor diet and health in early childhood have long term impacts. There is strong evidence that KPL[�HJ[\HSS`�HɈLJ[Z�[OL�Z[Y\J[\YL�HUK�KL]LSVWTLU[�VM�[OL�IYHPU�MYVT�JOPSKOVVK�[OYV\NO�[V�late adolescence94. In turn, poor concentration at school leads to a drop in direct academic achievement and is more likely to trigger behavioural problems as young people become bored

91 Ibid.92 Ibid.93 Ibid.94 Northstone, K., Joinson, C., Emmett, P., Ness, A. & Paus, T. 2011. Are dietary patterns in childhood associated with IQ at 8 years of age? A population-based cohort study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

31

and lose interest95 in response to the perceived stress of the classroom. Australia96 in particular, has addressed the issue of childhood mental health in a systemic manner with evidence that school can be used to create a ‘safe place’ in terms of social development and diet97, especially for children living in deprived areas.

American data has indicated98 that schools have a vital role in addressing problems of poor diet. As such they become a potential safety net (if they provide nutritious food), a means to provide access to exercise (if they have the spaces and the resources) and a means to educate children and their parents about the importance of diet. Scottish data bears out these conclusions99, where in response to a healthy eating initiative across the 1990s it was found there was some improvement in consumption of fruit and vegetables but that this still fell short of what was needed for a well balanced diet. In general the evidence suggests that the provision of free school meals is one means to provide a safety net for children from low income families but is not enough, in itself, to ensure equity in overall health outcomes100.

3.5.2 Life Expectancy at Birth

One consequence of poverty, poor diet, unhealthy lifestyles and social exclusion is the reduction in life expectancy for parts of the population. This remains a problem in Scotland with the Scottish Government noting101 “that a man living in one of our most deprived areas can expect to live in good health for 10.5 years less than the average man in Scotland. The equivalent gap for women is 8.6 years”. Since 1999 there has been relatively little improvement on this indicator with an enduring gap between the life expectancy of the rest of Scotland compared to those in the 15% most deprived areas102.

95 Barrett, P. M., Farrell, L. J. & Ollendick, T. H. 2006. Long-term outcomes of an Australian universal prevention trial of anxiety and depression symptoms in children and youth: An evaluation of the Friends Program. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 403-411.96 Barrett, P. M. & Sonderegger, R. 2005. Anxiety in Children-FRIENDS Program. In: A. Freeman, S.H. Felgoise, C.M. Nezu, Nezu, A. M. & Reinecke, M. A. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Behavior "erapy. New York: Springer, Sawyer, M., Arney, F., Baghurst, P., Clark, J., Graetz, B., Kosky, R., Nurcombe, B., Patton, G., Prior, M., Raphael, B., Rey, J., Whaites, L. & Zubrick, S. 2000. "e mental health of young people in Australia: Child and adolescent component of the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra, ACT: Mental Health and Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.97 Frazier, S. L., Cappella, E. & Atkins, M. S. 2007. Linking Mental Health and A$er School Systems for Children in Urban Poverty: Preventing Problems, Promoting Possibilities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 34, 389-399.98 Story, M., Nanney, M. S. & Schwartz, M. B. 2009. Schools and Obesity Prevention: Creating School Environments and Policies to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical Activity. Milbank Quarterly, 87, 71-100.99 Inchley, J., Todd, J., Bryce, C. & Currie, C. 2001. Dietary trends among Scottish schoolchildren in the 1990s. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 14, 207-216.100 Gundersen, C., Kreider, B. & Pepper, J. 2012. "e impact of the National School Lunch Program on child health: A nonparametric bounds analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 166, 79-91.101 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].102 Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland. gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012].

32

Figure 3:14: Healthy Life Expectancy at Birth103

3.5.3 Mental Health

Mental Health has been made a priority issue by the Scottish Government104, recognising its capacity to disrupt lives and cause long term loss of income, and disruption of community involvement and family relationships. To address this, the Scottish Health Survey105 from 2008 has started to monitor overall mental health wellbeing using the ‘Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale106’. So far only 3 years of data have been gathered and this indicates a steady situation with the means score of 50 in 2008 and 49.9 in the most recent (2010) survey107. However, more general research is consistent regarding the extent to which mental health leads to social exclusion and is worsened by the stresses of environmental and income poverty108.

Again, as with childhood diet and health problems, mental health issues lead to wider social problems. Of particular, concern is the high proportion of those incarcerated having a pre-existing mental health problem109.

3.6 The Most Deprived Areas

The geographical concentration of poverty is an important element in understanding social exclusion110. Ill-health, both physical and mental, can be a cause of poverty with interrupted work

103 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].104 Scottish Government 2008b. Mental Health In Scotland: A Guide to delivering evidence-based Psychological "erapies in Scotland ("e Matrix). Edinburgh, Scottish Government 2009a. Demand for Psychological "erapies Services. Edinburgh.105 Scottish Government. 2012c. Scottish Health Survey [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www. scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/scottish-health-survey [Accessed 24 April 2012].106 NHS. 2006. "e Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) [Online]. Edinburgh: healthscotland.com. Available: http://www.healthscotland.com/documents/1467.aspx [Accessed 24 April 2012].107 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].108 Payne, S. 2006. Mental Health, Poverty and Social Exclusion. In: Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. & Levitas, R. (eds.) Poverty and social exclusion in Britain: the millennium survey. Bristol: Policy Press.109 Lord Bradley 2009. Review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. Department of Health.110 Fyfe, A. 2009. Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

33

records, unstable family formation111 Added elements are the high cost of living in certain urban environments,on relatively low incomes 112 the streses of poor quality housing, limited access to nutrition and limited uptake of public health. A similar pattern also occurs in terms of education, ^OLYL�SV^�SL]LSZ�VM�MVYTHS�X\HSPÄJH[PVUZ�[LUK�[V�IL�JVYYLSH[LK�^P[O�IV[O�SV^�^HNLZ�HUK�unemployment. Issues of peer group pressures and prevailing norms can inhibit some who might V[OLY^PZL�ZLLR�OPNOLY�SL]LS�X\HSPÄJH[PVUZ��;OL�JVUJLU[YH[PVU�VM�YLSH[P]L�WV]LY[`�JHU�ZLL�ZLY]PJLZ��IV[O�WYP]H[L�ZLJ[VY�HUK�W\ISPJ��ILPUN�^P[OKYH^U��PU�LɈLJ[�PUJYLHZPUN�[OL�JVZ[�VM�SP]PUN��PUJYLHZPUN�barriers to work, and, for example, forcing a reliance on cheap, poor quality food113because of a lack of access to good markets.

The complexity of these problems has led a recent report for the Scottish Government to conclude “there is no clear systematic evidence of the overall impact of these geographically targeted programmes on multiple deprivation and poverty114”. In particular this report notes the correlation between any relative gains between 1999 and 2008 (such as a drop in the numbers VU�+>7�ILULÄ[Z��HYL�JSVZLS`�[PLK�[V�V]LYHSS�LJVUVTPJ�WLYMVYTHUJL�HUK�[OLZL�SPTP[LK�NHPUZ�have been quickly eliminated since then. In the wider UK context, a recent report115 separated a series of Government policies into those that sought to tackle the problem of poverty and social exclusion at an individual level (ie. as young people, or single parents or long term unemployed) and those that sought to do this at an area/place level (urban regeneration and job creation schemes). However the report concluded:

¸�;OL�VYPNPUHS�OVWL�^HZ�[OH[��[OYV\NO�YL]PL^PUN�[OL�T`YPHK�VM�WVSPJ`�L]HS\H[PVUZ�JVUK\J[LK�ZPUJL�� ���P[�TPNO[�IL�WVZZPISL�[V�YLHJO�JVUJS\ZPVUZ�HIV\[�[OL�YLSH[P]L�LMMLJ[P]LULZZ�VM�WSHJL��HUK�WLYZVU�MVJ\ZLK�WVSPJPLZ��/V^L]LY��P[�^HZ�X\PJRS`�YLHSPZLK�[OH[��MVY�[OL�YLHZVUZ�HSYLHK`�L_WSHPULK��Z\JO�H�NVHS�^HZ�IL`VUK�YLHJO�¶�[OL�PUMVYTH[PVU�H]HPSHISL�PZ�UV[�Z\MÄJPLU[S`�JVTWHYHISL�UVY��VM[LU��VM�HKLX\H[L�quality to make the necessary distinctions116¹�

The lack of evidence for many of the social policies adopted by both New Labour and the Coalition Government has been noted in other reports117, as has the withdrawal of existing data series118 that have been useful for tracking poverty and social exclusion at a UK level. However, there is substantial research119 suggesting that once the level of poverty in a neighbourhood

111 Mind. 2010. Mental health and the environment [Online]. Mind. Available: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/ecominds/ecominds/ mental_health_and_the_environment [Accessed 30 December 2011].112 Galindo, M. P. G. G. & Rodriguez, J. A. C. 2000. Environmental Aesthetics and Psychological Wellbeing: Relationships between Preference Judgements for Urban Landscapes and other Relevant A#ective Responses. Psychology in Spain, 4, 13-27.113 Spicker, P. 2001. Poor areas and the “Ecological Fallacy”. Radical Statistics, 76, 38-49.114 Fyfe, A. 2009. Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government., p. 18115 Griggs, J., Whitworth, A., Walker, R., McLennan, D. & Noble, M. 2008. Person- or place- based policies to tackle disadvantage?: Not knowing what works. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.116 Ibid., p.7117 Slater, T. 2011. "e Myth of ‘Broken Britain’: Welfare Reform and the Cultural Production of Ignorance. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Institute of Geography.118 Aldridge, H., Parekh, A., MacInnes, T. & Kenway, P. 2012. Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2011. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.119 Spicker, P. 2001. Poor areas and the “Ecological Fallacy”. Radical Statistics, 76, 38-49.

34

YLHJOLZ�H�[OYLZOVSK��ÄYZ[�WYP]H[L�HUK�[OLU�W\ISPJ�ZLY]PJLZ�HYL�^P[OKYH^U��;OPZ�TLHUZ�[OH[�IHZPJZ�such as food become of lower quality120 and higher price and public transport becomes less reliable121.

The situation in Scotland is somewhat better both in terms of approach and the degree of evaluation122 . The ‘Social Inclusion Partnerships’ set up in 1999 have indicated that:

�� (�U\TILY�VM�PUKP]PK\HSZ�OH]L�ILULÄ[[LK�I\[�WLYOHWZ�UV[�[V�[OL�L_[LU[�VM�YLK\JPUN�social exclusion;

�� There is a lack of clearly agreed baseline data or consistent data collection;�� The programmes have had an impact in terms of perceived quality of life and fear of

crime rather than in terms of economic activity;�� There maybe some gains in terms of health and educational outcomes, but again

data is lacking.

One problem is that part of the population in poor districts is often transitory123, so programmes TH`�OLSW�PUKP]PK\HSZ�I\[�THRL�UV�KPɈLYLUJL�[V�[OL�HYLH��+PZ[YPJ[Z�JHU�HJX\PYL�HUK�YL[HPU�H�reputation that is in turn a source of discrimination for those who live there124. For those on or near the poverty line, informal social networks are particularly important in allowing them to meet their daily challenges125, and this leads to a commitment to the neighbourhood on the grounds [OH[�¸HU`�ILULÄ[Z�VM�TV]PUN�MVY�^VYR�^V\SK�IL�V\[^LPNOLK�I`�[OL�JVZ[Z!�H�ZL]LYPUN�VM�ZVJPHS�networks; a lost sense of belonging; an undermining of feelings of safety and security derived from living in familiar places; and loss of informal assistance that allows people to cope and can actually serve to render work a viable proposition126”.

At the moment, the most useful data source is the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation127 with the most recent complete report covering data to 2009128. The index is built up of relatively small datazones based on postcodes and most reports then collate these datazones at the local authority level. A key part to the analysis is a focus on the 15% ‘most deprived’ areas with the index measuring relative deprivation across six main criteria. As with the discussion of poverty in terms of income discussed earlier, the SIMD is clear that multiple deprivation in Scotland is highly concentrated and mostly in the West Coast129.

120 Kerr, D. 2005. Building a Health Service Fit for the Future [Online]. Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Publications/2005/05/23141307/13135 [Accessed 12 April 2012], Wanless, D. 2002. Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View - "e Wanless Review. London: HM Treasury.121 Dorling, D. 2010. Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists, London, Policy Press.122 Fyfe, A. 2009. Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.123 Ibid.124 Robertson, D., Smyth, J. & McIntosh, I. 2008. Neighbourhood identity: People, time and place. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.125 Batty, E., Cole, I. & Green, S. 2011. Low-income neighbourhoods in Britain: "e gap between policy ideas and residents’ realities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.126 Ibid. p.5127 Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012].128 Scottish Government 2009c. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 Report. Edinburgh.129 Scottish Government 2010c. SIMD 2009: Publication of Revised Income Domain and Overall Index - Explanation of Revision and Analysis of Results. Edinburgh: Scottish Government., p.10

35

The full impact of multiple deprivation becomes clear when the various income, health, education and other measures are related130. Across Scotland it is clear that deprivation is not a matter simply of income, employment, health or education in isolation. These are closely related and for the 742,300 people who live in the most deprived areas131, then:

�� 266,500 (36%) are income deprived (compared to 15% of the total population);�� 26% of those of working age are employment deprived (compared to 12% of the

total population);

One problem with the SIMD data is that most of the information is not held at the individual level. However, it is possible to show how the poorest areas are also the poorest areas on the main indicators of income, employment, health, housing, education and crime. This is done below using two tables derived from the 2009 SIMD data sets132 rather than the published reports. The ÄYZ[�ZOV^Z�OV^�[OL����TVZ[�KLWYP]LK�V]LYHSS�HYL�HSZV�TVZ[�VM[LU�[OL�TVZ[�KLWYP]LK�VU�WHY[PJ\SHY�indicators, the second table repeats the process for the 15% most deprived.

So, for example, the 84% of the most deprived areas are also in the 5% category for low income, as:

Table 3-5: Overlap between particular indicators and the overall 5% poorest areasCategory NumberTotal number of areas 325Lowest 5% - Income 83.4%Lowest 5% - Employment 78.5%Lowest 5% - Health 73.2%Lowest 5% - Education 60.9%Lowest 5% - Housing 26.5%Lowest 5% - Crime 35.4%

When this is redone for the poorest 15% a very similar pattern emerges as:

Table 3-6: Overlap between particular indicators and the overall 15% poorest areasCategory NumberTotal number of areas 976Lowest 15% - Income 89.8%Lowest 15% - Employment 87.1%Lowest 15% - Health 90.8%Lowest 15% - Education 76.0%Lowest 15% - Housing 46.3%Lowest 15% - Crime 52.6%

Both tables need to be interpreted with some care as the composite variable is an aggregation of the individual indicators. However, this does indicate that low income, poor health outcomes and low rates of employment in particular are very concentrated in the poorest areas of Scotland. Given the arguments about the withdrawal of services in poorer areas, this is a strong indication that contrary to the views of the Centre for Social Justice133 that social exclusion is as much a WYVISLT�VM�NLVNYHWO`�HZ�P[�PZ�VM�PUKP]PK\HS�H[[P[\KLZ��0UKLLK�V[OLY�YLZLHYJO�JVUÄYTZ�[OH[�P[�PZ�UV[�lack of desire to succeed, nor of lack of community cohesion that is the fundamental problem134.

130 Scottish Government 2010b. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 General Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.131 Ibid.132 Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012].133 Centre for Social Justice 2008. Breakthrough Glasgow: Ending the costs of social breakdown. London: Centre for Social Justice.134 Batty, E., Cole, I. & Green, S. 2011. Low-income neighbourhoods in Britain: "e gap between policy ideas and residents’ realities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

36

3.7 Rural Poverty

0[�PZ�KPɉJ\S[�[V�TLHZ\YL�Y\YHS�HZ�VWWVZLK�[V�\YIHU�WV]LY[ �̀�;OL�:04+�OHZ�H�WYVISLT�PU�[OPZ�respect in that it is a relative measure and tends to capture population density of those in poverty rather than the range in a given area. In rural Scotland, there are wide geographic zones containing a far greater range of income and circumstances than might be found in, for example, the East End of Glasgow. Nonetheless, rural poverty and rural social exclusion are important issues in Scotland and also one reason for relatively higher per-capita costs of providing key public services.

In general, both relative and absolute low income are more prevalent in urban areas and there is some evidence for a small but welcome improvement in rural communities over the last 5 years135, as:

Table 3-7: Relative Low Income after Housing Costs

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10% 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s

Urban areas 20 810 20 770 21 800 20 830 20 830Rural areas 18 170 15 170 14 160 15 140 15 140Total 20 990 19 950 19 970 19 970 19 970

However, as a recent report from the Scottish Agricultural College has noted136, the issues facing rural Scotland are not just simply of low income. Many smaller communities face a loss of public service jobs and no foreseeable growth in well paid private sector work, so there is a danger of the loss of economic activity in a number of smaller, more remote, towns and communities. Some areas already have up to 35% of all dwellings either as second homes or permanently empty, leading to problems with local authority revenues and further depopulation as local families JHUUV[�ÄUK�Z\P[HISL�OV\ZPUN��

This report137�[LUKZ�[V�JVUÄYT�[OL�<2�^PKL�YLZLHYJO�PU[V�WYVISLTZ�^P[OPU�PZVSH[LK�JVTT\UP[PLZ�or those previously reliant on a particular form of employment. The fate of ‘second order’ and YLSH[P]LS`�PZVSH[LK�WSHJLZ�[OH[�OH]L�Z\ɈLYLK�MYVT�SVUN�[LYT�LJVUVTPJ�KLJSPUL�¶�Z\JO�HZ�VSKLY�[L_[PSL��TPUPUN�VY�ZLHZPKL�[V^UZ�¶�YLX\PYLZ�H�ZWLJPÄJ�HUK�KL[LYTPULK�WVSPJ`�YLZWVUZL��(U`�º[YPJRSL�KV^U»�ILULÄ[Z�MYVT�M\[\YL�NYV^[O�LSZL^OLYL�^PSS�OH]L�[V�[YPJRSL�H�]LY`�SVUN�^H`�PUKLLK�[V�THRL�H�KPɈLYLUJL��;OL�]HYPV\Z�ºJHYYV[Z»�VM�KLYLN\SH[PVU�KLZPNULK�[V�Z[PT\SH[L�NYV^[O�HYL�\USPRLS`�[V�Z\ɉJL�[V�[\YU�YV\UK�Z\JO�[LUHJPV\Z�[YLUKZ�VM�LJVUVTPJ�KLJSPUL138”. The dynamics around social L_JS\ZPVU�PU�Y\YHS�HYLHZ�[HRLZ�VU�H�KPɈLYLU[�MVYT�[V�[OH[�PU�\YIHU�:JV[SHUK��OV^L]LY��[OL�[OYLH[�[V�the local communities and consequences for the individuals is equally damaging.

135 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].136 Skerratt, S., Atterton, J., Hall, C., McCracken, D., Renwick, A., Revoredo-Giha, C., Steinerowski, A., "omson, S. & Woolvin, M. 2012. Rural Scotland in Focus 2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural College.137 Ibid.138 Batty, E., Cole, I. & Green, S. 2011. Low-income neighbourhoods in Britain: "e gap between policy ideas and residents’ realities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation., p. 6

37

3.8 Social Exclusion in terms of the Equality Agenda

This section looks at social exclusion in terms of the wider equality agenda, in particular disability and ethnicity. It has been argued that Scotland is well placed to deal with this aspect of social exclusion139 as the Equality Act 2010140 forms a sound framework and the Scottish Government OHZ�H�JSLHY�NVHS�[V�¸[HJRSL�[OL�ZPNUPÄJHU[�PULX\HSP[PLZ141” in Scottish society by 2017142. Disability, caused by mental or physical ill-health is often related to an intermittent engagement with work and higher living costs. Real improvements (both in absolute and relative terms) have been seen over the last decade:

Table 3-8: Relative Poverty after Housing Costs (disability) 143

year

Individuals in poverty living in disabled families

(000s)

Percentage of people in a

disabled family who are in

poverty

Percentage of people in a non-disabled

family who are in poverty

02/03 380 28 2103/04 390 27 1804/05 340 26 1705/06 350 25 1806/07 330 24 1707/08 330 24 1708/09 300 23 1809/10 250 20 19

Ethnicity in turn has a complex relationship to poverty, with lower rates of full time employment, and more people living in poorer quality housing. The consequences in Scotland are stark, with 16-17% of those described as ‘white’ living in relative poverty compared with over 32% of the Black, Minority Ethnic (BME) population.

139 Equality and Human Rights Commission 2010. Signi!cant inequalities in Scotland: Identifying signi!cant inequalities and priorities for action. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.140 HM Government. 2010. Equality Act 2010 [Online]. London: House of Commons. Available: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2010/15/contents [Accessed 23 April 2012].141 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].142 Equality and Human Rights Commission 2010. Signi!cant inequalities in Scotland: Identifying signi!cant inequalities and priorities for action. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.143 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].

38

Figure 3:15: Relative Poverty (2005-09) by ethnic group144

This indicates that Scotland has made some progress in dealing with the consequences of disability and social exclusion but still faces a major problem in terms of the linkage between L[OUPJP[`�HUK�ZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU��;OPZ�PZ�JVTWSPJH[LK�HZ�[OLYL�HYL�ZPNUPÄJHU[�KPɈLYLUJLZ�^P[OPU�[OL�ethnic community145��^P[O��MVY�L_HTWSL��[OVZL�JSHPTPUN�HZ`S\T�Z\ɈLYPUN�WYVISLTZ�JVUULJ[LK�[V�ILPUN�L_JS\KLK�MYVT�^VYR�VY�Z\ZWLUZPVU�VM�ILULÄ[Z�^OPSL�[OL`�HWWLHS��.`WZ`�;YH]LSSLYZ�have particular problems in relation to poor quality living environments and reduced access to education for their children. Overall this situation indicates a need to understand and address the complex factors that have led to such a strong linkage between ethnicity and relative poverty in Scotland146.

3.9 Addressing Social Exclusion

As already discussed, social exclusion has been a major theme for various Scottish Governments since devolution. This section shifts approach slightly to evaluate options to address social L_JS\ZPVU�YH[OLY�[OHU�YLWVY[�VU�[OL�J\YYLU[�ZP[\H[PVU��;OL�ÄYZ[�WHY[�KPZJ\ZZLZ�[OL�J\YYLU[�HWWYVHJO�to tackling social exclusion and the second asks what more can be done. Evidence suggests that these approaches work:

�� (WWYVHJOLZ�^P[O�H�]LY`�ZWLJPÄJ�MVJ\Z�HUK�TPUPTHS�JVTWSL_P[`"�� Approaches based on local needs and priorities; and,�� Approaches that actively engage the local community147.

144 Ibid.145 Netto, G., Sosenko, F. & Bramley, G. 2011. Poverty and ethnicity in Scotland: Review of the literature and datasets. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.146 Ibid.147 Welford, S. 2010. Scottish Assembly for Tackling Poverty. Glasgow: "e Poverty Alliance.

39

3.9.1Current Approaches

The Scottish Government has targets that essentially measure the consequences of social exclusion148, supported by detailed analysis into the problem on a geographical level via the SIMD.149 A series of related policy initiatives can be described as a commitment to understand the consequences of social exclusion and to address the consequences. Moreover, it represents H�ZPNUPÄJHU[�KLWHY[\YL�MYVT�[OL�UHYYH[P]L�VM�IVKPLZ�Z\JO�HZ�[OL�*LU[YL�MVY�:VJPHS�1\Z[PJL150 with their underlying message of purely individual responsibility and the continued emphasis placed on workfare by the Coalition Government151. The approach of the Scottish Government is also a welcome change from the dominant message from both New Labour and the Coalition Government about welfare abuse152 particularly as aimed at the disabled.

The Scottish Government acknowledges that153:

¸�(S[OV\NO�V\[JVTLZ�HYL�NLULYHSS`�PTWYV]PUN�MVY�TVZ[�WLVWSL�PU�:JV[SHUK�[OL`�HYL�UV[�PTWYV]PUN�MHZ[�LUV\NO�MVY�[OL�WVVYLZ[�ZLJ[PVUZ�VM�V\Y�ZVJPL[ �̀�5VY�MVY�[OVZL�^OV�MHJL�IHYYPLYZ�ILJH\ZL�VM�[OLPY�YHJL��NLUKLY��HNL��KPZHIPSP[ �̀�ZL_\HS�VYPLU[H[PVU�VY�MHP[O��;OVZL�^OV�OH]L�[OL�SLHZ[�HJJLZZ�[V�PUJVTL��LTWSV`TLU[�HUK�NVVK�OV\ZPUN�L_WLYPLUJL�OPNOLY�SL]LSZ�VM�PSS�OLHS[O"�VM[LU�OH]L�SLZZ�WO`ZPJHS�HUK�WZ`JOVSVNPJHS�YLZPSPLUJL�[V�TLL[�JOHSSLUNLZ"�HUK�SLZZ�WV^LY�HUK�PUÅ\LUJL�[V�LMMLJ[�JOHUNL��7V]LY[`�and inequality not only diminish opportunity and life experience, they detract from Scotland’s economic Z\JJLZZ�HUK�^LSSILPUN�HZ�H�UH[PVU��;HJRSPUN�PULX\HSP[PLZ��[OLYLMVYL��YLTHPUZ�V\Y�THQVY�JOHSSLUNL154¹

This is in some contrast to UK government policy which can only be characterised as ill-informed and often framed with no account taken of the evidence155 In particular, the UK government fails to understand the extent to which social problems and social exclusion are a consequence of the intensity of poverty in a given area, not of the claimed failings of the individuals who live in such areas156. This is acknowledged by the Scottish Government157, along with the consequences of living for a long period on the borders of relative poverty without the ability to deal with short [LYT�HK]LYZL�L]LU[Z��;OPZ�OHZ�SLK�[OL�:JV[[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[�[V�PUKPJH[L�[^V�RL`�PUÅ\LUJLZ�VU�[OL�

148 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012]. Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].149 Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh. Available: http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012].150 Centre for Social Justice 2008. Breakthrough Glasgow: Ending the costs of social breakdown. London: Centre for Social Justice.151 Goulding, C. 22 February 2012. Workfare - How about some evidence. Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2012/02/ workfare-how-about-some-evidence [Accessed 3 May 2012].152 Bartholomew, J. 2006. "e Welfare State We’re In, London, Politico Press, Mooney, G. 2009. "e ‘Broken Society’ Election: Class Hatred and the Politics of Poverty and Place in Glasgow East. Social Policy and Society, 8, 437-450.153 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].154 Ibid.155 Griggs, J., Whitworth, A., Walker, R., McLennan, D. & Noble, M. 2008. Person- or place- based policies to tackle disadvantage?: Not knowing what works. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.156 Batty, E., Cole, I. & Green, S. 2011. Low-income neighbourhoods in Britain: "e gap between policy ideas and residents’ realities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Fyfe, A. 2009. Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Robertson, D., Smyth, J. & McIntosh, I. 2008. Neighbourhood identity: People, time and place. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Spicker, P. 2001. Poor areas and the “Ecological Fallacy”. Radical Statistics, 76, 38-49.157 Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

40

SPRLSPOVVK�VM�Z\JJLLKPUN�PU�[OPZ�JVTWSL_�ÄLSK158:

¸�:\JJLZZ�PU�HJOPL]PUN�[OPZ�V\[JVTL�^PSS�IL�PUÅ\LUJLK�I`!�[OL�WYVNYLZZ�THKL�PU�PKLU[PM`PUN�[OL�JVTWSL_�YHUNL�VM�ILOH]PV\YZ�HUK�KL[LYTPUHU[Z�^OPJO�JVU[YPI\[L�[V�WV]LY[`�HUK�PULX\HSP[`"�PKLU[PM`PUN�^OLYL�[OL�TVZ[�ZPNUPÄJHU[�PTWHJ[�JHU�IL�THKL�VU�V\[JVTLZ"�[HRPUN�HWWYVWYPH[L�HJ[PVU¹" and,¸�:\JJLZZ�^PSS�HSZV�IL�PUÅ\LUJLK�I`�[OL�X\HSP[`�VM�[OL�KH[H�HUK�PUMVYTH[PVU�^OPJO�^L�OH]L�VU�[OL�UH[\YL�HUK�L_[LU[�VM�PULX\HSP[PLZ�PU�:JV[SHUK��>L�ULLK�[V�\UKLYZ[HUK�[OL�JOHUNPUN�ULLKZ�VM�V\Y�PUJYLHZPUNS`�KP]LYZL�JVTT\UP[PLZ�HUK�IL�TVYL�YLZWVUZP]L�PU�[OL�WVSPJPLZ�^L�KL]LSVW�HUK�ZLY]PJLZ�^L�WYV]PKL¹�

So far, as discussed in section 3, the results have been mixed because of constraints placed on Scotland by UK government policies.

¸�<2�.V]LYUTLU[�WVSPJPLZ�VU�WLYZVUHS�[H_H[PVU�HUK�^LSMHYL�ILULÄ[Z�WSH`�H�JYP[PJHS�YVSL�PU�KL[LYTPUPUN�MHTPSPLZ»�PUJVTPUNZ!�[H_H[PVU��[H_�JYLKP[Z��ILULÄ[Z��[OL�5H[PVUHS�4PUPT\T�>HNL�HUK�V[OLY�Z[H[\[VY`�^VYRLYZ»�YPNO[Z�HYL�HSS�YLZLY]LK�[V�[OL�<2�.V]LYUTLU[��<2�.V]LYUTLU[�ZWLUKPUN�KLJPZPVUZ�HUK�YLMVYT�VM�[OL�^LSMHYL�Z`Z[LT�OH]L�[OL�WV[LU[PHS�[V�PTWHJ[�ZPNUPÄJHU[S`�VU�JOPSK�WV]LY[`�PU�:JV[SHUK�HUK�[OL�:JV[[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[�^PSS�JVU[PU\L�[V�W\YZ\L�[OL�ILZ[�PU[LYLZ[Z�VM�:JV[SHUK�PU�P[Z�KPHSVN\L�^P[O�<2�counterparts�� ¹�

These constraints reduce, but do not completely eliminate, the capacity of the Scottish Government to use income transfers as a tool to reduce poverty. In particular, the Scottish Government could do more to bring all local authorities into line with the commitments to the ‘Living Wage160’. The Scottish Government could also use its ability as a major purchaser of NVVKZ�HUK�ZLY]PJLZ�[V�PUÅ\LUJL�WYP]H[L�ZLJ[VY�WYHJ[PJL�PU�[OPZ�YLNHYK��

The Scottish Government is also committed to reducing child poverty through education and the provision of health care and childcare161�HUK�PZ�H^HYL�VM�[OL�JVUZLX\LUJLZ�VM�ÄUHUJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU�(where conventional banks fail to provide credit leaving the poorest having to pay excessive rates VM�PU[LYLZ[�PU�VYKLY�[V�JVWL�^P[O�Z\KKLU�ÄUHUJPHS�ZOVJRZ��VY��L]LU�^VYZL��[V�THPU[HPU�OV\ZLOVSK�expenses till the next wage cheque arrives).

The intention is clear and the policies to alleviate the consequences of poverty are well designed. However, for the most part, there is little that can be done to directly address the source of poverty under the current devolution agreement. At least, in stark contrast to the Coalition Government in power in Westminster, the Scottish Government has been prepared since 1999 [V�YLTHPU�JVTTP[[LK�[V�[OL�PKLH�[OH[�[OL�Z[H[L�KVLZ�OH]L�H�YVSL�PU�VɈZL[[PUN�Z[Y\J[\YHS�JH\ZLZ�VM�inequality162.

However, the policies adopted can be seen as addressing the issues associated with, or following on from, social exclusion rather than those that contribute to the problems of low income, poverty and social exclusion163.

158 Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012].159 Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government., p. 14160 Scottish Living Wage Campaign 2011. Submission from Scottish Living Wage Campaign. SLWC.161 Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.162 Murphy, R. 2011. "e Courageous State: Rethinking Economics, Society and the Role of Government. 163 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

41

3.9.2 Further Options

;OPZ�ZLJ[PVU�IYPLÅ`�L_WSVYLZ�[^V�WV[LU[PHS�L_[LUZPVUZ�[V�[OL�HWWYVHJO�V\[SPULK�HIV]L��6UL�HYN\LZ�[OH[�ZPUJL�W\ISPJ�ZLY]PJLZ�HUK�W\ISPJ�NVVKZ�HYL�WHY[PJ\SHYS`�OLSWM\S�PU�VɈZL[[PUN�[OL�WYVISLTZ�VM�low income, a useful focus could be to expand the provision of public services, free or low cost at the point of delivery. The second, takes the argument that poverty is a product of low income and reviews various approaches that could be adopted to alleviate this particular aspect of the problem. In combination, these two approaches may help Scotland to start to address the causes of social exclusion rather than simply to alleviate the symptoms. In turn, this argument is explored in the next chapter, looking at the type of powers that would need to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

3.9.2.1 Provision of Public Goods

6UL�RL`�LSLTLU[�[V�VɈZL[[PUN�PUKP]PK\HS�]HYPH[PVUZ�PU�PUJVTL�PZ�[OL�WYV]PZPVU�VM�W\ISPJ�NVVKZ�accessible by all, either for free or at a minimal cost164. In the UK the poorer areas tend to have fewer amenities such as transport, decent green spaces165, access to cheap and nutritious food166��HJJLZZ�[V�YLSH[P]LS`�JOLHW�IHURPUN�HUK�V[OLY�ÄUHUJPHS�ZLY]PJLZ��HZ�^LSS�HZ�SHJRPUN�[OL�ILULÄ[Z�VM�^LSS�THPU[HPULK��YLSH[P]LS`�JYPTL�MYLL�LU]PYVUTLU[Z��*VUZLX\LU[S �̀�[OL�PUKP]PK\HS�PTWHJ[�VM�SV^�PUJVTL�PZ�HTWSPÄLK167 and if there was better provision then many of the adverse JVUZLX\LUJLZ�JHU�IL�VɈZL[�

One simple example is access to childcare. The provision of high quality, widely available, local and subsidised childcare168 has the advantage of easing entry into work for many families, improving early years learning and nutrition and providing decent wages in a local community area for those who run the provision. This is important as it prevents the rapid narrowing of VWWVY[\UP[`�[OH[�V[OLY^PZL�HɈLJ[Z�ZV�THU`�JOPSKYLU�SP]PUN�PU�SV^�PUJVTL�MHTPSPLZ169. The UK model of privatised provision has the disadvantage of high cost which deters many who need P[�[OL�TVZ[��(U�LTWOHZPZ�VU�WYP]H[L�ZLJ[VY�WYV]PZPVU�LUZ\YLZ�[OH[�HɈVYKHISL�JOPSK�JHYL�PZ�UV[�available in areas of relative poverty170. More generally in the period up to 2005 there is evidence that the Welsh approach171 saw better integration of pre-school child care provision. The relevant SLNPZSH[PVU�WSHJLZ�H�YLX\PYLTLU[�VU�SVJHS�H\[OVYP[PLZ�PU�>HSLZ�[V�¸ZLJ\YL�Z\ɉJPLU[�JOPSKJHYL�

164 Blanden, J. & Gibbons, S. 2006. "e persistence of poverty across generations: A view from two British cohorts. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Stevens, A. H. 1995. Climbing out of Poverty, Falling Back In: Measuring the Persistence of Poverty over Multiple Spells. Cambridge MA: NBER, Townsend, P. 1987. Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16, 125-146.165 Mind. 2010. Mental health and the environment [Online]. Mind. Available: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/ecominds/ecominds/ mental_health_and_the_environment [Accessed 30 December 2011].166 Wanless, D. 2002. Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View - "e Wanless Review. London: HM Treasury.167 Spicker, P. 2001. Poor areas and the “Ecological Fallacy”. Radical Statistics, 76, 38-49.168 Whiteford, P. & Adema, W. 2007. What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Bene!t or Work Strategy? : OECD.169 Wincott, D. 2006. Paradoxes of New Labour Social Policy: Toward Universal Child Care in Europe’s “Most Liberal” Welfare Regime? Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 13, 286-312.170 Scottish Government 2010a. Child Poverty in Scotland: a brief overview of the evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, UNICEF 2007. Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, Watson, J. 2007. Child Poverty in Scotland. Edinburgh: Barnado’s.171 Wincott, D. 2006. Paradoxes of New Labour Social Policy: Toward Universal Child Care in Europe’s “Most Liberal” Welfare Regime? Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 13, 286-312.

42

to meet the requirements of parents in their area who require childcare in order to work or to undertake training or education to prepare for work”172. This has led to a more coherent approach than elsewhere in the UK where provision has remained piecemeal (and expensive).

;OL�PTWHJ[�VM�KPɈLYLU[�HWWYVHJOLZ�[V�[OL�WYV]PZPVU�VM�RL`�ZLY]PJLZ�JHU�IL�ZLLU�PU�[OL�KPɈLYLU[�models of funding child care adopted in the UK and Sweden173. In both states, the policy model is to encourage an early return to work for parent(s) given the relative correlation between worklessness and poverty. The 2002 reforms in Sweden capped the total fee that could be charged and ensured that subsidised child care has to be provided by each municipality for HSS�JOPSKYLU�HNLK�IL[^LLU�VUL�HUK�Ä]L��;OL�PTWHJ[�VM�[OL�UL^�Z`Z[LT�^HZ�[V�YLK\JL�H]LYHNL�parental contribution from 18% to 10% of the total costs and left families with bills of between 80-120 euros per month for child care costs (ie roughly £50-80). Although marginally successful in encouraging return to work, an evaluation report174 still concluded that an increase in overall child ILULÄ[��YH[OLY�[OHU�JOHUNLZ�[V�Z\IZPKPZPUN�JOPSK�JHYL�JVZ[Z��^V\SK�OH]L�OHK�H�TVYL�KPYLJ[�PTWHJ[�on child poverty.

In the UK, the main form of state support is in the form of tax-credits175�KLZPNULK�[V�VɈZL[�some of the cost. The system makes it very hard to compare as each payment is related to the individual but the childcare element is worth around £150 per week. Since weekly childcare charges average around £200-£250, this means a much lower level of support than in Sweden with this support provided on an individual basis as opposed to by right. In turn, actual provision of child-care in the UK is mostly a matter of accessing private providers and there is evidence [OH[�[OPZ�]HYPLZ�Z\IZ[HU[PHSS`�PU�[LYTZ�VM�WYPJL��X\HSP[`�HUK�H]HPSHIPSP[ �̀�0U�LɈLJ[��WYV]PZPVU�HZ�H�public good has proved to be both cheaper (for users and the state) and to provide a more LɈLJ[P]L�ZLY]PJL�

4VYL�NLULYHSS �̀�ZJOVVSZ�HYL�WV[LU[PHSS`�H�TLHUZ�[V�VɈLY�JVTT\UP[`�Z\WWVY[��;OLYL�PZ�HTWSL�L]PKLUJL�MYVT�(\Z[YHSPH�[OH[�I\PSKPUN�Z\WWVY[�TLJOHUPZTZ�HYV\UK�ZJOVVSZ�OHZ�H�WVZP[P]L�LɈLJ[�on mental and community wellbeing176. The provision of cheap, or free school meals for all JOPSKYLU�OHZ�[OL�ILULÄ[�VM�LUZ\YPUN�[OH[�[OVZL�PU�ULLK�OH]L�H[�SLHZ[�VUL�IHSHUJLK�TLHS�H�KH`�^P[OV\[�[OL�Z[PNTH��VY�KPɉJ\S[PLZ��PU�OH]PUN�[V�HWWS`�MVY�[OPZ�VU�[OL�IHZPZ�VM�MHTPSPHS�PUJVTL177.

*VU[YHY`�[V�[OL�*VHSP[PVU�HUK�5L^�3HIV\Y�HYN\TLU[�[OH[�ZVJPHS�ILULÄ[Z�HYL�VUS`�HJJLW[HISL�PM�^LSS�[HYNL[LK��[OLYL�PZ�H�SV[�VM�L]PKLUJL�[V�Z\NNLZ[�[OH[�[OL�TVZ[�LɈLJ[P]L�HWWYVHJO�PZ�^OLU�Z\JO�ILULÄ[Z�HYL�\UP]LYZHSS`�H]HPSHISL�HZ�MYLL�NVVKZ��5V[�VUS`�KVLZ�[OPZ�YLÅLJ[�H�^PKLY�[YHUZMLY�

172 Smith, R., Poole, E., Perry, J., Wollny, I., Reeves, A., Coshall, C. & d’Souza, J. 2009. Childcare and Early Years Survey Wales 2009. Cardi#: National Centre for Social Research., p.11173 Brink, A., Nordblom, K. & Wahlberg, R. 2007. Maximum Fee vs. Child Bene!t:A Welfare Analysis of Swedish Child-Care Fee Reform. Bonn: Institute for the study of Labor.174 Ibid.175 HM Revenue and Customs. 2010. Child Bene!t [Online]. Available: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbene!t/index.htm [Accessed 29 July 2010].176 Barrett, P. M., Farrell, L. J. & Ollendick, T. H. 2006. Long-term outcomes of an Australian universal prevention trial of anxiety and depression symptoms in children and youth: An evaluation of the Friends Program. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 403-411, Barrett, P. M. & Sonderegger, R. 2005. Anxiety in Children-FRIENDS Program. In: A. Freeman, S.H. Felgoise, C.M. Nezu, Nezu, A. M. & Reinecke, M. A. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Behavior "erapy. New York: Springer.177 Wanless, D. 2002. Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View - "e Wanless Review. London: HM Treasury.

43

of income within society178��P[�PZ�VM[LU�[OL�JVZ[�LɈLJ[P]L�^H`�[V�WYV]PKL�H�ZLY]PJL�HUK�KVLZ�ZV�^P[OV\[�JYLH[PUN�[OL�HWWLHYHUJL�VM�H�NYV\W�^OV�JHU�[OLU�IL�HYN\LK�[V�ºILULÄ[�\UMHPYS`»�

3.9.2.2 Income Transfers

The need to address the problem of low income has been acknowledged by the Scottish Government179. One working group as part of “A Better Scotland for All”180�PKLU[PÄLK�Ä]L�preconditions for this181:

�� Using the Minimum Income Standard to assess the adequacy of current policies;�� Establishing fair taxation policies at the UK level;�� 0UJYLHZPUN�[OL�SL]LS�VM�^LSMHYL�ILULÄ[Z�PU�VYKLY�[OH[�JSHPTHU[Z�KV�UV[�SP]L�PU�WV]LY[`"�� Increasing the level of the national minimum wage, and having a single rate for the

minimum wage regardless of age;�� Employers in the public and private sectors supporting the introduction of living wages”182.

The problem with this set of recommendations is that with the possible exception of the last one, all are at the moment reserved to the Westminster Government. The last is partly an issue that the Scottish Government, and the wider public sector in Scotland, could address in terms of its direct and indirect employment of 586,000 people183. Most of these work for the NHS or Local Government:

Figure 3:16!�7\ISPJ�:LJ[VY�,TWSV`TLU[�PU�:JV[SHUK��8������184

178 Murphy, R. 2011. "e Courageous State: Rethinking Economics, Society and the Role of Government 179 Welford, S. 2010. Scottish Assembly for Tackling Poverty. Glasgow: "e Poverty Alliance.180 Scottish Government. 2012a. Employability & Tackling Poverty [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http:// www.employabilityinscotland.com/poverty/tackling-poverty-in-scotland [Accessed 8 May 2012].181 Welford, S. 2010. Scottish Assembly for Tackling Poverty. Glasgow: "e Poverty Alliance.182 Ibid., p.2183 Scottish Government. 2012b. Public Sector Employment [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www. scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Labour-Market/TrendPublicSectorEmp [Accessed 1 June 2012].184 Ibid.

44

In 2008, the Scottish Government adopted a commitment to pay the ‘Living Wage’ of £7.20 per hour. However, a recent survey by the Scottish Living Wage Campaign (SLWC)185 estimated that some 18,000 employees in the Local Government sector were still being paid less than this amount. The SLWC has also argued that the Scottish public sector can use its procurement M\UJ[PVU�[V�WSHJL�WYLZZ\YL�VU�WYP]H[L�ZLJ[VY�ÄYTZ�[V�TH[JO�[OPZ�JVTTP[TLU[186 using the 2006 EU Procurement Directive with its emphasis on taking account of social and environmental issues when placing orders. Using the ‘Living Wage’ concept across the Public Sector (by bringing all councils into line) and using public sector procurement would give the Scottish Government some leverage over the payment of too low wages.

The provision of public goods or seeking to address directly the problem of income inequality does not completely remove the issue of some individuals choosing to live in such a way as to cause individual poverty. However, this is much less prevalent than the dominant discourse would suggest187. Seeing poverty as a consequence of social structures as well as social choices and founded on low income is a fundamental rejection of the Centre for Social Justice188 model where poverty is a consequence of individual failings to be resolved by any work, no matter how badly paid189.

The obvious question is what more can the Scottish Government do to address the problem? This becomes part of the debate about the powers needed and the implications for retention of the status quo, further devolution from Westminster or full independence. This echoes the conclusion of the recent Joseph Rowntree report on social exclusion in Scotland190, stating that the:

¸�VI]PV\Z�NHWZ�PU�[OL�:JV[[PZO�NV]LYUTLU[»Z�HU[P�WV]LY[`�WYVNYHTTL�HYL�TVYL�[V�KV�^P[O�TH[[LYZ�V]LY�^OPJO�P[�KVLZ�UV[�OH]L�KPYLJ[�JVU[YVS��0U�[OPZ��[OL�:JV[[PZO�NV]LYUTLU[�PZ�UV�KPMMLYLU[�MYVT�[OL�V[OLY�[^V�KL]VS]LK�HKTPUPZ[YH[PVUZ��HUK�L]LU�[OL�<2�NV]LYUTLU[��^OPJO�OHZ�[H_�HUK�ILULÄ[�WV^LYZ��I\[�KVLZ�UV[�HS^H`Z�OH]L�JVU[YVS�V]LY�HSS�TH[[LYZ�YLSH[LK�[V�WV]LY[`���>OH[�P[�YLÅLJ[Z��VM�JV\YZL��PZ�[OH[�[OL�YVV[Z�VM�WV]LY[`�SPL�PU�H�OVZ[�VM�KLJPZPVUZ�[HRLU�^P[OPU�JP]PS�ZVJPL[`�HYV\UK��ÄYZ[��[OL�^VYRWSHJL�HUK��second, the provision of essential services, a term which can be understood to include health and education� �¹�

However, in spite of this conclusion, the Scottish Government clearly does have substantial WV^LYZ�HUK�PUÅ\LUJL�\UKLY�[OL�J\YYLU[�ZL[[SLTLU[��;OL�JVTTP[TLU[�[V�HKKYLZZ�ZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU�has been a major theme of the Scottish Executive and Government since 1999 and it is possible to identify aspects, even where the powers are devolved, where more can be done to address the 30% living with the lowest incomes in Scotland.

185 Scottish Living Wage Campaign 2011. Submission from Scottish Living Wage Campaign. SLWC.186 Ibid.187 Batty, E., Cole, I. & Green, S. 2011. Low-income neighbourhoods in Britain: "e gap between policy ideas and residents’ realities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.188 Centre for Social Justice 2008. Breakthrough Glasgow: Ending the costs of social breakdown. London: Centre for Social Justice.189 Goos, M. & Manning, A. 2007. Lousy and Lovely Jobs: "e Rising Polarization of Work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 118-133, Scottish Living Wage Campaign 2011. Submission from Scottish Living Wage Campaign. SLWC, Stevens, A. H. 1995. Climbing out of Poverty, Falling Back In: Measuring the Persistence of Poverty over Multiple Spells. Cambridge MA: NBER.190 Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2010 York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.191 Ibid., p. 19

45

Chapter 4: Comparative Data

This section draws heavily on comparative data published by the European Commission’s Eurostat192 and health193. However, this level of access is not consistent and sometimes the EU data is only reported at the national level194��;V�ÄSS�PU�[OL�]HYPV\Z�NHWZ�^OLYL�HWWYVWYPH[L��KH[H�PZ�indicated according to the main source and any subsidiary information sets.

The selection of tables is driven by what is available to provide a broad range of comparisons between Scotland, the rest of the UK, the EU as a whole and the Nordic countries of Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The latter were adopted as comparators in view of some similarities in population size, some shared historic problems with population health195and because they are often cited as role models for a Scotland able to follow its own economic and social policies.

;OL�ÄYZ[�[^V�[HISLZ�SVVR�H[�[OL�WVW\SH[PVU�PU�VY�ºH[�YPZR»�VM�WV]LY[ �̀�;OL�SH[[LY�PZ�KLÄULK�HZ�OH]PUN�below 60% of the median income, and is seen as a group at risk of slipping into poverty when faced with a dip in income or unexpected costs. The second table captures the much small WYVWVY[PVU�KLÄULK�HZ�SP]PUN�^P[O�ºZL]LYL�TH[LYPHS�KLWYP]H[PVU»��(S[OV\NO�[OL�HUHSVN`�PZ�ZSPNO[S`�ÅH^LK��[OPZ�JHU�IL�[OV\NO[�VM�HZ�[OL�KPɈLYLUJL�IL[^LLU�YLSH[P]L�HUK�HIZVS\[L�SL]LSZ�VM�WV]LY[ �̀

Table 4-1: Proportion of the population at risk of poverty196

YearRegion 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Scotland 19.0 20.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 :United Kingdom : 19.0 19.0 18.6 18.7 17.3 17.1Denmark 10.9 11.8 11.7 11.7 11.8 13.1 13.3Finland 11.0 11.7 12.6 13.0 13.6 13.8 13.1Sweden 11.3 9.5 12.3 10.5 12.2 13.3 12.9Iceland 10.0 9.7 9.6 10.1 10.1 10.2 9.8Norway 10.8 11.4 12.1 11.9 11.6 11.7 11.2

6U�[OPZ�TLHZ\YL��:JV[SHUK�OHZ�ZPTPSHY�WYVISLTZ�[V�[OL�<2�HZ�H�^OVSL�HUK�IV[O�SHN�ZPNUPÄJHU[S`�behind the Nordic countries.

192 Atkinson, A. B. & Marlier, E. 2010. Income and living conditions in Europe. Luxembourg: EuroStat.193 EuroStat. 2012a. Income and Living Conditions [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012], EuroStat. 2012b. Population Statistics [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ population/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012].194 Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].195 "e bulk of the data is drawn from: EuroStat. 2012a. Income and Living Conditions [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012]., the Scottish data is from: Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics., p.20196 EuroStat. 2012a. Income and Living Conditions [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012].

46

Table 4-2: Proportion of the population with severe material deprivation197

YearRegion 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010United Kingdom : 5.3 4.5 4.2 4.5 3.3 4.8Denmark 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.0 2.3 2.7Finland 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.8Sweden 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.3Iceland 2.5 2.7 2.1 2.1 0.8 0.8 1.8Norway 2.7 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.0

This comparative table captures the most extreme cases of poverty shows a very similar KPɈLYLUJL�[V�[HISL�����IL[^LLU�[OL�<2�HUK�[OL�5VYKPJ�JV\U[YPLZ��(�JVTWHYHISL�[PTL�ZLYPLZ�VM�KH[H�MVY�:JV[SHUK�JHUUV[�IL�PKLU[PÄLK��I\[�PUKPJH[PVUZ�HYL198 that again the situation is similar to [OL�<2��:PUJL�[OL�THPU�YLHZVUZ�HYL�[OL�YH[LZ�VM�ZVJPHS�^LSMHYL�ILULÄ[Z�HUK�[OL�WYVISLT�VM�SV^�^HNLZ��HUK�SPTP[LK�^VYR���P[�PZ�\USPRLS`�[OH[�:JV[SHUK�JV\SK�WLYMVYT�WHY[PJ\SHYS`�KPɈLYLU[�[V�[OL�YLZ[�of the UK. In this instance, data on income inequalities is useful and a common measure is the .PUP�*VLɉJPLU[�[OH[�SVVRZ�H[�[OL�YLSH[P]L�KPZWLYZHS�VM�PUJVTLZ�

Table 4-3!�.PUP�*VLɉJPLU[Z�HUK�JOHUNLZ����������199

Year

Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010EU (27 countries) : 30.6 30.2 30.6 30.7 30.4 30.5

Scotland 29.5 31.5 31.7 33.1 34.1 34.7

United Kingdom 34.2 34.7 35.3 35.9 35.8 35.8 33.0

Denmark 23.9 23.9 23.7 25.2 25.1 26.9 26.9

Finland 25.5 26.0 25.9 26.2 26.3 25.9 25.4

Sweden 23.0 23.4 24.0 23.4 24.0 24.8 24.1

Iceland 24.1 25.1 26.3 28.0 27.3 29.6 25.7

Norway 25.2 28.2 31.1 23.7 25.1 24.1 23.6

0U�[OPZ�ZLUZL��:JV[SHUK�PZ�JSVZLY�[V�[OL�,<�UVYT�[OHU�[OL�YLZ[�VM�[OL�<2��I\[�Z[PSS�OHZ�ZPNUPÄJHU[S`�more income inequality than the Nordic states.

(�ÄUHS�ZL[�VM�\ZLM\S�JVTWHYH[P]L�KH[H�JHU�IL�KYH^U�MYVT�W\ISPJ�OLHS[O�PUKPJLZ��6UL�ZPTWSL�measure is life expectancy at birth and, due to how it is reported, this can be broken down into regions within Scotland to ease comparisons:

197 Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh: National Statistics, Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www. scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].198 "e bulk of this table is drawn from EuroStat. 2012a. Income and Living Conditions [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012]. And the Scottish data comes from: Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/ IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012].199 EuroStat. 2012b. Population Statistics [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page/portal/population/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012].

47

Table 4-4: Life Expectancy at Birth200

Year

Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Eastern Scotland 77.9 77.8 78.4 78.6 78.6 79.1South Western Scotland 75.9 76.3 76.4 76.2 76.6 77.3North Eastern Scotland 76.4 77.1 76.7 77.2 77.2 77.7

Highlands and Islands 79.3 80.1 80.0 79.9 80.5 81.3

United Kingdom 76.2 76.8 77.1 77.3 77.6 77.8

Finland 75.1 75.4 75.6 75.9 76.0 76.5

Sweden 78.0 78.4 78.5 78.8 79.0 79.2

Iceland 79.5 78.9 79.6 79.5 79.6 80.0

Norway 77.1 77.6 77.8 78.2 78.3 78.4

It is in terms of health outcomes that the problems in Scotland compared to the rest of the European Union become clear. For example, in terms of alcohol related deaths201 , Scotland is among the worst, only matched by problems in the former Eastern Block countries:

200 Scottish Government. 2008a. Alcohol [Online]. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/health/Alcohol [Accessed 13 January 2010].201 EuroStat 2009. Health statistics – Atlas on mortality in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Commission. P. 174

48

Figure 4:1: Alcohol related deaths across the EU202

This in turn is related to very high death rates across the general population, again much in line with the poorer East European countries than the rest of North-West Europe.

202 Ibid., p. 18

49

Figure 4:2: Death rates per 100,000 across the EU203

In this case, the issues are not just related to relative income or degree of social exclusion. Some of the health issues in Scotland are prevalent across the population but are still to be found con-centrated in the poorer communities. Other countries in the EU, with historically similar problems, have over time managed to address problems of poor diet and excess alcohol intake203, and some of the problems facing Scotland need to be dealt with in a similar manner.

203 Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., Huttunen, J. & Teperi, J. 2006. Health in Finland. Helsinki: National Public Health Institute.

50

*OHW[LY��!�;OL�+L]VS\[PVU�-YHTL^VYR

;OPZ�ZLJ[PVU�[HRLZ�[OL�IHZPJ�ÄUKPUNZ�HYV\UK�Z\P[HISL�WVSPJPLZ�HUK�JVUZPKLYZ�OV^�MHY�:JV[SHUK�JHU�address them under various models of devolution. Can Scotland make more progress in tackling social inequality using the current powers, or is there a need for further devolution or is the most realistic framework one of full independence. As suggested at the end of Chapter Three, the major policy gaps are mostly related to issues currently reserved to Westminster, however, there HYL�KL]VS]LK�WV^LYZ�[OH[�JV\SK�IL�\ZLK�TVYL�LɈLJ[P]LS �̀

5.1 Assumptions

This section quickly sketches out the assumptions of the range of powers and options under LHJO�VM�[OL�[OYLL�Z[H[LZ�VM!�:[H[\Z�8\V��+L]V�4H_�HUK�0UKLWLUKLUJL�

5.1.1 Status Quo

In this case, the assumption is that the range of powers remains much as it is at the moment. Thus health, education and local government are fully devolved allowing the Scottish Government to adjust policy in those areas to meet its own priorities rather than accepting Westminster’s approaches. Funding will continue as some version of the current ‘Barnett Formula’ and, the Scottish Government will be able to identify a relatively small number of initiatives (as now, for example around student tuition fees and care for the elderly) that it will be able to promote.

5.1.2 Devo-Max

0U�[OPZ�JHZL��[OL�THPU�HZZ\TW[PVU�PZ�[OH[�[OL�YHUNL�VM�WVSPJ`�HYLHZ�KL]VS]LK�^PSS�IL�ZPNUPÄJHU[S`�extended and that Scotland will have two main sources of funding. It is assumed there will IL�ZVTL�MVYT�VM�ÄUHUJPHS�[YHUZHJ[PVU�[V�[OL�<2�NV]LYUTLU[��[V�WH`�MVY�ZOHYLK�ZLY]PJLZ�HUK��in the other direction, as repayment of expenditure and/or income raised nationally) and a greater degree of revenue raising within Scotland. In combination, this may allow Scotland MHY�NYLH[LY�ÅL_PIPSP[`�PU�[HPSVYPUN�P[Z�HWWYVHJO�[V�P[Z�V^U�ULLKZ�I\[�[OL�^PKLY�WVSPJ`�MYHTL^VYR��THJYV�LJVUVTPJ�HUK�ÄZJHS��^PSS�Z[PSS�IL�ZL[�H[�[OL�<2�SL]LS��;OL�HZZ\TW[PVU�PZ�[OH[�[OL�:JV[[PZO�Parliament will have the ability to vary income tax levels but probably not to alter the overall structure of the tax system.

5.1.3 Independence

Again, as with devo-max, there is a degree of uncertainty as to what is meant by independence. The referendum planned for 2014, essentially will ask Scotland to enter into negotiations for independence but will not be about the form that independence will take. From comments by [OL�:57��[OL�HZZ\TW[PVU�PZ�[OH[�ZVTL�PZZ\LZ�Z\JO�HZ�MVYLPNU�HɈHPYZ��ZLJ\YP[`�HUK�KLMLUJL�^PSS�Z[PSS�

51

be handled at the UK level and that the commitment to retain sterling implies a large element of THJYV�LJVUVTPJ�HUK�ÄZJHS�WVSPJ`�Z[PSS�ILPUN�ZL[�H[�>LZ[TPUZ[LY��0U�HKKP[PVU��P[�PZ�HZZ\TLK�[OLYL�^PSS�IL�JYVZZ�IVYKLY�ÄUHUJPHS�ÅV^Z�[V�JV]LY�ZOHYLK�ZLY]PJLZ��/V^L]LY��PU�NLULYHS�P[�PZ�HZZ\TLK�this will give Scotland full control over the domestic policy agenda including the structure of the tax system.

5.2 Status Quo, ‘Devo-Max’ or Independence? ;OL�Z[H[\Z�X\V�PZZ\LZ�HUK�WYVISLTZ�OH]L�ILLU�YL]PL^LK�PU�JOHW[LY�Ä]L��;OLYL�PZ�ZVTL�ZJVWL�for more action on a number of key areas but as long as social welfare policy, employment policy and taxation structures are held at the UK level there is little more that can be done. Scotland’s approach to social exclusion will be largely conditioned by the approach of the Westminster NV]LYUTLU[�HUK�[OL�THPU�LɈLJ[�^PSS�IL�[V�VɈZL[�ZVTL�VM�[OL�^VYZ[�HZWLJ[Z�VM�[OL�*VHSP[PVU»Z�policies.

Within devo-max, there is more scope to address some aspects of social exclusion. In particular, greater control over a larger budget and the ability to shape key elements such as welfare, would allow more progress to be made. Even if tax policy remains as regressive as it currently PZ��[OL�HIPSP[`�[V�\ZL�LTWSV`TLU[�YLN\SH[PVUZ�HUK�^LSMHYL�JHZO�[YHUZMLYZ�TH`�VɈZL[�ZVTL�VM�[OL�causes of poverty. However, this assumes the continuation of a Westminster government with the Coalition’s priorities in terms of taxation and social welfare. If this was to change then devo-max may well present the Scottish Government with the ability to tailor that wider approach to address [OL�ZWLJPÄJHSS`�:JV[[PZO�HZWLJ[Z�VM�ZVJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU�

Finally, the main gain from Independence would seem to lie in the ability to craft a tax system that is both simple and progressive. However, whether this could be delivered, given the likely continuation of UK-wide movement of goods, capital and people is less clear.

52

Chapter 6: Conclusions

This report has drawn together much of the existing material on social exclusion in Scotland to evaluate the current situation. There is a general consensus that social exclusion has been a policy focus for successive Scottish governments and that in some areas this has had the HK]HU[HNL�VM�TPUPTPZPUN�[OL�HK]LYZL�HɈLJ[Z�VM�[OL�HWWYVHJOLZ�[HRLU�I`�IV[O�5L^�3HIV\Y�and the Coalition Government. The Scottish Government has continued to base its approach on research and real data rather than the conclusions of pressure groups such as the Centre for Social Justice. The result is that, on balance, those areas where social exclusion has worsened are those areas reserved to the Westminster government. This is not to absolve the Scottish Government of all responsibility and more could be done in terms of improving wages, addressing the correlation between ethnicity and poverty, the persistence of poverty in particular districts and child poverty.

At the heart of this report is a simple argument. Social exclusion is a product of income poverty not individual lifestyle choices. Thus addressing social exclusion must start from addressing this problem and it has three basic components – low income from work (low wages and/or PUZ\ɉJPLU[�^VYR���J\[Z�PU�^LSMHYL�[YHUZMLYZ�HUK�[OL�YLK\J[PVU�PU�MYLLS`�H]HPSHISL�W\ISPJ�NVVKZ��

:VJPHS�L_JS\ZPVU�HɈLJ[Z�\Z�HSS��UV[�VUS`�PU�[LYTZ�VM�JVUZLX\LU[PHS�WYVISLTZ�Z\JO�HZ�JYPTL�HUK�health costs but also in terms of economic performance. Like most of the world, Scotland is MHJPUN�HU�LJVUVTPJ�JYPZPZ�JH\ZLK�I`�H�SHJR�VM�LɈLJ[P]L�KLTHUK��5L^�3HIV\Y»Z�ZVS\[PVU�^HZ�that low wages would be topped up by tax credits and access to easy credit so as to sustain consumption. A more realistic solution is to ensure a more equitable distribution of income, thus improving demand for locally generated goods and services.

This analysis also feeds into the current debate about devolution. One argument is that, regardless of the form of devolution (status-quo, devo-max or independence) key THJYVLJVUVTPJ�HUK�ÄZJHS�WVSPJPLZ�^PSS�JVU[PU\L�[V�IL�ZL[�H[�>LZ[TPUZ[LY��0M�ZV��[OLU�:JV[SHUK�PZ�IL[[LY�ZLY]LK�I`�ZLLRPUN�HZ�T\JO�KPYLJ[�PUÅ\LUJL�VU�V]LYHSS�<2�WVSPJ`�JVTIPULK�^P[O�[OL�freedom to vary that policy to address particularly Scottish aspects of the problem. On the V[OLY�OHUK��[OL�J\YYLU[�ZL[[SLTLU[�HSSV^Z�[OL�:JV[[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[�[V�KV�SP[[SL�I\[�VɈZL[�ZVTL�of the worst consequences of Westminster policy. However, in every case, the overall economic HUK�ÄZJHS�TVKLS�^PSS�JVU[PU\L�[V�IL�ZL[�H[�>LZ[TPUZ[LY��[OPZ�HZZ\TLZ�YL[LU[PVU�VM�Z[LYSPUN�PU�HU�independent Scotland).

;OPZ�SLH]LZ�ZL]LYHS�PTWVY[HU[�X\LZ[PVUZ�VWLU��(Z�SVUN�HZ�[OL�^PKLY�<2�ÄZJHS��ZVJPHS�HUK�economic approach remains framed by the coalition government then social exclusion will JVU[PU\L�[V�YPZL��:JV[SHUK�JHU�VɈZL[�ZVTL�VM�[OH[�I\[�[OPZ�^PSS�IL�JVUZ[YHPULK�K\L�[V�[OL�commitment to retain sterling (even in the case of independence). The ideal is a UK level government that is prepared to turn its back on the neo-liberal economic and social policies that have done so much damage and then a Scottish government that can adapt that wider framework to meet the particular challenges faced in Scotland.

53

References

Aldridge, H., Parekh, A., MacInnes, T. & Kenway, P. 2012. Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2011. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Arter, D. 1999. Scandinavian politics today, Manchester, Manchester University Press. Atkinson, A. B. & Marlier, E. 2010. Income and living conditions in Europe. Luxembourg:

EuroStat. Barrett, P. M., Farrell, L. J. & Ollendick, T. H. 2006. Long-term outcomes of an Australian

universal prevention trial of anxiety and depression symptoms in children and youth: An evaluation of the Friends Program. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 403-411. Barrett, P. M. & Sonderegger, R. 2005. Anxiety in Children-FRIENDS Program. In: A. Freeman,

S.H. Felgoise, C.M. Nezu, Nezu, A. M. & Reinecke, M. A. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive� )LOH]PVY�;OLYHW �̀�5L^�@VYR!�:WYPUNLY� Bartholomew, J. 2006. The Welfare State We’re In, London, Politico Press. Bates, P. & Davis, F. A. 2004. Social capital, social inclusion and services for people with

learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 19, 195 - 207. Batty, E., Cole, I. & Green, S. 2011. Low-income neighbourhoods in Britain: The gap between� WVSPJ`�PKLHZ�HUK�YLZPKLU[Z»�YLHSP[PLZ��@VYR!�1VZLWO�9V^U[YLL�-V\UKH[PVU� Blanden, J. & Gibbons, S. 2006. The persistence of poverty across generations: A view from� [^V�)YP[PZO�JVOVY[Z��@VYR!�1VZLWO�9V^U[YLL�-V\UKH[PVU��)YPUR��(���5VYKISVT��2�� �>HOSILYN��9��������4H_PT\T�-LL�]Z��*OPSK�)LULÄ[!(�>LSMHYL�(UHS`ZPZ

of Swedish Child-Care Fee Reform. Bonn: Institute for the study of Labor. Cappellari, L. & Jenkins, S. P. 2007. Summarising Multiple Deprivation Indicators. In: Jenkins, S.

& Micklewright, J. (eds.) Inequality and Poverty Re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Centre for Social Justice 2008. Breakthrough Glasgow: Ending the costs of social breakdown.

London: Centre for Social Justice. Clark, C., Myron, R., Stansfeld, S. A. & Candy, B. 2007. A systematic review of the evidence on� [OL�LɈLJ[�VM�[OL�I\PS[�HUK�WO`ZPJHS�LU]PYVUTLU[�VU�TLU[HS�OLHS[O��1V\YUHS�VM�7\ISPJ�4LU[HS Health, 6, 14-27. Clegg, N. 2010. Inequality becomes injustice when it is passed on, generation to generation

[Online]. London: The Guardian. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/ nov/22/inequality-injustice-nick-clegg [Accessed 22 November 2010]. Crawford, C., Johnson, P., Machin, S. & Vignoles, A. 2011. Social Mobility: A Literature Review.

London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Dorling, D. 2010. Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists, London, Policy Press.�,X\HSP[`�HUK�/\THU�9PNO[Z�*VTTPZZPVU�������:PNUPÄJHU[�PULX\HSP[PLZ�PU�:JV[SHUK!�0KLU[PM`PUN��� ZPNUPÄJHU[�PULX\HSP[PLZ�HUK�WYPVYP[PLZ�MVY�HJ[PVU��4HUJOLZ[LY!�,X\HSP[`�HUK�/\THU�9PNO[Z�� � Commission. Esping-Andersen, G. 1996. Welfare states in transition: national adaptations in global

economies, London, Sage. European Union 2008. Child Poverty and Well-Being in the EU: Current status and way forward.

European Commission. European Union. 2010a. Beyond GDP [Online]. European Union. Available: http://www.beyond-

gdp.eu/ [Accessed 3 August 2010].

54

European Union 2010b. Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Brussels. EuroStat 2009. Health statistics – Atlas on mortality in the European Union. Luxembourg:

European Commission.�,\YV:[H[�������,\YVWL�PU�ÄN\YLZ!�,\YVZ[H[�`LHYIVVR�������3\_LTIV\YN!�,\YVWLHU�*VTTPZZPVU� EuroStat. 2012a. Income and Living Conditions [Online]. European Commission. Available:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/ introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012]. EuroStat. 2012b. Population Statistics [Online]. European Commission. Available: http://epp.

eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/introduction [Accessed 4 May 2012]. Frazier, S. L., Cappella, E. & Atkins, M. S. 2007. Linking Mental Health and

After School Systems for Children in Urban Poverty: Preventing Problems, Promoting Possibilities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 34, 389-399. Fyfe, A. 2009. Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Galindo, M. P. G. G. & Rodriguez, J. A. C. 2000. Environmental Aesthetics and Psychological

Wellbeing: Relationships between Preference Judgements for Urban Landscapes and other � 9LSL]HU[�(ɈLJ[P]L�9LZWVUZLZ��7Z`JOVSVN`�PU�:WHPU����������� Goos, M. & Manning, A. 2007. Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in

Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 118-133. Gordon, D., Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Patsios, D., Payne, S. & Townsend, P. 2000. Poverty and

social exclusion in Britain Josephy Rowntree Foundation. Goulding, C. 22 February 2012. Workfare - How about some evidence. Available from: http://

www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2012/02/workfare-how-about-some-evidence [Accessed 3 May 2012]. Griggs, J., Whitworth, A., Walker, R., McLennan, D. & Noble, M. 2008. Person- or place- based � WVSPJPLZ�[V�[HJRSL�KPZHK]HU[HNL&!�5V[�RUV^PUN�^OH[�^VYRZ��@VYR!�1VZLWO�9V^U[YLL�-V\UKH[PVU� Gundersen, C., Kreider, B. & Pepper, J. 2012. The impact of the National School Lunch Program

on child health: A nonparametric bounds analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 166, 79-91. Hall, E. 2005. The entangled geographies of social exclusion/inclusion for people with learning

disabilities. Health & Place, 11, 107-115. HESA. 2012. Widening participation of under-represented groups [Online]. HESA. Available:

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2060&Itemid=141 [Accessed 5 March 2012]. HM Government. 2010. Equality Act 2010 [Online]. London: House of Commons. Available:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents [Accessed 23 April 2012].�/4�9L]LU\L�HUK�*\Z[VTZ��������*OPSK�)LULÄ[�B6USPULD��(]HPSHISL!�http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/

JOPSKILULÄ[�PUKL_�O[T [Accessed 29 July 2010]. Ibrahim, A. 2009. Initial Suggestions to Widening Access to the Professions Panel. Inchley, J., Todd, J., Bryce, C. & Currie, C. 2001. Dietary trends among Scottish schoolchildren

in the 1990s. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 14, 207-216.�1V`JL��9��������/V\ZLOVSKZ�^P[O�JOPSKYLU�[V�SVZL�TVZ[�MYVT�[H_�HUK�ILULÄ[�JOHUNLZ�PU�JVTPUN��

year [Online]. London: IFS. Available: http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/taxben_080312.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2012]. Kerr, D. 2005. Building a Health Service Fit for the Future [Online]. Scottish Government.

Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/05/23141307/13135 [Accessed 12

55

April 2012]. Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., Huttunen, J. & Teperi, J. 2006. Health in Finland. Helsinki: National

Public Health Institute. Lord Bradley 2009. Review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the

criminal justice system. Department of Health.�4PLYZ��;��������/H]L�[OL�^OLLSZ�JVTL�VɈ�[OL�WSHU�[V�THRL�:JV[SHUK�H�NSVIHS�WSH`LY&�:\UKH`��

Herald, 8 April, p.36. Mind. 2010. Mental health and the environment [Online]. Mind. Available: http://www.mind.

org.uk/help/ecominds/ecominds/mental_health_and_the_environment [Accessed 30 December 2011]. Mooney, G. 2009. The ‘Broken Society’ Election: Class Hatred and the Politics of Poverty and

Place in Glasgow East. Social Policy and Society, 8, 437-450. Murphy, R. 2011. The Courageous State: Rethinking Economics, Society and the Role of

Government Netto, G., Sosenko, F. & Bramley, G. 2011. Poverty and ethnicity in Scotland: Review of the � SP[LYH[\YL�HUK�KH[HZL[Z��@VYR!�1VZLWO�9V^U[YLL�-V\UKH[PVU� NHS. 2006. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) [Online]. Edinburgh:

healthscotland.com. Available: http://www.healthscotland.com/documents/1467.aspx [Accessed 24 April 2012]. NISRA. 2010. Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2010 [Online]. Belfast: Northern

Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Available: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/deprivation.htm [Accessed 14 February 2011]. Northstone, K., Joinson, C., Emmett, P., Ness, A. & Paus, T. 2011. Are dietary patterns in � JOPSKOVVK�HZZVJPH[LK�^P[O�08�H[���`LHYZ�VM�HNL&�(�WVW\SH[PVU�IHZLK�JVOVY[�Z[\K �̀�1V\YUHS�VM�� Epidemiology and Community Health. OECD 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD.

Page, R. M. 2007. Without a Song in their Heart: New Labour, the Welfare State and the Retreat from Democratic Socialism. Journal of Social Policy, 36, 19-37. Parekh, A., Kenway, P. & MacInnes, T. 2010. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in � :JV[SHUK������@VYR!�1VZLWO�9V^U[YLL�-V\UKH[PVU� Payne, S. 2006. Mental Health, Poverty and Social Exclusion. In: Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. &

Levitas, R. (eds.) Poverty and social exclusion in Britain: the millennium survey. Bristol: Policy Press. Perkins, R. & Rinaldi, M. 2002. Unemployment rates among patients with long-term mental

health problems: A decade of rising unemployment. Psychiatric Bulletin, 26, 295-298.�7PHJOH\K��+�� �:\[OLYSHUK��/��������/V^�,ɈLJ[P]L�PZ�[OL�)YP[PZO�.V]LYUTLU[»Z�H[[LTW[�[V�� �

reduce Child Poverty? London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.�9VILY[Z��:��������5V�ZUHRLZ��I\[�UV�SHKKLYZ»!�@V\UN�WLVWSL��LTWSV`TLU[��HUK�[OL�SV^�ZRPSSZ��

trap at the bottom of the contemporary service economy. Resolution Foundation. Robertson, D., Smyth, J. & McIntosh, I. 2008. Neighbourhood identity: People, time and place. � @VYR!�1VZLWO�9V^U[YLL�-V\UKH[PVU� Sawyer, M., Arney, F., Baghurst, P., Clark, J., Graetz, B., Kosky, R., Nurcombe, B., Patton,

G., Prior, M., Raphael, B., Rey, J., Whaites, L. & Zubrick, S. 2000. The mental health of young people in Australia: Child and adolescent component of the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra, ACT: Mental Health and Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

56

Scottish Government. 2008a. Alcohol [Online]. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ Health/health/Alcohol [Accessed 13 January 2010]. Scottish Government 2008b. Mental Health In Scotland: A Guide to delivering evidence-based

Psychological Therapies in Scotland (The Matrix). Edinburgh. Scottish Government 2009a. Demand for Psychological Therapies Services. Edinburgh. Scottish Government. 2009b. Inequalities [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/scotPerforms/outcomes/inequalities [Accessed 23 April 2012]. Scottish Government 2009c. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 Report. Edinburgh. Scottish Government 2010a. Child Poverty in Scotland: a brief overview of the evidence.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government 2010b. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2009 General Report.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government 2010c. SIMD 2009: Publication of Revised Income Domain and Overall

Index - Explanation of Revision and Analysis of Results. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government 2010d. Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: A Discussion Paper.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. 2011a. Income and Poverty: Main Analyses [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/ IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a10 [Accessed 8 May 2012]. Scottish Government 2011b. Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2009-10. Edinburgh:

National Statistics. Scottish Government. 2012a. Employability & Tackling Poverty [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government. Available: http://www.employabilityinscotland.com/poverty/tackling-poverty-in- scotland [Accessed 8 May 2012]. Scottish Government. 2012b. Public Sector Employment [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Labour-Market/ TrendPublicSectorEmp [Accessed 1 June 2012]. Scottish Government. 2012c. Scottish Health Survey [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/scottish-health-survey [Accessed 24 April 2012]. Scottish Government. 2012d. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [Online]. Edinburgh.

Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD [Accessed 11 April 2012]. Scottish Government. 2012e. Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics [Online]. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government. Available: http://www.sns.gov.uk/ [Accessed 11 April 2012]. Scottish Living Wage Campaign 2011. Submission from Scottish Living Wage Campaign.

SLWC. Shucksmith, M. & Chapman, P. 1998. Rural Development and Social Exclusion. Sociologia

Ruralis, 38, 225-242. Skerratt, S., Atterton, J., Hall, C., McCracken, D., Renwick, A., Revoredo-Giha, C.,

Steinerowski, A., Thomson, S. & Woolvin, M. 2012. Rural Scotland in Focus 2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural College. Slater, T. 2011. The Myth of ‘Broken Britain’: Welfare Reform and the Cultural Production of

Ignorance. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Institute of Geography. Smith, M. & Bettio, F. 2008. Analysis Note: the Economic Case for Gender Equality. European

57

Union. Smith, R., Poole, E., Perry, J., Wollny, I., Reeves, A., Coshall, C. & d’Souza, J. 2009. Childcare � HUK�,HYS`�@LHYZ�:\Y]L`�>HSLZ���� ��*HYKPɈ!�5H[PVUHS�*LU[YL�MVY�:VJPHS�9LZLHYJO� Spicker, P. 2001. Poor areas and the “Ecological Fallacy”. Radical Statistics, 76, 38-49. Stevens, A. H. 1995. Climbing out of Poverty, Falling Back In: Measuring the Persistence of

Poverty over Multiple Spells. Cambridge MA: NBER. Story, M., Nanney, M. S. & Schwartz, M. B. 2009. Schools and Obesity Prevention: Creating

School Environments and Policies to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical Activity. Milbank � 8\HY[LYS �̀������������ Townsend, P. 1987. Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16, 125-146.�;YLJR��;��]��������+PK�PULX\HSP[`�JH\ZL�[OL�<�:��ÄUHUJPHS�JYPZPZ&�+�ZZLSKVYM!�4HJYVLJVUVTPJ���

Policy Institute (IMK). UNICEF 2000. Report Card No.1: A league table of child poverty in rich nations. Florence:

Innocenti Research Centre. UNICEF 2007. Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Wanless, D. 2002. Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View - The Wanless Review.

London: HM Treasury. Watson, J. 2007. Child Poverty in Scotland. Edinburgh: Barnado’s. Welford, S. 2010. Scottish Assembly for Tackling Poverty. Glasgow: The Poverty Alliance.�>OP[LMVYK��7�� �(KLTH��>��������>OH[�>VYRZ�)LZ[�PU�9LK\JPUN�*OPSK�7V]LY[`!�(�)LULÄ[�VY�>VYR��

Strategy? : OECD. Wincott, D. 2006. Paradoxes of New Labour Social Policy: Toward Universal Child Care in

Europe’s “Most Liberal” Welfare Regime? Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 13, 286-312.

58

The Scotland Institute

The Scotland Institute is a progressive and independent think tank set up to deal with the changing face of :JV[SHUK��0[�HPTZ�[V�PU]LZ[PNH[L�[OL�PTWSPJH[PVUZ�VM�KL]VS\[PVU�^OPSL�ÄUKPUN�PUUV]H[P]L�ZVS\[PVUZ�[V�[OL�VSK�problems of social exclusion, and to encourage Scotland’s competitiveness in the global market. Through high-quality comprehensive research and policy making it hopes to put Scotland on a path towards a more competitive, progressive, and optimistic future.

;OL�KP]LYZL�]PL^Z�HUK�VWPUPVUZ�VM�[OL�ZJOVSHYZ�L_WYLZZLK�OLYLPU�KV�UV[�ULJLZZHYPS`�Z[H[L�VY�YLÅLJ[�[OL�]PL^Z�VM�;OL�:JV[SHUK�0UZ[P[\[L��P[Z�Z[HɈ��[Y\Z[LLZ�VY�HK]PZVYZ�

59