Competitive discourse is the very soul of democratic politics. We now have two decidedly different debates north and south of the Border, founded upon the same topic.

The issue? Social security benefits – explicitly, the payments to those who have disabilities or face obstacles at work.

South of the border, the cross-party debate centres upon whether the Chancellor has driven the search for £5bn worth of benefit savings by mishandling the economy.

In Scotland, the accusation from the SNP and the Greens is that Labour has misled voters and returned to a form of economic austerity. Labour rejects both accusations – while engaging in a vigorous internal debate as to the justice of the changes.

The core is tightened eligibility for Personal Independence Payments which help people with disabilities pay for additional living costs. In Scotland, this will become a devolved benefit, the Adult Disability Payment.

Defending the changes, the Prime Minister has deployed intriguing language, suggesting that the current system is both economically and morally wrong.

Read more by Brian Taylor

Morally? On the face of it, that sounds a little like an argument more commonly found on the Right of politics. To the effect that generous benefits simply encourage lassitude and fraud.

Team Starmer insist that is not what they mean. Rather, their case is that the present system features perverse incentives which may deter people from working – while adding up to an unaffordable bill for the state.

In broad terms, the Conservatives agree with that diagnosis. So they are left complaining about the economy, accusing the Chancellor of making matters worse.

As ever, there is context.

© Herald Scotland