It's been really frustrating of late listening to the SNP lament the UK Labour party for refusing to end the two-child cap and rape clause at a UK level.
But it was refreshing to see Sky News at least put the same question to the party leadership: "Why don't you do something about it then?"
The answer from Flynn was enlightening; basically, they would if WM (Westminster) gave them the money.
In the past, they seem to hold two simultaneous and contradictory positions. First, the powers existed to end the child cap, an untruth repeatedly told by anti-rape clause campaigner Alison Thewliss, as well as the former First Minister, who, in my opinion, knowingly misled Parliament by saying, "First, let us be clear about the fact that the Scottish Government cannot abolish the two-child cap or the rape clause. We do not have the legal power to do so."
The second is that they could do something about it, but they don't want to let the Tories 'off the hook'!
I'm not sure which position is better or worse, but they are both really low politics. You are either just lying to avoid a difficult conversation or worse; you are just tacitly admitting that you could do something, but it's good politics to let these families and children suffer.
But the latest line takes it all a stage further. Now the position seems to be; we can end the child cap, but we expect a Scotland-only benefit to be funded by the rest of the UK!
The Mitigation Play
The SNP likes to couch their excuses for not acting further on welfare as mitigation. Here they try to conjure up as large a figure as possible, showing all the money that they have 'spent' in the past "mitigating" cuts.
It's quite clear that "mitigation" has tested well in a focus group, as the SNP trot it out endlessly.
The trouble is the extensive welfare powers of the Scottish Government are not mitigation. Mitigation is an indirect response to an act to ease its impact, but our welfare powers since 2016 are a direct policy change. Therefore, this isn't mitigation; it's redistribution.
Now, look at the case from a slightly different perspective:
What a great headline! So why don't the SNP want the media to run with that spin? Simple. The next cost of redistribution to Scotland is zero; that is, redistribution is, by definition, just the transfer of resources from one set of Scots to another.
When you look at it that way, it's really hard to answer the question of why don't you do more then?
And that's the crux of the matter: they don't do more because they think it will be unpopular in Scotland.
But rather than deal with that, it's so much easier to hide behind "mitigation" and blame everything on the wicked Tories.
That's now taken a further step, though, with this latest line; we won't increase benefits in Scotland unless rUK (the rest of the UK) taxpayers foot the bill. It's now no longer that the SNP is afraid of transfers between Scots; they actually want more financial support from the rest of the UK to pay higher welfare in Scotland.
The Scottish Child Payment (SCP)
Of course, the SNP can point to some of the great work that they have done on welfare. The SCP is certainly one, and I certainly ascribe to calling it a gamechanger, but for slightly different reasons, as I'll shortly point out.
But it's worth being clear: The SCP is a top-up to reserved Child Benefit under Section 24 of the Scotland Act 2016.
This rather creates a problem for those advocating the 'Thewliss unruth' that the Scottish Government doesn't have the power to act on the child cap because Universal and Child Credits are reserved.
If it's possible for the Scottish Government to top up reserved Child Benefits, then it must be legally possible for the Scottish Government to top up Child Tax credits or Universal Credit.
Thinking ahead, now that we've proven that the 'Thewliss unruth' is exactly that, and assuming that you can get past those arguing that we should not redistribute more in Scotland to support these families and children, I guess we will be into the 'Oh well, we could do something, but it's all too complicated'.
But it's not because SCP is the gamechanger.
Unlike near universal Child Benefit, SCP is a targeted benefit; it only applies to those who qualify for other benefits, such as universal credit or child tax credits. Such is the flexibility of our welfare powers that we can top up a universal benefit in a targeted way.
Therefore the Child Cap can be ended in Scotland tomorrow through the same SCP infrastructure.
Simply extending the SCP payment to include a further payment of around £65 a week (the single child element of the child tax credits) for every third, fourth, fifth, etc. child that the SG wants to include in their policy (or just make it unlimited) means that in Scotland, the child cap no longer exists.
The total cost is £270M (£65x52x80,000), assuming the Scottish Government wanted to cover all children, but remember once more this would not be a cost to Scotland but a transfer within Scotland.
So now we know, and we can all be clear. The SNP has the legal means, the practical means; the only question now is, do they have the motive to be a true gamechanger, or is it just the usual political game-playing?
