It is a great shame, I think, that the political problems which most need the political parties to be united in their response, are in fact the ones in which political parties see the biggest opportunity. 

The NHS has always been a good example of this, of course. Contrary to the view of much of the public, most politicians are fairly sensible folk, and whether SNP, or Labour, or Tory, or Lib Dem, they know that the NHS is not working. They know it provides poor value for money, and they know their constituents are poorly served by it. One might think they would unite in their response, and perhaps participate in a cross-party plan to save the concept of state-funded universal healthcare. But no, of course, because the political opportunity to criticise rather than collaborate is too strong.

For those of us outside the political bubble, this is the worst of politics. And, sadly, we are seeing the same phenomenon again this week in relation to the Labour UK Government’s proposed changes to welfare payments, specifically to the various sickness benefits.

The facts are horrifying. Over seven million people in the UK claim sickness benefits – up two million since Covid. More than one million of them are under 25. Almost half of them are for mental health conditions, and much of it is self-certified, in other words there is no requirement to see a doctor in order to obtain benefits.

Only 20 years ago, sickness benefits cost the country £25 billion. This year it cost £65bn, and by 2030 it is projected to exceed £100bn. The entire budget of the NHS is just over £200bn. These are eye-watering figures, and politicians, who as I said are mainly sensible folk, know that it represents the largest structural impediment to economic growth and to social cohesion that exists.

This is not what the welfare state is for. As in all countries, there are large numbers of people in Scotland and the UK who need the welfare state, including sickness benefits. There are people who cannot get by without this help; people with significantly limiting conditions, physical and mental, whom society must protect and who represent the very reason we all pay our taxes. We share our resources to help those who need it, recognising that nobody should be destitute through no fault of their own.

But as important as it is to ensure that those who need welfare get welfare, our collective social conscience must ensure that those who do not need welfare do not get it. And those sensible politicians I mentioned all privately acknowledge that welfare is becoming a lifestyle choice for too many people. Indeed, for some people it is becoming an occupation in itself. It doesn’t take an extensive Google search to find instruction manuals on how to "game the system" to generate maximum state benefits.

If this is our country’s definition of fairness these days, then it is not a country I know.

We have done this to ourselves, of course. Those one million under-25s who claim sickness benefits were in their formative years when the Covid lockdown arrived. We removed their social structures. We closed their schools, colleges and universities. We closed their parents’ workplaces and paid them to stay at home. We sent the message to those young people that they do not need to be educationally or economically active in order to be paid by the government. In other words, we created an entitlement culture, and the chickens of lockdown are now coming home to roost.

The Labour Party is absolutely right to bring this to an end. Out here in the real world, people agree with it. Two-thirds of people, in a YouGov poll this week, agreed that there was capacity for cuts in the welfare budget, more than transport, housing, defence, education and health. 

Labour's Welfare Secretary Liz Kendal thos week announced a major shake-up of the benefits systemLabour's Welfare Secretary Liz Kendall this week announced a major shake-up of the benefits system (Image: PA)

People feel keenly the inherent unfairness in a system which in some cases pays people who choose not to work more than is earned by those who do. Indeed, I have spoken to a number of traditional Labour voters this week who are enraged by what they see as people cheating. They are proud of the welfare state, and protective of the concept of providing a hand up to the people who need it. Conversely, they are mortified at the thought that their beloved system is being used by people who do not. These Labour traditionalists see a tightening of welfare rules as Labour going back to its roots – it is the party of labour, the party of work.

Everything we know about the impact of worklessness would suggest that the SNP Government should work hand in glove with its UK counterpart. The SNP leadership and the Labour leadership are fairly well aligned politically. Other than the obvious divide over independence, the leaderships are both broadly centrist, with one eye on economic growth and the other on social responsibility.

Both governments understand the hopelessness of worklessness, particularly amongst the young. They know that this is generationally damaging, and that this cycle of despair – of cash handouts without any pastoral care or even any checks – may consign a 25-year-old to a life where they never work, never hold down a relationship, never enjoy good health, and always rely on benefits.

Both governments list economic growth as their number one priority, and must surely therefore understand that an increasing welfare bill and decreasing productivity amongst working age people works directly against a growing economy.

The SNP Government, indeed, could use the political cover of the Labour Government’s proposals to accelerate welfare fairness in Scotland, rather than trying to mitigate it. Well executed, there will be nothing to mitigate because, well executed, those who need these benefits will not have them removed.

Work is good. Work promotes mental and physical good health. It offers an example to the next generation; seeing parents working encourages children to understand that work is a requirement, not an option.

So far, this debate has generated more in the way of social media memes and leaflet designs, as Labour’s opponents – internal and external – seek to attract maximum electoral advantage. 

Surely, though, those sensible politicians should see it as a social, moral and economic imperative to build a welfare system which is both affordable and fair. The ability we give to those who do not need welfare to take money designed for those who do, is surely the most perverse, indefensible scar on us. Enough.

Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast