Baby Box

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The contents of the new baby box have been released -

Includes clothes, digital ear themometer, books, mattress, towel, changing mat amd the box is also a bed.

Im a bit torn on this - while it makes me despair for the kind of people habing babies that these things need to be provided by the state, its still better that a baby has this stuff than doesnt.

However, to not means test it, or limit it to the first child seems a bit wasteful.

What do people think?

[CropleyWasGod]

The contents of the new baby box have been released -

Includes clothes, digital ear themometer, books, mattress, towel, changing mat amd the box is also a bed.

Im a bit torn on this - while it makes me despair for the kind of people habing babies that these things need to be provided by the state, its still better that a baby has this stuff than doesnt.

However, to not means test it, or limit it to the first child seems a bit wasteful.

What do people think?

Some of those things can be (and normally are) handed down, so it might be a bit of a waste to give them to every subsequent baby.

As for means-testing, it's a bit like the argument for means-testing for prescription charges and bus-passes.... the costs of maintaining such a system might be more than the benefits.

[Colr]

The contents of the new baby box have been released -

Includes clothes, digital ear themometer, books, mattress, towel, changing mat amd the box is also a bed.

Im a bit torn on this - while it makes me despair for the kind of people habing babies that these things need to be provided by the state, its still better that a baby has this stuff than doesnt.

However, to not means test it, or limit it to the first child seems a bit wasteful.

What do people think?

Its sometime easier to promote universal benefits and they don't have a stigma attached as a result.

Sounds like a good idea. When my wee boy was born he was a tiny 4lb and the hospital wouldn't even supply nappies or cotton wool for the couple of days he was kept in!!

[Pretty Boy]

I take it people can refuse them if they don't need it?

My girlfriend is due our 1st child 9 weeks today. We're fortunate in that we can afford the essentials and luxuries ourselves and with help from family. I'd genuinely feel a bit embarrassed taking a box that contains a lot of stuff we already have. I'd rather someone in genuine need got 2.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Its sometime easier to promote universal benefits and they don't have a stigma attached as a result.

Sounds like a good idea. When my wee boy was born he was a tiny 4lb and the hospital wouldn't even supply nappies or cotton wool for the couple of days he was kept in!!

Yeah fair point, i just wonder if its a luxury (universal benefits) that we could do without?

Im not sure i know anyone who would let their new born baby sleep in a cardboard box either...

The point about admin could well be right too.

However you habr to register to receive it, so i think it may br self selecting anyway (dont think i would register if i had a second)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I take it people can refuse them if they don't need it?

My girlfriend is due our 1st child 9 weeks today. We're fortunate in that we can afford the essentials and luxuries ourselves and with help from family. I'd genuinely feel a bit embarrassed taking a box that contains a lot of stuff we already have. I'd rather someone in genuine need got 2.

I think you hsbe to register to get it, so in effect you can refuse it.

You might quite like the idea of putting thr lid on the box if the baby doesnt sleep though...!!

[RyeSloan]

The contents of the new baby box have been released -

Includes clothes, digital ear themometer, books, mattress, towel, changing mat amd the box is also a bed.

Im a bit torn on this - while it makes me despair for the kind of people habing babies that these things need to be provided by the state, its still better that a baby has this stuff than doesnt.

However, to not means test it, or limit it to the first child seems a bit wasteful.

What do people think?

I read somewhere recently that there actually is very little hard evidence that baby boxes have any determinable effect and that they are more a politicians popular plaything than a scientifically proven method of improving child mortality rates...might have been a Bloomberg article I can't remember and if I get a chance I'll see if I can find it.

Anyway it seems like a waste of money to give these to everyone...why not just make them available to anyone who wants it rather than automatically handing one out to parents of every child?

[snooky]

Contents of proposed baby box: One bottle of Buckie, 20 fags, a deep fried Mars bar supper and a Braveheart DVD.
Sorted!

[Geo_1875]

Yeah fair point, i just wonder if its a luxury (universal benefits) that we could do without?

Im not sure i know anyone who would let their new born baby sleep in a cardboard box either...

The point about admin could well be right too.

However you habr to register to receive it, so i think it may br self selecting anyway (dont think i would register if i had a second)

Comes in quite handy if your infant needs constant monitoring or suffers broken sleep. You can have the child close by in the parents bedroom without making space for a cot or baby bed. And after all, it may be "a cardboard box" but it wasn't used to transport dog food or fabric softener before they hand it out. These have been in use in Finland for some time and have proven popular with new parents and medical professionals. So apart from the political angle do you have any other points to make?

[speedy_gonzales]

Comes in quite handy if your infant needs constant monitoring or suffers broken sleep. You can have the child close by in the parents bedroom without making space for a cot or baby bed.
I thought these boxes were only used as "beds" for the first 3 months, much like how a lot of parents will use a Moses basket or bassinet for the same reasons you list above.
Beyond 3 months I doubt the box would be of much use.

[RyeSloan]

Ahh here it is...a BBC follow up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39366596

[Smartie]

Is it Finland that they already supply these boxes?

I remember seeing a feature on them a while back and thinking they looked about 50 years out of date but by all accounts they are very popular, hugely successful and are very good.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Comes in quite handy if your infant needs constant monitoring or suffers broken sleep. You can have the child close by in the parents bedroom without making space for a cot or baby bed. And after all, it may be "a cardboard box" but it wasn't used to transport dog food or fabric softener before they hand it out. These have been in use in Finland for some time and have proven popular with new parents and medical professionals. So apart from the political angle do you have any other points to make?

Sorry, am i not allowed an opinion?

Ive made quite a few points above, i think you will find.

Well speaking for myself, neither me nor particuarly my mrs would have allowed my child to sleep in a box. Im asuming it is to provide a bed for children whose parents dont, as opposed to being for any specific safety or efficiacy reasons, but i stand to be corrected on that.

Im not saying im anti the while idea, despite your comments - just that it seems like waste of resources to give it to everybody, although as i said above i suspect that will be self-selecting as you have to register. I suspect that many will decline the offer of a cardboard box for their child to sleep in.

The books were already provided by the SG too, i remembet getting them.

[Jack]

I finished having kids 20 years ago, as far as I'm aware!

I remember being showered with stuff by various companies.

Maybe a lot of this stuff is sponsored.

[ronaldo7]

The baby box will be seen as a great start for our new-borns in the future. People don't need to take them. Everyone gets a help in hand if they need it.

I only wish someone had the foresight to do this when I had my bairns.

If you don't need it, don't register.

[danhibees1875]

Seems a good initiative while we still have the unfortunate situation whereby people require these essentials.

As for universal benefits - I think means testing should only be applied when the benefits are for adults, and even then only if the administrative burden is worth it.

Particularly if it's opt in I see no issue.

Good point raised above about sponsorship, would be a good way to save some money and good PR for the company if so.

[Allant1981]

I read somewhere recently that there actually is very little hard evidence that baby boxes have any determinable effect and that they are more a politicians popular plaything than a scientifically proven method of improving child mortality rates...might have been a Bloomberg article I can't remember and if I get a chance I'll see if I can find it.

Anyway it seems like a waste of money to give these to everyone...why not just make them available to anyone who wants it rather than automatically handing one out to parents of every child?

they arent automatically handed out, you have to register with your midwife to get one, luckily we dont need one but for those who dont have a lot of money they will be a welcome addition

[RyeSloan]

they arent automatically handed out, you have to register with your midwife to get one, luckily we dont need one but for those who dont have a lot of money they will be a welcome addition

Cool thanks for the clarification, that at least makes sense.

Still at £160 per box and a cost of almost £9m per year I would have hoped for more conclusive evidence that this was the best way to spend the money.

And shock horror it appears the scheme is contracted out to a private company...tsk tsk [emoji57]

[Greentinted]

Contents of proposed baby box: One bottle of Buckie, 20 fags, a deep fried Mars bar supper and a Braveheart DVD.
Sorted!

Never knew there was a healthy option...sign me up. :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

they arent automatically handed out, you have to register with your midwife to get one, luckily we dont need one but for those who dont have a lot of money they will be a welcome addition

Yeah i think this is the crux of it. SG habe been quite clever as it will effectively be means tested to am extent, without the bureaucratic mess. And those who would benefit will still get them.

[pacoluna]

Cool thanks for the clarification, that at least makes sense.

Still at £160 per box and a cost of almost £9m per year I would have hoped for more conclusive evidence that this was the best way to spend the money.

And shock horror it appears the scheme is contracted out to a private company...tsk tsk [emoji57]

would save a hell of a lot of money as well wouldn't we if those from a less fortunate backround or those in "working poverty" just didn't have kids eh :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

would save a hell of a lot of money as well wouldn't we if those from a less fortunate backround or those in "working poverty" just didn't have kids eh :rolleyes:

Wow that some leap...where did I even remotely suggest any of that p ish?

[pacoluna]

Wow that some leap...where did I even remotely suggest any of that p ish?
its not directly aimed towards you.

Only those who believe that p*sh will question whether initiatives like this are worth a percentage of our tax however.

[RyeSloan]

its not directly aimed towards you.

Only those who believe that p*sh will question whether initiatives like this are worth a percentage of our tax however.

Not sure why you quoted me then.

Anyway as to your point I disagree completely...multi million pound initiatives should where possible be based on fact and proven outcomes, where they are not then people should be allowed to question.

I've not looked at it too deeply but from what I have read I'm not totally convinced this initiative is actually based on facts and proven outcomes and plenty of others (and the report I linked) have asked the same question.

That's not to say the money shouldn't be spent nor that given children from poorer backgrounds the best start possible isn't a priority but surely people are allowed to ask if those aims and priorities are being addressed in the most effective way without your type of response.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not sure why you quoted me then.

Anyway as to your point I disagree completely...multi million pound initiatives should where possible be based on fact and proven outcomes, where they are not then people should be allowed to question.

I've not looked at it too deeply but from what I have read I'm not totally convinced this initiative is actually based on facts and proven outcomes and plenty of others (and the report I linked) have asked the same question.

That's not to say the money shouldn't be spent nor that given children from poorer backgrounds the best start possible isn't a priority but surely people are allowed to ask if those aims and priorities are being addressed in the most effective way without your type of response.

Presumably, the SG have conducted their own due diligence to come to their decision. I'm not sure if they've been challenged on that though, as to do so might appear mean-spirited by the other political parties.

It is, however, one way of getting around the inability of the SG to fundamentally change the benefits system.

[RyeSloan]

Presumably, the SG have conducted their own due diligence to come to their decision. I'm not sure if they've been challenged on that though, as to do so might appear mean-spirited by the other political parties.

It is, however, one way of getting around the inability of the SG to fundamentally change the benefits system.

They ran a limited trial from what I could see.

Don't get me wrong it could be a very worthwhile exercise and in principle I have nothing against it but Paco's post just sums the level of a lot of 'debate' just now and reminded me why I don't bother even trying most of the time these days.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Presumably, the SG have conducted their own due diligence to come to their decision. I'm not sure if they've been challenged on that though, as to do so might appear mean-spirited by the other political parties.

It is, however, one way of getting around the inability of the SG to fundamentally change the benefits system.

What annoys me most is that it is even deemed necessary to habe something like this, and that it is being trumpeted as a good thing. Clearly there is something wrong with people, and with society if these things are necessary.

That being said, we are where we are and if they help a few wee babies have a better start, then thats a good thing. Im not sure it will undo the untold damage of some feckless parents, but the govt can only do so much.

And by making it an opt-in system, they are cleverly making it not universal in application, which i think is a smart move.

But when the govt has to providr cardboard boxes for babies to sleep in, something has gone very wrong.

[pacoluna]

They ran a limited trial from what I could see.

Don't get me wrong it could be a very worthwhile exercise and in principle I have nothing against it but Paco's post just sums the level of a lot of 'debate' just now and reminded me why I don't bother even trying most of the time these days.
They will help tackle deprivation, improve health and support parents who require the support. Its all part of the overhaul of the Scottish childcare system and is in their manifesto. Giving our current political climate I struggle to understand why anyone would want to debate the costing of this kind of implementation. It can only bring benefits. One small positive in the current political **** storm that we live in.

[ronaldo7]

It looks like the Baby box has been a huge success. :aok: Proving the doubters/naysayers wrong again.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/12/3393

[johnbc70]

It looks like the Baby box has been a huge success. :aok: Proving the doubters/naysayers wrong again.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/12/3393

When you are given approx £160 worth of free stuff then I would expect the feedback to be extremely positive, what else did anyone expect?

[ronaldo7]

When you are given approx £160 worth of free stuff then I would expect the feedback to be extremely positive, what else did anyone expect?

:tee hee:

The tory naysayers were calling it another SNP vanity project. I heard the head of midwifery in Scotland on the radio this morning, saying it has made a great deal of difference to young mothers.

Long may they be given to our young Scots. Well worth the money.

[johnbc70]

:tee hee:

The tory naysayers were calling it another SNP vanity project. I heard the head of midwifery in Scotland on the radio this morning, saying it has make a great deal of difference to young mothers.

Long may they be given to our young Scots. Well worth the money.

If it's helping then great, but still question what other kind of feedback they were expecting from people being given free stuff other than it being extremely positive.

[ronaldo7]

If it's helping then great, but still question what other kind of feedback they were expecting from people being given free stuff other than it being extremely positive.

They got all sorts of feedback. What they used most, what was the most beneficial, what they didn't like, and what would they like to see in any new boxes.

As you've now agreed, it's helping, and that's all that matters.

If only we could build ships these days. :greengrin

[-Jonesy-]

Listened to call Kaye about it this morning and there are some proper roasters against it, I bet if you drew up a ven diagram of people who think the baby box should be scrapped against people with an inherent dislike of the SNP it would just be one big soor faced circle.

Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.

[ronaldo7]

Listened to call Kaye about it this morning and there are some proper roasters against it, I bet if you drew up a ven diagram of people who think the baby box should be scrapped against people with an inherent dislike of the SNP it would just be one big soor faced circle.

Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.

Maybe the Royal Navy can use the boxes by turning them upside down, and floating them off the coast as an Aircraft carrier. :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Listened to call Kaye about it this morning and there are some proper roasters against it, I bet if you drew up a ven diagram of people who think the baby box should be scrapped against people with an inherent dislike of the SNP it would just be one big soor faced circle.

Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.

Indefensable?

What if the money used for the boxes could be uaed to offer currently unavailable life saving treatment, or pay for better nursery education?

You may or may not like the boxes, but to say any criticism of them is indefensible is just plain wrong.

[marinello59]

Listened to call Kaye about it this morning and there are some proper roasters against it, I bet if you drew up a ven diagram of people who think the baby box should be scrapped against people with an inherent dislike of the SNP it would just be one big soor faced circle.

Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.

I reckon they are a decent idea. Dismissing any criticism as moronic and indefensible is a bit OTT though isn’t it?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If it's helping then great, but still question what other kind of feedback they were expecting from people being given free stuff other than it being extremely positive.

Its a fair point.

The assessment of their success can only be made when the babies currently getting them are old enough for us to judge the effdct, and with a few years of info on how they have improved outcomes for baby and parents.

Of course people will like free stuff - its only a valid comparison if you are also making it clear what the money spent on these coyld have been doing if used differently.

Asking someone if they like free stuff doesnt really count as evidenced-based policy making, especially when the person asking the question came up with the idea in the first place, hardly an objective view!

[marinello59]

Maybe the Royal Navy can use the boxes by turning them upside down, and floating them off the coast as an Aircraft carrier. :greengrin

There may be some criticism of the SNP ... quick. Change the subject. :greengrin

[johnbc70]

Listened to call Kaye about it this morning and there are some proper roasters against it, I bet if you drew up a ven diagram of people who think the baby box should be scrapped against people with an inherent dislike of the SNP it would just be one big soor faced circle.

Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.

If you feel that the tens of millions spent on this is money well spent that's your valid opinion, others may argue the money could be better spent elsewhere and that's a valid view as well, is it not?

[John_R_Corbett]

Listened to call Kaye about it this morning and there are some proper roasters against it, I bet if you drew up a ven diagram of people who think the baby box should be scrapped against people with an inherent dislike of the SNP it would just be one big soor faced circle.

Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.Suppose that's what you get when you listen to the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Their radio is no different to the TV, instead of rigged audiences full of plants, just a queue of yoon trolls on the phone instead. Don't waste your time, you'll hear nothing good.

[Moulin Yarns]

Perspective.

cost per Scottish tax payer per year for baby boxes =£4.00
Trident = £269
Brexit (projection) = £5,333
HS2 = £2,201
Westminster refurb = £276
General Election = £5.65
DUP deal to prop up the Government =£59

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Suppose that's what you get when you listen to the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Their radio is no different to the TV, instead of rigged audiences full of plants, just a queue of yoon trolls on the phone instead. Don't waste your time, you'll hear nothing good.

Yeah, but an SNP supporter rabidly and unquestioningly supporting an SNP policy is of course nothing to do with bias.

By nothing good, you mean you wont hear people say what you want them to say. That sounds a bit fascist to be honest.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Perspective.

cost per Scottish tax payer per year for baby boxes =£4.00
Trident = £269
Brexit (projection) = £5,333
HS2 = £2,201
Westminster refurb = £276
General Election = £5.65
DUP deal to prop up the Government =£59

But none of the above has anything to do with, or says anything about how successful, or not, the policy has been.

Still, the SNP came up with it, so it must be unqestionably good eh?

[ronaldo7]

There may be some criticism of the SNP ... quick. Change the subject. :greengrin

Oh, I could go on, but will just leave this one here.

Royal Navy has no major warships deployed for the first time in living memory, frigates, and destroyers all tied up in Portsmouth/Devonport.

All six Type 45 destroyers are in Portsmouth because of a combination of mechanical problems, routine maintenance, a shortage of manpower and the need to give sailors leave over Christmas.

The 13 type frigates are also split between the two bases for similar reasons.

All due to cutbacks, and Tory mismanagement.

Don't worry though, Britannia rules the waves. :faf: Take back control, and let's promote soft power abroad. :aok:

The baby box goes from strength to strength though. :aok:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Perspective.

cost per Scottish tax payer per year for baby boxes =£4.00
Trident = £269
Brexit (projection) = £5,333
HS2 = £2,201
Westminster refurb = £276
General Election = £5.65
DUP deal to prop up the Government =£59

Of all the money spent/wasted on various things, I personally think the baby boxes are an excellent initiative for those who need the support. Parents who don't need them, needn't register, and the cost is very modest.

[marinello59]

Oh, I could go on, but will just leave this one here.

Royal Navy has no major warships deployed for the first time in living memory, frigates, and destroyers all tied up in Portsmouth/Devonport.

All six Type 45 destroyers are in Portsmouth because of a combination of mechanical problems, routine maintenance, a shortage of manpower and the need to give sailors leave over Christmas.

The 13 type frigates are also split between the two bases for similar reasons.

All due to cutbacks, and Tory mismanagement.

Don't worry though, Britannia rules the waves. :faf: Take back control, and let's promote soft power abroad. :aok:

The baby box goes from strength to strength though. :aok:

None of which has nothing to do with the Baby box. :confused:
Surely you should be starting another thread to press the case for increased military spending.

[ronaldo7]

None of which has nothing to do with the Baby box. :confused:
Surely you should be starting another thread to press the case for increased military spending.

My tenuous link of the baby box floating down the forth as our new air craft carrier doesn't count then. :greengrin

Maybe we should just go it alone, and not have to spend Billions on WMD programmes. We could maybe have a couple of ships patrolling OUR waters.

[johnbc70]

Suppose that's what you get when you listen to the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Their radio is no different to the TV, instead of rigged audiences full of plants, just a queue of yoon trolls on the phone instead. Don't waste your time, you'll hear nothing good.

I reckon somehow MI5 have infiltrated the Kaye Adams show, what else could explain the clearly outrageous notion that people may critise the government. Never acceptable when the people dare question the government.

[Smartie]

But none of the above has anything to do with, or says anything about how successful, or not, the policy has been.

Still, the SNP came up with it, so it must be unqestionably good eh?

I don't know if I'd say the SNP came up with it.

Finland came up with it, it has been overwhelmingly popular and successful there so the SNP thought it would be worth a try here.

(Cue everyone very predictably getting into their usual bunkers instead of forming an opinion based on the merit of the idea).

I'm open minded on it, and with a baby due in February we'll be getting one.

If it's an idea that doesn't work here in practice then we can always bin it.

[ronaldo7]

But none of the above has anything to do with, or says anything about how successful, or not, the policy has been.

Still, the SNP came up with it, so it must be unqestionably good eh?

Wrong again. They borrowed the idea, and implemented a policy to help people. #pwoud

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Wrong again. They borrowed the idea, and implemented a policy to help people. #pwoud

What?? So its not an SNP policy? Somebody should tell Shona Robison quick...

[-Jonesy-]

But none of the above has anything to do with, or says anything about how successful, or not, the policy has been.

Still, the SNP came up with it, so it must be unqestionably good eh?

You wouldn't happen to be right in the middle of that grumpy ven diagram would you?

I stick by my guns, indefensible is right!
It's social healthcare, do you think the smallpox vaccine was a waste of resources? Cancer research? Infection control?

I haven't heard any argument against the baby box here or anywhere else that doesn't reek of anti SNP agenda at any cost. None of these people seem to have any realistic alternative of where to spend £8m that would make a difference to infant mortality rate as has been proved in Finland for over 80 years.

Just another p1sspoor stick to beat the sitting SG with, absolutely childish.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You wouldn't happen to be right in the middle of that grumpy ven diagram would you?

I stick by my guns, indefensible is right!
It's social healthcare, do you think the smallpox vaccine was a waste of resources? Cancer research? Infection control?

I haven't heard any argument against the baby box here or anywhere else that doesn't reek of anti SNP agenda at any cost. None of these people seem to have any realistic alternative of where to spend £8m that would make a difference to infant mortality rate as has been proved in Finland for over 80 years.

Just another p1sspoor stick to beat the sitting SG with, absolutely childish.

Smallpox vaccines (and all vaccines) have proven efficacy, and have to be assessed by the JCVI (i think) and prove their cost effectiveness after years or clinical trials.

Cancer research likewise, is funded based on results - good researchers and institutions get money, bad ones dont. But incidentally, i do wonder how many cancer medicines could be paid for with that 9m annnually?

Im not and never have been against this policy- I started the initial thread to discuss it.

Im all for early interventions where they are shown to work. You talk about a stick with which to beat government, on the contrary my concern with this is that it is being trumpeted as a success for political reasons.

My point is nobody (naysayers or supporters) can possibly know if it has been successful yet, because there is zero proper data yet to assess. Claiming its success on nothing other than people like getting things for free is no better than saying the methodone programme is unquestionably successful because junkies like taking it - without looking at the success rate in reducing crime, getting people off their addiction etc.

So i guess i would be on the agnostic bit of your venn diagram, with a very much 'lets wait and see' attitude. And i also believe no aspect of government policy can ever be beyond question, because that would lead to absolutism. Governments are supposed to be endlessly questioned, criticised, scrutinised and held to account. It is not anti-SNP, it is the democratic sysyem working how it is supposed to.

[-Jonesy-]

Smallpox vaccines (and all vaccines) have proven efficacy, and have to be assessed by the JCVI (i think) and prove their cost effectiveness after years or clinical trials.

Cancer research likewise, is funded based on results - good researchers and institutions get money, bad ones dont. But incidentally, i do wonder how many cancer medicines could be paid for with that 9m annnually?

Im not and never have been against this policy- I started the initial thread to discuss it.

Im all for early interventions where they are shown to work. You talk about a stick with which to beat government, on the contrary my concern with this is that it is being trumpeted as a success for political reasons.

My point is nobody (naysayers or supporters) can possibly know if it has been successful yet, because there is zero proper data yet to assess. Claiming its success on nothing other than people like getting things for free is no better than saying the methodone programme is unquestionably successful because junkies like taking it - without looking at the success rate in reducing crime, getting people off their addiction etc.

So i guess i would be on the agnostic bit of your venn diagram, with a very much 'lets wait and see' attitude. And i also believe no aspect of government policy can ever be beyond question, because that would lead to absolutism. Governments are supposed to be endlessly questioned, criticised, scrutinised and held to account. It is not anti-SNP, it is the democratic sysyem working how it is supposed to.

It's still too early in the morning for me to make such a reasoned and well worded argument as yourself (and well done btw) but for me there is no argument against a national health initiative such as this other than the potential cost, and as it's so small and the effect, or potential benefit at least, so instant and direct I can't see any reason to critiscise it other than throwing the political toys out the pram, or ear thermometer out the box as it were.

As a (fairly) young adult with a baby on the way, as someone who has always worked and never been well off and as someone who has seen the opportunities afforded to previous generations slowly taken away (jobs, mortgages, bloody brexit) I think this is a genuinely great step for helping the next generation and will be most welcome in my family.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's still too early in the morning for me to make such a reasoned and well worded argument as yourself (and well done btw) but for me there is no argument against a national health initiative such as this other than the potential cost, and as it's so small and the effect, or potential benefit at least, so instant and direct I can't see any reason to critiscise it other than throwing the political toys out the pram, or ear thermometer out the box as it were.

As a (fairly) young adult with a baby on the way, as someone who has always worked and never been well off and as someone who has seen the opportunities afforded to previous generations slowly taken away (jobs, mortgages, bloody brexit) I think this is a genuinely great step for helping the next generation and will be most welcome in my family.

Good luck with the wee one - you will be well placed to judge the programme soon!

[ronaldo7]

What?? So its not an SNP policy? Somebody should tell Shona Robison quick...

If your going to hold your government to account, you'd be best going to the right person. 😂👌

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If your going to hold your government to account, you'd be best going to the right person. 😂👌

Somebody should tell the Presiding Officer too then, because she has answered questions in parliament about them 😉
(Question no S5W-06139 for example)

[ronaldo7]

Somebody should tell the Presiding Officer too then, because she has answered questions in parliament about them 😉
(Question no S5W-06139 for example)

Marie Todd, if you want to send a strongly written letter. 😂

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Marie Todd, if you want to send a strongly written letter. 😂

Aahh, so it IS an SNP policy. Thanks for correcting your previous disinformation.

[ronaldo7]

Aahh, so it IS an SNP policy. Thanks for correcting your previous disinformation.

You said, "the snp came up with it", they didn't, it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Glad to keep you right though.

[Pretty Boy]

I wasn't fussed about the baby box when my partner and I found out we were expecting as we are lucky in that we have supportive families and were very well equipped materially. However after persuasion from the midwife we signed up and there is no doubting the contents are fantastic. Clothes, toys, a playmat, thermometers, books and plenty more.

Did we really need it? No. Would it be a Godsend to someone with nothing/really struggling? Absolutely. I initially argued there was a case for means testing it but I believe the admin costs of that would equate to about the same as the current cost of giving to all who want it so I'm in favour. It's a great universal benefit that gives every child a chance at a good start in life.

[marinello59]

My tenuous link of the baby box floating down the forth as our new air craft carrier doesn't count then. :greengrin

Maybe we should just go it alone, and not have to spend Billions on WMD programmes. We could maybe have a couple of ships patrolling OUR waters.

One of the things that jumped out at me when reading the Independence white paper prior to the referendum was the recognition that Scotland is a maritime nation and required a strong Navy. So I agree with you.

[RyeSloan]

I wasn't fussed about the baby box when my partner and I found out we were expecting as we are lucky in that we have supportive families and were very well equipped materially. However after persuasion from the midwife we signed up and there is no doubting the contents are fantastic. Clothes, toys, a playmat, thermometers, books and plenty more.

Did we really need it? No. Would it be a Godsend to someone with nothing/really struggling? Absolutely. I initially argued there was a case for means testing it but I believe the admin costs of that would equate to about the same as the current cost of giving to all who want it so I'm in favour. It's a great universal benefit that gives every child a chance at a good start in life.

Good to hear a real life perspective on this.

Interesting that despite your protestations and conformation that you really didn't want or need the box you were 'persuaded' by the mid wife. Out of nothing but sheer curiosity I'd be interested in her (gender assumption alert!) reasoning for persuading you to sign up for one.

[Pretty Boy]

Good to hear a real life perspective on this.

Interesting that despite your protestations and conformation that you really didn't want or need the box you were 'persuaded' by the mid wife. Out of nothing but sheer curiosity I'd be interested in her (gender assumption alert!) reasoning for persuading you to sign up for one.

We were one of the first to be eligible so I think she was just enthusiastic more than anything. She did also say there may be a couple of things in it we hadn't considered.

[Swedish hibee]

It looks like the Baby box has been a huge success. :aok: Proving the doubters/naysayers wrong again.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/12/3393

If the point of it is to encourage breastfeeding and reduce cot death, then it's only a success if this happens. I don't really know what the point of it actually is so may have it wrong, and it's just for free stuff for mums.

[speedy_gonzales]

,,,,and it's just for free stuff for mums.
This isn't a new thing, back in the early 2000's mums were handed 'Bounty' packs. A large bag containing samples(food/nappies), freebies(photo's/clothing) and information. It wasn't as comprehensive as the boxes and I fear they were heavily sponsored by the multi-million £ baby industry so the pessimist in me thinks it was more about capturing future business rather than promote future well-being.

[Geo_1875]

If the point of it is to encourage breastfeeding and reduce cot death, then it's only a success if this happens. I don't really know what the point of it actually is so may have it wrong, and it's just for free stuff for mums.

I don't know if there is a specific health related target. I'd rather thought it was aimed at general well-being and giving babies the best possible start. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't do harm so can only be good for babies and mothers.

[southfieldhibby]

I wasn't fussed about the baby box when my partner and I found out we were expecting as we are lucky in that we have supportive families and were very well equipped materially. However after persuasion from the midwife we signed up and there is no doubting the contents are fantastic. Clothes, toys, a playmat, thermometers, books and plenty more.

Did we really need it? No. Would it be a Godsend to someone with nothing/really struggling? Absolutely. I initially argued there was a case for means testing it but I believe the admin costs of that would equate to about the same as the current cost of giving to all who want it so I'm in favour. It's a great universal benefit that gives every child a chance at a good start in life.

I like the simplicity of the idea, welcoming a wee Scot into our nation with a collective gift from their fellow citizens. The various health and social benefits make it a no brainer. I'd consider making it compulsory for parents to take one, all kids in Scotland are born equal, welcomed by the same simple gift from the nation. And I think the box should be used to keep special things from their childhood for when they're adults.

It's really quite sad that politics gets in the way of these simple, kind gestures.

[ronaldo7]

If the point of it is to encourage breastfeeding and reduce cot death, then it's only a success if this happens. I don't really know what the point of it actually is so may have it wrong, and it's just for free stuff for mums.

It was about giving families who are going through the best times of their lives a wee boost. I'm sure the midwifes have advised on many issues throughout the families time with them, including, sleeping arrangements, breast feeding etc. The box didn't have any breast feeding stuff originally, however through the survey, families have asked about pads, and pumps. I'm sure the boxes will evolve as time goes on, but the first survey has given the boxes a massive thumbs up.

We have Dads involved too.:aok:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't know if there is a specific health related target. I'd rather thought it was aimed at general well-being and giving babies the best possible start. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't do harm so can only be good for babies and mothers.

I was under the impression (i dont know why, so quite possibly wrong) that it was to reduce cot deaths? There must be an outxome that is measurable, otherwise how could it be justified as a good thing to do?

[-Jonesy-]

I was under the impression (i dont know why, so quite possibly wrong) that it was to reduce cot deaths? There must be an outxome that is measurable, otherwise how could it be justified as a good thing to do?

You're correct it is, according to scotlands head of midwifery, the box is a safer alternative to baby sleeping in bed or on furniture with the parents and/or leaving baby in a cot in another room if it can't be moved. SIDS isn't still fully understood and is more a case of risk management than prevention, with regards to the box, Finland is the standard the SG are following so they and hopefully us now, must be getting it right.

Thanks for the kind words earlier btw👍🏻

[Beefster]

This isn't a new thing, back in the early 2000's mums were handed 'Bounty' packs. A large bag containing samples(food/nappies), freebies(photo's/clothing) and information. It wasn't as comprehensive as the boxes and I fear they were heavily sponsored by the multi-million £ baby industry so the pessimist in me thinks it was more about capturing future business rather than promote future well-being.

I was always under the impression that Bounty boxes were there to promote/push the company that comes around the maternity wards taking newborn photos.

[speedy_gonzales]

I was always under the impression that Bounty boxes were there to promote/push the company that comes around the maternity wards taking newborn photos.
You may well be right Beefster,I did think at the time they seemed very "commercialised" but ours was given to us by a midwife, not a rep doing the rounds.

[Hibs Class]

When our children were born we got the Bounty packs - think one was by voucher an which we collected from Boots, other may have been handed out at hospital or also by voucher. AFAIK, the baby pics were branded as by Dimples and separate from the Bounty packs. Think you can still get Bounty packs today.

[degenerated]

I reckon they are a decent idea. Dismissing any criticism as moronic and indefensible is a bit OTT though isn’t it?

Call Kaye isn't really about constructive criticism though, well not when I've heard it it's not. It's the same frothing loonies phoning in day after day.

Todays topic on Call Kaye is <insert subject> so why don't you call in and tell us how ***** Scotland is.

[marinello59]

Call Kaye isn't really about constructive criticism though, well not when I've heard it it's not. It's the same frothing loonies phoning in day after day.

Todays topic on Call Kaye is <insert subject> so why don't you call in and tell us how ***** Scotland is.


The poster I replied to said 'Vocally being against something that is offered to each and all newborns help their start in life is totally moronic and indefensible.'
That suggests it doesn't matter where it was said. That is OTT. ALL Government policy should be open to criticism and debate.

[hibsbollah]

I wasn't fussed about the baby box when my partner and I found out we were expecting as we are lucky in that we have supportive families and were very well equipped materially. However after persuasion from the midwife we signed up and there is no doubting the contents are fantastic. Clothes, toys, a playmat, thermometers, books and plenty more.

Did we really need it? No. Would it be a Godsend to someone with nothing/really struggling? Absolutely. I initially argued there was a case for means testing it but I believe the admin costs of that would equate to about the same as the current cost of giving to all who want it so I'm in favour. It's a great universal benefit that gives every child a chance at a good start in life.

:agree:
Its a great policy, and it would be refreshing to hear some acknowledgement of that from Scottish Labour, however grudging. I'm not a SNP voter but that doesn't mean they don't get things right from time to time.

[Bristolhibby]

I wasn't fussed about the baby box when my partner and I found out we were expecting as we are lucky in that we have supportive families and were very well equipped materially. However after persuasion from the midwife we signed up and there is no doubting the contents are fantastic. Clothes, toys, a playmat, thermometers, books and plenty more.

Did we really need it? No. Would it be a Godsend to someone with nothing/really struggling? Absolutely. I initially argued there was a case for means testing it but I believe the admin costs of that would equate to about the same as the current cost of giving to all who want it so I'm in favour. It's a great universal benefit that gives every child a chance at a good start in life.

Just a thought, (and I think it’s a great idea BTW).

Is this not something that could be taken unopened to a foodbank or the likes to give a struggling mother a second box?

It would remove the admin of means testing, and if you don’t need it, there’s always someone who could do with another.

All the best with the new Hibee BTW.

J

[Allant1981]

When our children were born we got the Bounty packs - think one was by voucher an which we collected from Boots, other may have been handed out at hospital or also by voucher. AFAIK, the baby pics were branded as by Dimples and separate from the Bounty packs. Think you can still get Bounty packs today.

yip bounty packs are still on the go, we were given one a couple of weeks ago

[lapsedhibee]

Interesting that despite your protestations and conformation that you really didn't want or need the box you were 'persuaded' by the mid wife. Out of nothing but sheer curiosity I'd be interested in her (gender assumption alert!) reasoning for persuading you to sign up for one.

Box ticking.

[Colr]

When we had our son the hospital wouldn’t provide nappies or cotton wool for his 2 day stay until he went home.

The bounty box was handy but if we’d been unprepared or poorer it would have been invaluable.

Means testing would stigmatise the boxes. Typical Tory ploy with benefits!

[Scouse Hibee]

Baby boxes are a great idea, particularly to the sections of society who insist on churning out babies well knowing they don't have the means to support tbem. They never stop at one either, dragging up another child into a life of poverty doesn't phase them!

[Colr]

Baby boxes are a great idea, particularly to the sections of society who insist on churning out babies well knowing they don't have the means to support tbem. They never stop at one either, dragging up another child into a life of poverty doesn't phase them!

One of the fewsources of pleaseure they have - or hope.

[steakbake]

We got a baby box. It's tremendous. We use it every day, the kid sleeps in it when it's not bedtime and it was full of useful stuff that although you know you might need it, you don't know where you'd get it.

We also got a bounty bag. That was just a marketing thing: mostly free, trial-size samples and money off vouchers.

The box though, is excellent.

[Mr White]

We got a baby box. It's tremendous. We use it every day, the kid sleeps in it when it's not bedtime and it was full of useful stuff that although you know you might need it, you don't know where you'd get it.

We also got a bounty bag. That was just a marketing thing: mostly free, trial-size samples and money off vouchers.

The box though, is excellent.

Great to hear and congratulations :thumbsup:

It seems like a fairly low cost progressive policy to me and fair play to the SNP for introducing it.

[Hermit Crab]

Me and my Mrs are getting, she's due in March, it will be a great help to us as my family are skint!

[lord bunberry]

I find the opposition to this policy utterly baffling. Sometimes a government comes up with a good idea that should be welcomed by everyone. Admittedly it’s a rare event, but this one is surely one of these policies. I’ve been genuinely surprised by some of things I’ve read and heard about the baby box. It reminds me of Americans arguing about free healthcare.

[steakbake]

I find the opposition to this policy utterly baffling. Sometimes a government comes up with a good idea that should be welcomed by everyone. Admittedly it’s a rare event, but this one is surely one of these policies. I’ve been genuinely surprised by some of things I’ve read and heard about the baby box. It reminds me of Americans arguing about free healthcare.

Even some folks in my own family were saying "I suppose you'll be getting one on Nicola's baby boxes" like it was a bad thing...only to later say that it's a great idea once they'd seen it. Instinctual opposition first, then they see the reality. It's just what they've learned from the papers etc.

[ronaldo7]

Baby boxes are a great idea, particularly to the sections of society who insist on churning out babies well knowing they don't have the means to support tbem. They never stop at one either, dragging up another child into a life of poverty doesn't phase them!

Terrible isn't it.:rolleyes:

Especially when they have three bairns whilst on benefits, taking from the people, and living in massive palaces.

[lord bunberry]

Even some folks in my own family were saying "I suppose you'll be getting one on Nicola's baby boxes" like it was a bad thing...only to later say that it's a great idea once they'd seen it. Instinctual opposition first, then they see the reality. It's just what they've learned from the papers etc.
:agree: That’s how it seems to me.

[Scouse Hibee]

Terrible isn't it.:rolleyes:

Especially when they have three bairns whilst on benefits, taking from the people, and living in massive palaces.

Different argument altogether😪

[ronaldo7]

Different argument altogether😪

Only if it suits "your" argument. :wink:

If only those paupers had their baws whipped away from them eh.

[Scouse Hibee]

Only if it suits "your" argument. :wink:

If only those paupers had their baws whipped away from them eh.

Think you've gone astray,taken the wrong fork in the road and ended up miles away. Must be the Christmas sherry.😉

[ronaldo7]

Think you've gone astray,taken the wrong fork in the road and ended up miles away. Must be the Christmas sherry.😉

Christmas comes but once a year. What your excuse for the rest of the year. 😉

[Future17]

Baby boxes are a great idea, particularly to the sections of society who insist on churning out babies well knowing they don't have the means to support tbem. They never stop at one either, dragging up another child into a life of poverty doesn't phase them!

"...particularly to..." or "... particularly for..."?

[Scouse Hibee]

Christmas comes but once a year. What your excuse for the rest of the year. 😉

Sat nav issues.

[Scouse Hibee]

"...particularly to..." or "... particularly for..."?

I think you know the answer!

[Future17]

I think you know the answer!

I don't think anyone thought baby boxes would encourage those sections of society to keep churning out kids. I wonder why...

[Scouse Hibee]

I don't think anyone thought baby boxes would encourage those sections of society to keep churning out kids. I wonder why...

No me neither, if I thought it would actually encourage them I would be astounded as it would mean they had actually considered the consequences of their actions.

[Swedish hibee]

Overweight pregnant mums, obese children, low breast feeding stats, appalling dental stats in children, it seems like the "good start" you give the Scots babies in life with the baby box- gets lost somewhere.
You really need a magic wand to erase the UK health problems, no matter how much you give the NHS, it's never gonna be enough.. And no amount of money can ever change people's attitudes to health, food & exercise.

[Jack]

Overweight pregnant mums, obese children, low breast feeding stats, appalling dental stats in children, it seems like the "good start" you give the Scots babies in life with the baby box- gets lost somewhere.
You really need a magic wand to erase the UK health problems, no matter how much you give the NHS, it's never gonna be enough.. And no amount of money can ever change people's attitudes to health, food & exercise.

A post borne out of ignorance.

[lord bunberry]

A post borne out of ignorance.
You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Bristolhibby]

If you have twins do you get two boxes?

J

[Smartie]

Overweight pregnant mums, obese children, low breast feeding stats, appalling dental stats in children, it seems like the "good start" you give the Scots babies in life with the baby box- gets lost somewhere.
You really need a magic wand to erase the UK health problems, no matter how much you give the NHS, it's never gonna be enough.. And no amount of money can ever change people's attitudes to health, food & exercise.

Our health record IS appalling, we're coming from a poor position and nobody will be particularly proud of our record, but it doesn't mean we can't try to improve it.

"Appalling dental stats in children" - improving very quickly, the Childsmile initiative has made great strides in this area.

Acknowledging how poorly we perform in so many areas is good justification for trying something different, like the baby boxes.

We can come back in 10 years and see if they (or anything else) have made a difference.

[heretoday]

If you have twins do you get two boxes?

J

You get a double box.

[21.05.2016]

Personally think it's a great idea. Those who don't need it don't have to take it but there are many families out there who need this basic stuff.

[The Pointer]

Overweight pregnant mums, obese children, low breast feeding stats, appalling dental stats in children, it seems like the "good start" you give the Scots babies in life with the baby box- gets lost somewhere.
You really need a magic wand to erase the UK health problems, no matter how much you give the NHS, it's never gonna be enough.. And no amount of money can ever change people's attitudes to health, food & exercise.

You're spot on. Just go down to the shops or the surgery to see the future. It shouldn't be impossible to change people's attitudes to health, diet and fitness but in this country I think it pretty much has been proved it is as we have been trying for long enough.

I can't be *rsed going through this thread but the baby box is one of the most hair-brained 'look what we're doing' schemes thought up in recent years that is unnecessary for most folk while costing vast sums the country can ill-afford. In the same boat as free prescriptions.

[Peevemor]

You get a double box.Should be a bunk-box.

[weecounty hibby]

You're spot on. Just go down to the shops or the surgery to see the future. It shouldn't be impossible to change people's attitudes to health, diet and fitness but in this country I think it pretty much has been proved it is as we have been trying for long enough.

I can't be *rsed going through this thread but the baby box is one of the most hair-brained 'look what we're doing' schemes thought up in recent years that is unnecessary for most folk while costing vast sums the country can ill-afford. In the same boat as free prescriptions.

Rubbish. Vast sums? £8 million. Total drop in the ocean to start off a child's life in Scotland the right way. Help needed for those who need it. Those who don't can opt out. Most won't I suspect. It has been proven to work over decades in other countries as well. Free prescriptions are a god send to the poorer in society and it has again been proven that means testing would cost more than just giving all free prescriptions. Can't be bothered researching the data but I believe that is the case.

[-Jonesy-]

I can't be *rsed going through this thread

Well thank you for your reasoned and well informed opinion😂

[speedy_gonzales]

Free prescriptions are a god send to the poorer in society


Agreed, medication should be available to all and financing a script should not be a barrier.



and it has again been proven that means testing would cost more than just giving all free prescriptions.

Has it, I'm surprised at that!


Can't be bothered researching the data but I believe that is the case.
Ahh, OK. Likewise I can't be bothered to look but would have thought with all the systems & data available to HMRC that some flag could be associated to each individual, if you're on benefits or earn below a certain threshold, free scripts and folk with long term or repetitive illnesses also get them gratis. For everyone else you pay an amount similar to what we used to, perhaps no more than £10.
Whilst we're at it, we should encourage Dr's to stop prescribing common over the counter medicines like paracetamol, aspirin & ibuprofen that can be bought for pennies but when prescribed cost tens of millions (a LOT more than the baby box cost do neatly back on track!)

To be clear though, I can't stress enough that everyone should get the medication they need without cost being a barrier!!!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Rubbish. Vast sums? £8 million. Total drop in the ocean to start off a child's life in Scotland the right way. Help needed for those who need it. Those who don't can opt out. Most won't I suspect. It has been proven to work over decades in other countries as well. Free prescriptions are a god send to the poorer in society and it has again been proven that means testing would cost more than just giving all free prescriptions. Can't be bothered researching the data but I believe that is the case.

I think you are right that the cost of administering presriptions had made it difficult, because aboit 90% of them were free anyway - i believe it was a very cheal policy to implement (relatively).

Im not sure you can judge the success of the baby box on how many are taken - most people will take free stuff, that alone doesnt make it a good policy. We will need to wait a few years for a decent steer.

And 9m isnt a lot of cash for a govt, but its the opportunity cost that matters.

Shold we habe baby boxes where the govt pays for a load of stuff and gives you it free?

Is a very different question to should we habe baby boxes where the govt pays for a load of free stuff and gives you it free, but they close a local materniry ward and centralise it in the nearest big city to pay for it, or reduce the amount of social workers available to help vulnerable children, etc

Thats not a comment on whether its good or bad, but that 9m is now money that cant be spent on something else.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think you are right that the cost of administering presriptions had made it difficult, because aboit 90% of them were free anyway - i believe it was a very cheal policy to implement (relatively).

Im not sure you can judge the success of the baby box on how many are taken - most people will take free stuff, that alone doesnt make it a good policy. We will need to wait a few years for a decent steer.

And 9m isnt a lot of cash for a govt, but its the opportunity cost that matters.

Shold we habe baby boxes where the govt pays for a load of stuff and gives you it free?

Is a very different question to should we habe baby boxes where the govt pays for a load of free stuff and gives you it free, but they close a local materniry ward and centralise it in the nearest big city to pay for it, or reduce the amount of social workers available to help vulnerable children, etc

Thats not a comment on whether its good or bad, but that 9m is now money that cant be spent on something else.

I might be pointing out the obvious but every penny spent is money that can't be spent elsewhere.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I might be pointing out the obvious but every penny spent is money that can't be spent elsewhere.

Of course, and so the question needs to move away from is a box of free stuff good and do people like it, to is a box of free stuff that people like the best and most cost effective way to achieve x outcome (i think the aim is to reduxe cot deaths?) or could spending 9m elsewhere be a more effective, if less gimmicky, way to acheive a reduction in cot deaths?

[GreenNWhiteArmy]

We got ours a couple of months ago. Whilst me and my other half are in a decent enough financial position, we took the offer up and "applied" for it anyway.

Was pleasantly surprised at the contents.

Am I less in need or deserving of the box? In some respect I suppose we are. From a working class background , financially we're probably close to the average earnings per household for the country but the fact that the government gives each baby the same start in life I respect.

if it helps families in need and reduces cot deaths then I'm all for it.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

We got ours a couple of months ago. Whilst me and my other half are in a decent enough financial position, we took the offer up and "applied" for it anyway.

Was pleasantly surprised at the contents.

Am I less in need or deserving of the box? In some respect I suppose we are. From a working class background , financially we're probably close to the average earnings per household for the country but the fact that the government gives each baby the same start in life I respect.

if it helps families in need and reduces cot deaths then I'm all for it.

Agree with the last bit completely.

My mrs and my sister both knocked it back in the last few weeks as they dont agree with it. Have to say i would habe probably taken it, free stuff is free stuff, afterall. But im kinda glad they didnt also, as we dont particularly need it (fortunately), amd there is no way the baby would have been sleeping in a box!

[ronaldo7]

Did anyone hear the furore in England when local authorities stated handing out baby boxes? They seem more relaxed with the idea than some in Scotland:greengrin

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-06-29/first-uk-hospital-gives-parents-babyboxes/

[marinello59]

Did anyone hear the furore in England when local authorities stated handing out baby boxes? They seem more relaxed with the idea than some in Scotland:greengrin

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-06-29/first-uk-hospital-gives-parents-babyboxes/

They weren’t tax payer funded.

[ronaldo7]

They weren’t tax payer funded.

Somebody pays, particularly when an American company is involved. :wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Somebody pays, particularly when an American company is involved. :wink:

So the american company probably paid?

[Beefster]

Free prescriptions are a god send to the poorer in society and it has again been proven that means testing would cost more than just giving all free prescriptions. Can't be bothered researching the data but I believe that is the case.

Last time I actually checked this, which was a year or two ago, the research showed that mean-testing free prescriptions would save the Scottish budget £40-50m per annum. Not sure if that includes free prescriptions for people with life-long chronic conditions too.

[Jack]

Last time I actually checked this, which was a year or two ago, the research showed that mean-testing free prescriptions would save the Scottish budget £40-50m per annum. Not sure if that includes free prescriptions for people with life-long chronic conditions too.

At the time they were abolished only 9% were actually paid for.

There was a sizable team fighting fraud, I'm sure that team became much smaller when they became free.

There was also a considerable effort put into fielding requests/demands from MSPs, pressure groups and individuals constantly campaigning for this, that and the other medicine to be included in the exempt categories.

I can't remember the details around costing but at the time thought it was pretty good value, not just in terms of money.

[RyeSloan]

At the time they were abolished only 9% were actually paid for.

There was a sizable team fighting fraud, I'm sure that team became much smaller when they became free.

There was also a considerable effort put into fielding requests/demands from MSPs, pressure groups and individuals constantly campaigning for this, that and the other medicine to be included in the exempt categories.

I can't remember the details around costing but at the time thought it was pretty good value, not just in terms of money.

Probably much easier and more cost effective to tackle over prescription and the wholesale costs of the drugs if that is accurate re the 10% figure.

Unless the system could piggy back on something else that easily conformed eligibility then it would seem rather pointless maintaining a stand alone process that charges for only 10% of the volume.

[Moulin Yarns]

Probably much easier and more cost effective to tackle over prescription and the wholesale costs of the drugs if that is accurate re the 10% figure.

Unless the system could piggy back on something else that easily conformed eligibility then it would seem rather pointless maintaining a stand alone process that charges for only 10% of the volume.

I'm a bit confused where you got the figure of 10%

[RyeSloan]

I'm a bit confused where you got the figure of 10%

I rounded up Jacks 9% [emoji16]

[Moulin Yarns]

I rounded up Jacks 9% [emoji16]

an 11% increase :wink:

[RyeSloan]

an 11% increase :wink:

Margin for error [emoji23]

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

At the time they were abolished only 9% were actually paid for.

There was a sizable team fighting fraud, I'm sure that team became much smaller when they became free.

There was also a considerable effort put into fielding requests/demands from MSPs, pressure groups and individuals constantly campaigning for this, that and the other medicine to be included in the exempt categories.

I can't remember the details around costing but at the time thought it was pretty good value, not just in terms of money.

At tge time, i remembet someone senior (possibly Salmond as FM) saying it wad almost cost neutral due to the high admin burden of effectively means testing out 90% of the population. So it did make sense i think.

The main potential problem i think, is that by giving (potentially quite expensive) medicines away for free, they devalue them kn the minds of the people, which could lead to rise in wastage and incorrect use, which is already a problem.

But in general, it seems like it was a sensible decision, and a bit of an open goal for the incoming SNP govt to take advantage of.

[Kavinho]

The Baby box is 100% a good idea. No strings attached

[7 Up]

The Baby box is 100% a good idea. No strings attached

Agree. Baffling that a baby box of all things can provoke such scorn.