Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Huge age gap divides rich and poor mothers



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 November 2008
WOMEN living in the poorest areas of Scotland will have their first child 13 years earlier than new mothers from the richest parts of the country.
Fresh data analysed by the Scottish health department found that first-time mothers in the most deprived areas were, on average, aged just 19. By contrast, those in the wealthiest parts of Scotland were 32 years old.

Health experts said the trend
was cementing the wealth gap between rich and poor, as women in wealthy areas pursue their careers in their 20s before going on to have children, while those in more deprived parts stay at home to look after their offspring.

The new figures, circulated last week by the NHS's Women and Children's Health Service, were calculated by noting in which 'data zone' every one of 2007's first-time mothers lived.

There are more than 6,500 such Scottish zones, which divide the country into areas of 800 people or fewer and are ranked according to level of deprivation or wealth.

Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, said: "In the UK we are increasingly seeing two peaks, where there are babies born to the under-20s and then babies born to the over-30s".

Of the Scottish figures, she said: "This is a trend which we know about, but these figures show a really big gap now developing between rich and poor.

"We know what is happening here. If you see yourself as having a career and an education and you see that as a positive thing, then you are more likely to have your babies later. If you haven't entered education and you don't value a career then you will have your baby sooner rather than later.

"What this reinforces is the sense that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The fact is that the earlier you have your children, the more it affects your lifetime chances.

"It takes a substantial part of your income away from you and it simply adds further to the divide between rich and poor."

The figures show that girls of 16 from the poorest homes are 30 times more likely to have a baby than those from the wealthiest homes.

About 300 16-year-old girls from the most deprived 20% of society had a baby in 2006-07, compared with around 10 in the wealthiest 20%.

By contrast, the number of 32-year-old women in the wealthiest 20% having babies was about double that in the poorest 20%.

The data released by the NHS also proves that babies born to poorer women are far more likely to be underweight.

A low-birthweight baby in Scotland – defined as below 5.5lbs – is three times more likely to be born to a woman living in an area of high deprivation than to one living in a wealthy area.

The figures confirm the growing body of evidence showing a massive gap between rich and poor.

In 2006, men could, on average, expect 67.9 years of healthy life and women 69 years. In the most deprived 15% of areas in Scotland, however, men could only expect 57.3 years of healthy life and women 59 years.

In the same year, adults aged 15-44 in the most deprived areas were almost five times more likely to die than those in the most wealthy areas.

Scottish ministers have now set up a Health Inequalities Task Force to try to reduce the growing gap.

It will prioritise the first years of a child's life, claiming that by intervening early the cycle can be broken.

Overall, the figures for births in Scotland reveal that the most common age for women to have a baby is between 30 and 34.

In 2007, this accounted for 28% of all births, compared with just 13% in 1976.





The full article contains 649 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 November 2008 9:27 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Padraig,

30/11/2008 00:42:33
The "poor" mothers' average age will be skewed surely by the teenage girls who get pregnant to get a council house and maintenance until their kid is 11.

"Rich" mothers won't have that bias - their average age will probably also be skewed but upward as they do degrees and pursue a career before starting a family.

On that basis, the differential is probably lower than one might expect.
2

subrosa,

30/11/2008 00:54:45
Stop the benefits to these teenage pregnant girls. If some political party would have the courage to do this, I'm sure they'd get a majority of the public behind them.

Many of these girls have never worked and know that having a baby entitles them to a home and taxpayers money until the child is 16 or in full time education. They don't understand responsibility, for themselves or their child.

If these benefits were stopped, they'd soon learn the meaning of responsibility. Time for a short, sharp shock.

Women in their 30s who have children aren't necessarily 'rich'. Just many feel they want to provide a solid upbringing for their children. That's being responsible.
3

Guga II,

Rockall 30/11/2008 01:38:59
#1 & #2.

Totally agree.
4

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 30/11/2008 05:44:23
Giving encouragement to teenage girls to get pregnant so they get a council house is one of the things that create an intergenerational chain of dependence on the state.

But since these people by and large vote Labour, if they vote at all, don't expect any changes from the Brown Government.

Why can't we comment on the Story about Tampering on the Calman Commission?

If it was a story about Tampering on the National Conversation then you can be sure that the Hootsman would be allowing comments.
5

,

30/11/2008 06:43:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

30/11/2008 07:26:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

30/11/2008 07:26:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

30/11/2008 07:28:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

30/11/2008 08:41:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

,

30/11/2008 09:03:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 09:07:59
#10

Please feel free to pay my share. I'd rather the money that goes to these unfortunates went elsewhere. It's the likes of you who ensure they lead the pointless lives they do.
12

,

30/11/2008 09:40:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

,

30/11/2008 09:44:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

,

30/11/2008 09:45:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 09:52:38
What a patronising little person you are, 'idiot boy'. Proudl y 'Socialist' supporting without a doubt. False outrage at the suggestion that anyone should be urged to pay their own way, support their own children or show any sort of independence in their lives. I take it you think it a great success that the State is now, in effect, the parent of a third generation of people who are quite incapable of making one legitimate penny for themselves and their families or even making a decision without the help of some arm of the State? As I said, it's people like you who are happy to condemn children to the certainty and indignity of an entire lifetime spent on State benefits.
16

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 09:57:41
#12 SM7531/2

What a patronising little person you are, 'idiot boy'. Proudl y 'Socialist' supporting without a doubt. False outrage at the suggestion that anyone should be urged to pay their own way, support their own children or show any sort of independence in their lives. I take it you think it a great success that the State is now, in effect, the parent of a third generation of people who are quite incapable of making one legitimate penny for themselves and their families or even making a decision without the help of some arm of the State? As I said, it's people like you who are happy to condemn children to the certainty and indignity of an entire lifetime spent on State benefits.
17

,

30/11/2008 09:59:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 10:22:54
2 thank God you don't run the country. You would penalise little babies because their mother's behaviour doesn't fit into your oh so judgemental view of how everyone else should live.
19

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 10:26:17
#17 sm7531/2

Who's talking about abolishing all forms of State benefit? Obviously some people will need support from fellow citizens through general taxation. But you're obviously as blind as you are stupid if you haven't noticed that well-intentioned State support has only led to hundreds of thousands of people going their ENTIRE LIVES without having the dignity and joy of providing, at least in part, for themselves and their families. If you think that's an acceptable life for any human being, you're a pretty strange piece of work.
20

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 10:28:34
#18 Observer 1

Another patronising do-gooder. As long as it allows you to feel morally superior, keep these poor sods in the lifelong drudgery of State dependency and don't address the issue.
21

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 10:32:45
Do women in their thirties make the best mums ? Seems to me that they are putting the cart before the horse. Children are not appendages to be added into your lifestyle when you reach the optimum point financially. And pregnancy and childbirth are easier and safer when you are younger. Of course we should take responsibility for ourchidren before we have them, but waiting until you are in your thirties seems a bit daft to me.
22

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 10:36:47
20 Who the hell are you calling a patronising do gooder ? All I said was that removing state benefits from young single parents would penalise their babies. Don't assume from that comment that I am in favour of the dependency culture, but unlike the looney right, I know it is not going to be that easy to wean people (who Margaret Hilda Thatcher was largely responsible for parking on benefits)off dependencey. And you need to incentivise work to do that, not drive people into the gutter to punish them for being born.
23

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 30/11/2008 10:39:13
Most of the underclass are from ill educated, often unmarried, usually schoolgirl/teenage mothers and similarly feckless laddies. What to do about it? Let it carry on or stop it? How? Why do girls allow themselves to become early mothers? Seeking love? Seeking a council house? Avoiding the real world of responsibility and self-reliance? Ignorance? Defiance? How about paying all girls to stay on the pill (or whatever else works) until they are at least 21? Would be cheaper than caring for their carelessness and better for the nation and better still for the kids who are no longer born into chaos and neglect.
24

,

30/11/2008 10:44:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

,

30/11/2008 10:49:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 10:53:39
#25 sm7531/2

You're the sort that designed the system. You're the dishonest type that can't admit that the only way to break the cycle is to compel some people to work and to admit it'll probably be painful for some.
27

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 11:03:59
#22 Observer

How much time do you want? How many generations do you want to live a life you no doubt wouldn't care to live yourself?
28

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 11:09:53
27 It would take at least a generation, and now is hardly the time to start, when we are heading into a 30's style depression.

Why this problem wasn't tackled in the ''boom'' years only the Labour Government can explain. There were resources, and there were jobs. They did nothing to help people out of poverty.

You're dam right I wouldn't want to live that way myself, it's a crying shame the way that many people end up. But a knee jerk reactionary response of saying ''take away their benefits, that'll learn them'' is not the answer. It actually displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
29

,

30/11/2008 11:10:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

,

30/11/2008 11:13:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 11:17:58
30 Calm down you'll blow a gasket. I'm not the one who wants to penalise people on benefits. But I do think it is better for people to work (for a living wage) than remain on benefits if they don't have to.

For a lot of people who are brought up in workless households, a legacy of the Thatcher years, getting a job can be a tall order.

But people like that need support, not to be bullied.

And it's pretty academic now anyway, unemployment is going to go through the roof, we all know that, and there won't be jobs for them to do.
32

,

30/11/2008 11:23:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 11:33:14
32 I agree with you completely. I am a working mum, I know exactly how difficult it is to arrange things (although I was a lot younger than 32 when I had mine) and I wouldn't dream of trying to force mothers into work, or cut their benefits. That is a nasty right wing reactionary judgemental point of view, that would hurt the children as much as their mothers.
34

,

30/11/2008 11:46:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Philthefluter,

Mugla 30/11/2008 12:17:15
Just dropped bye for a browse, usual heat without much light although sm 7531/2, has a very unusual debating style and he/she is spot on with much of his/her observations. You guys voted for the numpties that run the Country so...if you don't like what they are doing vote them out or get some support for your own views and stand for election yourself!

Me, I got out three years ago after 40 years, for me the UK is finished. Although I am not a rich person I am sitting in 73 degrees, the sun is shining. Today my meagre funds are generating 23 percent interest in the bank. Enjoy the squabbling, (sorry debate)but you guys are pretty powerless so either accept or get the f... out!!!!!
36

subrosa,

30/11/2008 12:21:13
# 6 says A pathetic and incredibly ignorant post.

My post is only what you make it. If you're unable to realise I was referring to the thousands of teenager girls purposely becoming pregnant because 'I'd like a baby to love' then it's your problem not mine.

Obviously you've never had contact with young unmarried mothers (with no father in sight). For all the millions of £ thrown at sex education for this age group, the carrot of having a house and being financially supported by the taxpayer, is just too great. The balance is wrong.

I never said all young people are irresponsible but this particular group certainly are. Sadly they perhaps don't know what personal responsibility is.
37

subrosa,

30/11/2008 12:33:35
# 21 'And pregnancy and childbirth are easier and safer when you are younger.'

Observer not necessarily true although that used to be peddled around in my day. A first pregnancy over 35 is now the definition of 'older'. Some people don't decide to settle down until their late 20s, early 30s. Their choice.

# 31

Benefits are there for SUPPORT in times of a change in circumstances - a safety net so as people don't starve.

Benefits are not there as a weekly pay check.

I know 2 young girls with babies here and they plan so far is advance about the extra monies they can get for this and that. When asked if they thought about working - the replies were unprintable.
38

,

30/11/2008 12:42:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

subrosa,

30/11/2008 12:44:14
# 38

Don't be more stupid than you are.
40

,

30/11/2008 12:45:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

30/11/2008 12:47:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 12:47:23
#34 sm7531/2

Ah, at last, you reveal yourself as a zany old commie. The 'capitalist' system oppresses the brothers and sisters, LOL. What else do you call a life which requires someone else's labour to provide you with everything you have? Being kind would call it a life of dependency. It might also be called parasitic. I suspect you're one of them or you wouldn't be so risibly naive.
43

,

30/11/2008 12:49:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

,

30/11/2008 12:50:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Alasdair Roy,

Aberdeen 30/11/2008 12:52:09
There is much prejudice in many of these posts. These young mothers and their children are the future of Scotland and they deserve our support. They are having their children in their optimal, most fertile years unlike Ms M.A. (Hons). Ms M.A. (Hons) is no role model for motherhood in spite of the additional material wellbeing which she can bring to her child. At 32 she is getting a bit past it for starting a family and in earlier generations she would have been regarded as almost an auld biddie.

"Demographics is Destiny" said the Canadian commentator Mark Steyn and in this matter for once he has spoken truly. Like it or not our destiny as a nation lies with these young women not with Ms M.A. (Hons) and her occasional trophy child. They need our support not our sneers.
46

,

30/11/2008 12:53:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 12:56:58
#43 sm7531/2

The cliche-ometer has gone off the scale. Though you missed out running-dog and lackey LOL
48

Observer. 1,

30/11/2008 12:59:53
34 there is such a thing as a dependency culture. Don't be naive. It is state created, and the state could resolve it. And the people trapped in it are the victims not the cause.
49

,

30/11/2008 13:01:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

Observer. 1,

30/11/2008 13:03:52
''What do you call a life which requires someone else's labour to provide you with everything you have''.

Draco - i didn't realise you were a Marxist.
51

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 13:04:48
#45 Alasdair Roy

It's all very well having your child at a young age if your not providing it with any sort of 'moral compass' as Broon would say. Bringing a wee one into the world that is going to follow its parents down a road of lifelong dependency (and despire sm7531/2's self-denial, that's a fact)isn't an asset to the country, it's another drain on society's resources. Mind you, I agree with you Ms MA Hons isn't much of a role model either; having a child just to hand it to a nanny or a nursery. The best example for any child remains one parent at home, one out earning.
52

,

30/11/2008 13:07:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

Observer. 1,

30/11/2008 13:07:30
37 sub rosa I think a lot of women are being conned into thinking they can ''have it all''. I have friends in their late thirties and early forties who are embarking on motherhood now - because the ''time is right''. It might be right financially, but they are struggling to cope in a way that I didn't when I was in my twenties.

I just think we need to re-visit this idea that late motherhood is a good idea.
54

,

30/11/2008 13:11:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:13:05
52 I'm not being conned by any propoganda. I'm writing about what I see in front of me every day, 20 years spent working in social housing. The tenants I deal with and their children don't work, it is inter generational. And without working they are missing out on so much in life, not just the money, but everything else. These are people who have no choices, and for whom one day is just the same as the next.

The state created these ghettos and the state has a responsibility to sort it out. But that will cost money, lots of money.
56

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 13:13:21
#49 sm7531/2

I don't know where you live or how you make a living. You're either live alone on an island somewhere, are some sort of Marxist theologian who spends his nice middle class life in an academic ivory-tower or you're so rich you never encounter your average punter, but I assure you that, out in the real world, there are children whose parents and now grandparents have never worked a day in their lives. In most cases they don't know any better and I genuinely feel sorry that people should have to live such an existance. It's YOU who are culpabable in this. You're only solution to their situation seems to be to give them more of other people's money and to blame the very people who provide for them.
57

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 30/11/2008 13:17:31
#55 Observer

Spot on. Why are we squabbling when we seem to be pretty much singing from the smae hymn-sheet?
58

,

30/11/2008 13:22:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:22:29
57 It depends on how you want to go about resolving it. I think slashing benefits is pointless and will be counter productive. I think we need to start working with children in schools, early doors, to help them out of the cycle of hopelesness. But how we do that in a recessaion is difficult to see. We have wasted an opportunity in the last ten years to tackle this issue. I don't know when we will get another opportunity like that again.
60

,

30/11/2008 13:23:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

,

30/11/2008 13:24:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

subrosa,

30/11/2008 13:29:53
# 45

I understand where you're coming from, but do you think all 'older' mothers are rich or that all 'young' mothers are poor? That's not the case.

Many women wait to have their children with a man they want to spend their lives with. Some perhaps have to wait until their 30s to meet that special person but you say that's wrong. You're promoting women having children young because at 32 women are past being good mothers.

I don't think it's prejudice to comment upon young girls who have children irresponsibly. If the automatic giving of a home plus all the other additions such as decorating the place, furniture etc was stopped, then I don't think it unreasonable to think the numbers would reduce.

That would also be a lot fairer to these children who are brought into the world as an accessory rather than a human life to be cherished.

# 53

I had my first one at 31 Observer. That was thought quite old 30 years ago. Personally I don't think I struggled anymore than the younger women. I was much more financially sound and the father and myself were in a very committed relationship - called marriage.

I can't comment on older women having children because I only know one or two but they don't seem to be struggling in the least.

If I'd had my children in my teens they would have had a hell of a life compared with the one they did have. I had little knowledge of the world when a teenager and little understanding of relationships. So, for me and mine, being an 'old' mother was the far better decision. Mind you, if I'd met the father 10 years earlier, things would have been different!
63

Alasdair Roy,

Aberdeen 30/11/2008 13:30:11
I cannot disagree with what you say, Draco # 51. But we must face the fact that these young women cradle the true future of Scotland. If that future is not to be a dire one, we must do our best for them.
64

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:31:48
60 - of course they are not living off the fat of the land. They live hand to mouth and a lot of them have to ration the electricity and gas that they use, you know, do without when they can't top up the meter.

That's a dogs life.
65

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:33:49
61 - yeah
66

subrosa,

30/11/2008 13:37:00
# 52 If there is a dependency culture what are they depending on? cant be benefits because they dont pay enough to allow anybody to survive on them.

So how do they live? How do they manage to have the most expensive pushchairs? I have to admit the babies I know are always well dressed when taken out and they want for nothing when babies. It's when the novelty wears off the problems start.

# 64

I'm not on benefits but I do live hand to mouth. It's freezing today but I can't afford to run my heating so I'm off to Tesco then I'll go to Somerfield for half an hour if I can stretch it to that. The library's closed today so I can't spend an hour or so in there and I don't want to visit anyone as I'd hate to push someone, in the same position as myself, to feel obliged to put their heating on because of a visitor.

That's the life of a pensioner whose income is just over the pension credit limit.
67

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:37:18
62 I'm not advocating teeenage pregnancy, I'm just making an observation that older motherhood isn't always best and a lot of women seem to be being pushed into it.

I agree with you that a committed relationship is the best context for raising children, but that isn't always possible for some women. You and I both had that, we should be grateful.
68

,

30/11/2008 13:38:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

,

30/11/2008 13:41:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

subrosa,

30/11/2008 13:44:43
# 62

I am grateful believe me. Why are women being pushed into older motherhood? I don't see it that way. Society has changed so much over the years and I think many women feel they would rather do their 'wild oats' bit before having children than afterwards. I'm not saying what age is best to have children but what is most important is that the male should take as much responsibility as the female.

I'd be interested to see the percentage of women who have children and no father input (excluding divorce). Has anyone studied that?

71

,

30/11/2008 13:45:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
72

subrosa,

30/11/2008 13:46:35
# 69

You do make assumptions don't you? Me a tory? I've just seen an elephant fly past the window ...
73

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:47:40
I've got to say that I really don't think teenage girls get pregnant to get a house. I've dealt with hundreds of them over the years. I think the pregnancy comes first, the house is an add on. Perhaps if they had more options in front of them, or if we had decent sex education instead of the pussyfooting about that we do just now, the number of teenage pregnancies could be limited.
74

,

30/11/2008 13:48:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

,

30/11/2008 13:50:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 13:58:05
70 I can only comment from my experience, a lot of women I know just delayed and delayed having children because it wasn't the right time, or they needed a bigger house, or whatever. I know a lot of them wish they had done it earlier, combining a career with looking after wee ones is tiring when your forty. I just don't think that having the perfect house and a specific salary is actually necessary before you start a family.
77

,

30/11/2008 14:01:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
78

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 14:03:10
77 no of course you can't. ''Teenage mothers'' are not one big homogenous group, any more than older mothers are.
79

,

30/11/2008 14:06:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

,

30/11/2008 14:08:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
81

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 14:12:02
Not all teenage mothers claim benefits do they ? And some of them will claim for a brief period, and some of them may be on benefits for the rest of their lives. Each case is different. What I am saying is that people who are on long term benefits should be given support to get off them.
82

,

30/11/2008 14:13:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

,

30/11/2008 14:13:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

,

30/11/2008 14:14:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
85

,

30/11/2008 14:22:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
86

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 14:28:29
No, certainly not forced into work. Practical support and assistance, and a benefit system that gives a run on in the first few weeks until the first wages are in. And help managing budgeting and help with childcare etc. It could be done.
87

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 14:34:37
Well, it could have been done. It can't be done now, where are the jobs to come from.
88

,

30/11/2008 14:40:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
89

,

30/11/2008 14:52:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
90

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 14:52:27
Your putting words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about forcing single mothers or the incapacitated into work. I oppose that completely, and it's not gonna happen anyway because there aren't going to be any jobs.

I doubt that the Govt will be able to bring their workfare proposals forward either, because everyone who has a job now will see the spectre of unemployment looming over them too, and won't fancy being made to clean up chewing gum from the streets in order to get a pittance back in benefits.

91

,

30/11/2008 15:16:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
92

Mcsnagpile,

30/11/2008 15:29:55
These girls should be made to do a thesis for a Master's Degree or a Dissertation for a Ph.D. Once your Ph.D. is completed you will be well on your way to thirty,- and that is before you have had a permanent job. Mind you getting a wean and a cooncil hoose interim sounds like a guid idea.

Well, maybe some sums and spelling to start with.
93

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 15:31:33
I meant a run on with benefits - a period where benefits, especially housing benefit, is still paid until the person (who wants a job) has their wages paid so they can pay the rent etc themselves. That is a disincentive for some people, they don't have any savings to bridge the gap between claiming and being paid for work (that they want) to do.
94

,

30/11/2008 15:46:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
95

subrosa,

30/11/2008 17:31:24
# 73

Obviously I'm not completely au fait with the sex education taught in schools these days, but I believe it's quite detailed. In the 50s and 60s we had nothing and we had fewer teenagers becoming pregnant.

You say you don't know many who get pregnant just because they know they have the taxpayer to fund them until the child is 16. From my experience (25 years) with this age group, I've noticed a radical change. Girls/women no longer take responsibility as they have done over the centuries. This is because they know full well that 'the benefit office will give me money'.

The sadness in all of it is the child who is brought into the world with no hope, or such little hope. I'm not really concerned about the sex life of these girls/women or the men they mate with, it's the children who are important.

Today's youngsters are very well educated in sexual relationships, if not at school then on TV etc.

I just wonder, if politicians suddenly said 'no immediate housing, no other benefits relating to it, but a slight increase in child benefit' would waken these folks up.

Observer, do you know how many 30+ year olds who has been given homes and all the relevant benefits if they have a child? I don't, but I expect you do, with your knowledge.
96

subrosa,

30/11/2008 17:32:25
# 68

You're boring and have nothing to contribute to the debate.
97

,

30/11/2008 17:43:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
98

subrosa,

30/11/2008 17:45:02
# 73

I do agree with you that 40ish is rather old for your first. But the article here says that the younger mothers are poor and the older one rich. That's just rubbish.

I do wish young women in particular would start to think about conception. After all, women in the last century fought really hard for contraception. Why is contraception called Family Planning?

For women to fight so hard for what is now recognised Family Planning centres or advice, it's quite an insult how the young treat it. Perhaps we need much more history about the suffering and horrors women suffered not so long ago, for our young women to waken up.
99

,

30/11/2008 17:48:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
100

,

30/11/2008 17:49:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 30/11/2008 18:35:43
subrosa, anyone with a dependant child qualifies for housing. The most common age group I have dealt with are actually older women who need to be rehoused as a result of relationship breakdown, quite often violent. Sad but true.

I agree with you that there are a lot of young girls, and boys, who don't have a clue, they expect to move into social housing, sign on, and that's it. I don't think the pregnancies necessarily cause that, it's what most of them would have done anyway.

We need to re-engage with these children, for that's what they are, but I don't think you do that by penalising them.

It's a hard one to deal with, no doubt about that.

I think unfortunately a significant section of our young people don't have much sense of self worth.
102

Western Gael,

30/11/2008 20:31:58
The real question is whether any of this apparently endless stream of government studies and surveys have ever improved the life of at least one Scot, in any way at all?
103

subrosa,

30/11/2008 22:31:37
# 101

Observer, things must have changed since my family was young. I arrived back in Scotland in the mid 80s complete with children but no husband. When I applied for a council house I was told' sorry the waiting list is 2 years, nobody's ill. Only if someone's ill will you get a house quicker'.

I worked to buy a home including massive mortgage which I'm still paying off today owing to Gordon Brown's handling of the economy; hence my endowment policies fell 30% short.

So things have certainly changed in the past 20 years.

Oh, just for the record, I was offered a council house 31 months later - in an area where nobody would consider going out after dark. I didn't live in Beirut, I lived near Perth. Sad isn't it.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.