SOCIAL JUSTICE IS an idea that has captured academic and political imagination. Building on the ideas of writers such as Sen and Nussbaum, it centres on the concept of the ‘capabilities’ that people need to be able to live meaningful lives, rather than focusing simply on income, poverty and inequality. The role of a responsible government under a social justice framework is to maximise the capabilities of citizens, and to address structural and individual issues that prevent them attaining the capabilities associated with citizenship. Whilst Sen refused to endorse a definitive list of capabilities, pointing out that functioning as a citizen is a highly contingent and context-specific (Sen, 1999), Nussbaum disagrees, and asserts that it is possible to agree on the central human capabilities of life, bodily health, bodily integrity, sense, emotions, reason, affiliation, self-respect and control over one’s environment (Nussbaum, 2000). The state plays an important role in ensuring that citizens have the capabilities to access and protect these elements.
Social justice undoubtedly was an idea that underpinned the foundation of the Scottish Parliament. Donald Dewar proclaimed that:
We are committed to promoting social justice and equality of opportunity for everyone in Scotland (Dewar, 1999).
His views were echoed in the case for independence made by Alex Salmond:
an independent Scotland could be a beacon for progressive opinion… addressing policy challenges in ways which reflect the universal values of fairness (Salmond, 2012).
One of the first actions of the new Scottish Executive (later the Scottish Government) in 1999 was to publish a strategy paper outlining a vision of co-operative policy addressing social justice and poverty (Scottish Executive, 1999).
However, as evidenced by social policies, the Scottish Government and Parliament have at times struggled to articulate a coherent vision for social justice in Scotland. On the one hand, a commitment to universalism and supporting all Scots to be able to exercise the capabilities of self-determination (Sen, 1999) which are intrinsic to social justice has been apparent. There is a sense of social solidarity which underpins distinctively ‘Scottish’ social policies. A unifying Curriculum for Excellence, resistance to health policy reforms designed to increase competition and universal access to pre-school childcare have been some of the policies which reflect a desire to create a non-stigmatising, non-residual welfare state in which costs and benefits are shared. Not only does universalism in education and health reflect areas in which Scotland already had substantial policy levers with which to deviate from the rest of the UK prior to devolution; they also arguably disproportionately benefit middle-income citizens (and thus middle-class voters).
On the other hand, in 1999 Scotland had a reputation for being the ‘sick man of Europe’ in terms of health inequalities (McCartney et al., 2012) and income inequality was stark. There was clear pressure on the Scottish Parliament from day one to address this, and universal policies would likely make these inequalities wider. Targeted welfare in areas where there were significant inequalities has often been the preferred approach. This does undermine the claim to a ‘fairer, more socially just’ Scotland as the evidence suggests that means testing and targeting creates stigma, leading to a residual-ist, rather than a universal welfare state.
Social justice along gendered lines also featured in the political architecture of the Scottish Government. From the decision to abandon the Westminster electoral system of first past the post (which disadvantages women), the founding principles of equality of opportunity, the use of gender neutral language and the foundation of an Equal Opportunities (now the Equalities and Human Rights Committee), the machinery of governance was designed to allow policy to be developed which addressed women’s access to social justice.
Despite most of the policy levers needed to address poverty and income inequality not being devolved, antipoverty policy has always been a significant driver in Scottish social policy. From 1999 until 2009 relative poverty fell from 30 per cent to 25 per cent, and child absolute poverty fell to 15 per cent over the same period (Scottish Government, 2018). The fall of unemployment over that period from 8 per cent to 4 per cent is probably largely responsible, as moving into work is the most reliable route out of poverty.
The first two terms of the Scottish Parliament saw Labour in charge and there was, therefore, not much policy deviation from the rest of the UK. The rise of the SNP from 2007 onwards saw some shifts in policy, although not significant at first probably due the lack of an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament. The 2008 banking crash also reduced funding, and therefore the policy levers available to address poverty in Scotland. A change in the focus of governance led to Single Outcome Agreements and the Scottish Government working in partnership with local authorities to achieve anti-poverty strategies. However, tensions between the Government and local authorities rose during a period of cutbacks in expenditure, not helped by a cap introduced to local taxation. This was a policy move that helped to cement the SNP’s political popularity with centrist and middle-class voters, but which left local authorities struggling to meet statutory duties.
Issues such as free school meals – initially targeted at poorer children, but then extended to all Primary One to Three – and universal childcare – again initially targeted at low income families then extended – gradually moved policy from a targeted to a more universal approach. Other universal measures such as free prescriptions, free personal care and no tuition fees for home students at Scottish universities also extended universal provision. In terms of fairness, meaning equal access and solidarity, this was effective. But if fairness means income redistribution to tackle inequality then the Scottish Government has proved in policy terms to be less progressive. Free tuition has not resulted in more students from poorer backgrounds going to university, in contrast, educational inequalities in higher education in Scotland have grown in comparison to the rest of the UK (Riddell, 2009).
Moreover, the structural issues which underpinned women’s relative lack of capabilities and inequality were not substantially addressed prior to 2014. An over-reliance on family care rather than investment in social care meant that 62 per cent of Scotland’s unpaid carers in 2014 were women, with twice as many female as male carers relying on benefits. 95 per cent of lone parent households receiving income support were headed by women, and twice as many women as men relied on state benefits for their income. Horizontal and vertical occupational segregation meant that the pay gap for full-time working women was 13 per cent, rising to 34 per cent for those working part-time. 81 per cent of the austerity-mandated cuts to public spending following the 2008 banking crisis fell on women.
The White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ which set out a vision for an independent Scotland, which was essentially the SNP’s vision that:
With independence we can make Scotland the fairer and more successful country we know it can be… Independence will provide the opportunity to create a fairer, more equal society built around the needs of citizens… Social rights embedded in a constitution will put questions of social justice at the forefront of the work of Scotland’s Parliament.
There was recognition that women were bearing the brunt of public sector budget cuts and of welfare reform:
the Scottish Government’s recent analysis concludes that women will also lose out because of how the universal credit system in particular is structured.
Women were key ‘swing’ votes in the 2014 referendum: whilst men are more likely to exhibit party and issue loyalty in voting behaviour, women are more likely to change party allegiance based on policies (Campbell and Childs, 2015). It became apparent that women may be a key ‘undecided’ group of voters and thus worth targeting in the vision of an independent Scotland.
The famous ‘bairns not bombs’ approach (the proposal to discard nuclear weapons and invest in childcare instead) was a tactic based on the uniting universalistic approach to fairness and social justice, recognising that ‘independence... will... substantially bolster the financial case for a transformational change in childcare provision’, creating 35,000 new jobs (primarily for women) and enabling more women to enter, or return to, the labour market. 27 per cent of the average income of Scottish working parents went on childcare, one of the highest in Europe and over twice the OECD average. The commitment was further framed as a social justice one: investment in childcare leads to better outcomes for children and working parents, creates jobs, creates wealth that is spent in the local economy, addresses child poverty and leads to improved educational attainment. However, the model of provision was predicated on the caring parent (usually the mother) working part-time or being able to supplement childcare costs out of wages – it did not provide fully wrap-around childcare. This meant that the proposal was most likely to benefit middle-class, middle income parents as poorer parents would either be unable to afford to work part-time or be unlikely to command enough in wages to make subsidising childcare affordable.
The White Paper also recognised that some welfare reforms were unpopular and considered to be unfair and against the principles of social justice. The rollout of Universal Credit, criticised for leaving families on benefits worse off and waiting too long for benefits to be paid, was to be halted. The Spare Room Subsidy, whereby low-income families were penalised for having a spare bedroom, was to be quashed. Benefits and tax credits for low income families were to be increased in line with inflation, changes to disability benefits were to be reviewed and the option to use a variable rate of taxation for higher earners was to be used. All of these were targeted benefits designed to ameliorate poverty, and to mitigate against the stigma of receiving welfare benefits.
Scotland at the time of the referendum was the location of significant social divisions. The income ratio between the top and bottom decile was 13.8 (as compared to 6.1 in Norway). Some progress had been made on health inequalities – the gap between mortality in the richest and poorest areas has fallen by 16 per cent since 2002, and the gap in infant low birth weight has narrowed by 31 per cent since its peak in 2004. However, in other areas, in such limiting long-term conditions, the gap has increased by 39 per cent since 2008, and in self-assessed health it has increased by 47 per cent over the same period.
When independence was rejected in 2014, it was the task of the Smith Commission to reach a consensus on which further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It took recommendations from over 14,000 organisations and individuals and worked with representation from the five main political parties in Scotland. The two pro-independence parties, the SNP and the Scottish Greens, were hopeful for the devolution of full taxation and welfare powers, to be able to control the economic and political levers for growth and the power to develop a fairer welfare system.
Most organisational submissions, particularly from the third sector working on social justice issues for specific groups, wanted further powers devolved. The Scottish Government had developed a much more co-operative and open style of governance since its inception. It left opportunities open to develop consensus around approaches to social justice that was problem focused rather than ideological (Cairney and Rummery, 2017).
The Smith Commission’s proposal fell far short of full devolution, mainly in the face of opposition from the three main pro-Unionist parties. Instead, Scotland was granted the ability to vary income tax rates, control over disability and carers’ benefits and the ability to vary the housing component of Universal Credit. The majority of powers – pensions, child benefits, equalities and economic – remain reserved to Westminster.
Some policy deviation and experimentation has emerged from the post-2014 settlement. The Scottish Welfare Fund, begun in 2013, made nearly 300,000 payments totalling £164 million. Crucially, these are crisis grants not loans, and thus do not trap low income families in crisis in debt. The new social security system started by a wide-ranging consultation and the establishment of User Panels, as well as the establishment of a cross party ministerial committee which took evidence from experts. One of the first decisions was not to use the private sector to run welfare assessments. This was following research evidence that targets for reducing the costs of benefits had added significantly to the cost of running the system, and sanctions had taken claimants further away from being able to engage in paid work. It was also in response to concerns about the excess rate of deaths amongst the ‘fit for work’ group, implying that many were wrongly placed. Evidence suggests that the process of applying, and reapplying, for benefits is tremendously stressful and harms mental and physical health. The values of dignity, fairness and respect that are the foundations of the Social Security Scotland (and the decision to revert to the terminology of social security, rather than a neo-liberal welfare-to-work approach) sends a message of universalism, social rights and social justice.
It is clear that the post-2014 Scottish Parliament intends to continue with a mix of universal and targeted benefits to address social justice. However, its ability to take a radically different approach to social justice is constrained, partly by Westminster, but also by its own natural conservatism and path dependency. There was scope for considerable policy divergence prior to 2014 that was not enacted. Having control over social care and health funding did not lead to policy innovations to address the poverty responsible for much of the health inequalities facing Scotland; nor has it led to significant investment in preventative services. Scotland has an ageing population with higher rates of poor health than the rest of the UK. But no effort has been made to address local taxation or new ways of funding and providing social care (such as social care insurance) to address the crisis in social care.
The elephant in the room of Brexit is likely to inhibit policy innovation, for the simple reason of reduced policy capacity, forthcoming economic challenges and ongoing tensions between Holyrood and Westminster. The willingness to address social justice is undoubtedly there. But, the pragmatic political reality and resources to do so may be in short supply.
Campbell, R. and Childs, S. (2015), ‘All Aboard the Pink Battle Bus? Women Voters, Women’s Issues, Candidates and Party Leaders’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 68, Issue Supplement 1.
Dewar, D. (1999), A speech made at the opening of the new Scottish Parliament on 1 July 1999, available online at: www.ukpol.co.uk/donald-dewar-1999-speech-at-opening-of-the-scottish-parliament/, accessed 4 November 2018.
Nussbaum, M. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCartney G., Walsh D., Whyte B., et al. (2012). ‘Has Scotland always been the ‘sick man’ of Europe? An observational study from 1855 to 2006’, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22 pp. 756–60.
Riddell, S. (2009), ‘Social justice, equality and inclusion in Scottish education’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 30 No.3 pp. 283–296.
Salmond, A. (2012), Hugo Young Lecture, available online at: www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/25/alex-salmond-hugo-young-lecture, accessed 4 November 2018.
Scottish Executive (1999), ‘Social Justice... a Scotland where EVERYONE matters: Milestone sources and definitions’, available online at: www2.gov.scot/Publications/1999/11/SocialJustice, accessed 4 November 2018.
Scottish Government (2014), ‘Scotland’s Future’, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Scottish Government (2018), ‘Poverty in Scotland’, available online at: https://news.gov.scot/news/poverty-in-scotland-2, accessed 4 November 2018.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.