As part of our state of the debate series, Nicola McEwen discusses the position of welfare policy in the debate.

The first week of the final 6 week phase of the referendum campaign was a difficult one for the Yes campaign. The currency issue dominated the news agenda in the aftermath of the televised debate between ‘Better Together’ leader Alistair Darling and First Minister Alex Salmond. The alliance of the UK parties against currency union makes this difficult terrain, especially for the SNP and the Scottish government, given its commitment to press for a formal currency union and resistance to demands to spell out a so-called ‘plan B’.

This week, the Yes campaign has been back on more solid ground, with a co-ordinated critique of the UK government’s welfare reforms and the promise of a fairer welfare state in an independent Scotland. On Monday, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon highlighted the plight of those dependent on food banks, pledging half a million pounds to support food aid projects across Scotland. Only the full powers of independence, she argued, could protect people from food poverty. On Wednesday, she condemned the UK government’s new system of Personal Independence Payments, insisting it will mean 100,000 Scots with disabilities will lose some or all of their benefits if Scotland stays within the UK. Alex Salmond, meanwhile, invoked the spirit of Aneurin Bevan by promising to defend the principles of the post-war NHS in an independent Scotland, suggesting that the right to free health care could be enshrined in the constitution of an independent Scotland.

All of these claims can be challenged of course. For Scotland to enjoy a more progressive welfare system would depend on a number of factors, not least the capacity of an independent Scottish government to finance existing and new policy commitments. Scottish demographic trends also point towards future challenges as proportionately fewer workers may be left to support an ageing population. The willingness of the Scottish public to underwrite higher benefits through higher taxes has yet to be tested.  

But there are several reasons why the social justice agenda is more fertile ground for the Yes campaign. There is considerable anger within civil society at the UK government’s welfare reforms and their detrimental effect on some of the most vulnerable people in society. Convincing those who oppose welfare reform - and those who are most affected by it - that independence offers an alternative future can help to increase support for a yes vote. Salmond’s reference to the creeping privatisation of the NHS in England, as well as suggesting it threatens the amount of money available for the health service in Scotland, is also intended to underline differences between public services north and south of the border. Bevan’s post-war NHS became an important institutional symbol of Britishness, helping to strengthen Scots’ sense of attachment to what Gordon Brown calls the ‘union of social justice’. For independence campaigners, the only way to preserve the best of the British welfare state is to build it within an independent Scotland.

There is some evidence from this week’s Social Attitudes Survey reports that support for independence is increasingly aligned with the expectation that it would lead to a reduction in income inequality. Almost 80% of those who think the gap between rich and poor would be smaller under independence now back a Yes vote. However, the report also suggests that the Yes campaign has a lot of work to do to convince more voters that independence and social justice necessarily go hand in hand.