Inequality and constitutional change

In an earlier post I noted the evidence on the rising degree of income inequality in the UK. The key chart from the OECD's recent report Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising is below

The high and rising level of income inequality in the UK was, I suggested, put into sharper focus by recent political developments. Specifically, the UK government's austerity programme with associated rising unemployment and real income constraint, and the concern about banker's bonuses and CEO pay.

It was therefore a surprise to learn from an excellent article by Alf Young in Saturday's Scotsman of this recent comment by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education in the UK Government:

We live in a profoundly unequal society. More than almost any developed nation ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress. Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.

As Alf Young points out this

was an astonishing critique, given that it was coming from a member of a party that proposed, in opposition, to ease dramatically the burden of inheritance tax and has, in government, agonised over how quickly it could remove Labour's 50p levy on the incomes of the highest earners.

Gove's particular interest was to seek to highlight the role that private education was playing as a gateway to privilege and power across all major professions in the UK. Hence, as Alf suggests, buttressing the case for Gove's reforms of state education in England.

Alf's main point in his piece was to ask where is the debate on the role of private and state education in Scotland. Gove's writ does not run to Scotland. The Scottish Government is responsible for education here. Moreover, an independent Scotland would certainly have responsibility for a policy choice on income inequality and that would also likely be true for Devo-Max and probably Devo-Plus.

So why no debate here?

Alf Young notes that the issue of private education might be considered less salient here since pupils attending independent schools in Scotland account for only 4.31 per cent of all pupils compared to some 7 per cent in England. But he shows that the significance of private and private secondary, education is much higher in the city of Edinburgh and areas such as Perth and Kinross.

Moreover, the significance of private education should, in my view, be viewed as a symptom of the degree of income inequality.

How does Scotland compare on that score? Data from the Scottish government offer the following comparison with the Great Britain

Measures and comparisons of income inequality are fraught with difficulty - see here - so one needs to be cautious. But what these data show is that while the degree of income inequality is lower than in GB it is still quite a bit higher than the OECD average. Since 1995 the Scottish Gini coefficient has ranged between 30 and 35 while the OECD average has ranged between 30 and 31. And the OECD average is quite a bit higher than many countries that Scotland would seek to compare itself such as the Nordic countries and Germany.

Moreover, the above chart shows that income inequality was rising more rapidly in Scotland than GB since 2004-05, so that by 2009-10 there was little difference between the two: Scotland 35, GB 36.

So why no debate about this in Scotland? Why isn't this issue, given its roots in political struggle since time immemorial, a key feature of the so-called "big-debate" on Scottish independence and constitutional change?

My guess is that the parties advocating independence, especially the SNP, and those supporting the union, especially Labour, are frightened of the topic. Reversing income inequality does not give wins for everyone. There has to be losers and a few rich, and perhaps not so rich, ones at that! Therefore, better not antagonise the donors, or the business fellow travellers. We hear from some Labour party figures that when they get up in the morning they think social justice, in contrast to nationalists who think separatism and break-up of the UK. But this is surely a charade since the Labour government did little to roll back rising income inequality in Scotland and the UK. The introduction of the 50p tax on high income earners being the exception. How do they propose to operationalise their concerns about social justice if Scotland continues in the UK?

The Scottish people should be told what are the specific options and policies being proposed by nationalists and unionists to deal with rising income inequality. And we need to be told now, not reassured that everything will be fine in the nirvana of Scottish independence, or a UK union with more constitutional change.

Comments

[David H]

All well and good. But Holyrood produced a Charities Act that was deliberately tighter than England and Wales and specifically required independent schools to mitigate any barrier to access that fees and charges created with wider means-tested financial assistance.

That they duly did, as recent OSCR reports about the charity test have demonstrated.

So does that widened access to schools mean that even newer means-tested kids to the sector should be prevented from succeeding in life?

[David H]

Just maybe there are other reasons other than perceptions of snobbery why many parents, at least 50,000 at last count, make the financial sacrifice to ensure a good education..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/pupils-falling-ill-because-they-won-t-use-filthy-school-toilets-1-2324084

[Ian Jenkins]

Couple of comments.

Election promises are not binding - for example in the US Obama promised to close Guantanamo and in France Hollande said he would shut many of its nuclear electricity plants. Both also have important international consequences that are not receiving wide debate.

Moreover past candidates in Greece have no doubt promised that sovereignty would be sacrosanct; Greek domestic and foreign policy would be determined in Athens, not Berlin. This seems an important development for all nations, and especially for the independence debate in Scotland.

Secondly, BA writes "We live in a profoundly unequal society." However significantly for G20 political cooperation, and probably the UK's survival, we also live in a profoundly unequal world.
Many have worried about this. (Edited by Editor) ... how the strong biological drive to compete – in many cases violently and ruthlessly – can coexist with the cooperation that makes competitive societies successful."

How will Scotland with barely 5 million people survive in a shark tank of 7 billion.

[MD]

M concern is that today they are talking about taxing me more because I have above average earnings. I accept a resonsibility as part of the nation to support each other but not at the security of my own qulaity of life.
- I was unable to have a family due to medical issues and yet I pay for schools
- I concentrated on a career as a replacement for the lack of much wanted child
- by doing this I have been relatively successful and now the give net in scotland is talking about taxing my income more
- taxing me more for the value of the house I own
- in essence punishing me for hard work and commitment so that I can support accidental parents who by luck have had families they can't afford to house/feed/support.

While I accept exceptions will always exist, hard times can fall on any of us and that was the intention of benefits not a lifestyle choice.

Don't punish me for the choices I have made to make life better for someone else's choices....