BABIES are a joy; their crinkly little toes and instinctively gripping, crumpled hands. The silky softness of their new skin; the snuffling noise they make as they root around for their first milk. When their eyes open properly for the very first time and they gaze into yours, you know that life will never be the same again.

When my daughter was born, I’d been through a labour which was far from the gentle home-birth I had planned for throughout my pregnancy. The wished-for dimmed lights, carefully chosen playlist, birthing pool and home-setting was quickly replaced with a rush to the hospital, as complications started as soon as my waters broke.

Labour was long: too long, and various interventions were made to get the baby out of me more quickly, because her heart had begun to slow and she was showing signs of distress. When she finally arrived, in a flurry of activity and with the help of a room full of people and organised chaos, she was perfect.

I didn’t see her for the first few hours, as I was rushed away to surgery, but that night in the ward, when I lay with her in my arms and she looked at me for the first time, I felt a mixture of emotions. Love, yes – though I recognise now it was dulled somewhat, after the trauma of her birth. Fear was my overriding feeling; fear of having such a tiny, vulnerable wee thing to take care of for the rest of my life, and fear that I wouldn’t be up to the job.

Life can be planned for, but it can’t be controlled. However meticulous our plans – be it for a home-birth, a career, or a marriage – we are ultimately at the mercy of circumstances outwith our control.

So as campaigners and Scottish politicians gathered in Edinburgh to mark one year since the implementation of the UK Government’s two-child family cap for tax credits – and the rape clause that comes as a consequence of it – we were reminded of the skewed focus and callous indifference of the Westminster Government in its approach to social security. The cap, they say, is fair. Because why should responsible (read: well-off) families have to factor financial considerations into the decision to have a third child while feckless (read: low-earning) families can have as many children as they like, supported by the state?

READ MORE: Scotland in Union's big-money donors: here's what we're up against

It is an argument that is as cruel as it is foolish. Parents can meticulously plan for their families and futures only to then find themselves in need of support. Be it redundancy, divorce, illness or death; the two-child cap is a policy that ignores this reality. The rape clause is a symptom of this attempt at social engineering and is as abhorrent as the parent policy from which it stems.

Women should not have to choose between receiving support for a third child born as a result of being raped and their right to choose who they disclose it to. Faced with that choice, many women will choose to stay quiet. If you are a woman in an abusive relationship and your abusive partner rapes you, how safe would you feel in disclosing that to a third party? How confident would you be that your abuser isn’t going to come across paperwork or correspondence relating to your disclosure?

Against the backdrop of this one-year anniversary, we had the arrival of another royal baby.

My daughter recently asked me whether worms had a queen, like bees do. I replied that, as far as I know, it’s only bees, ants and some humans who have a queen, but I may be wrong. She looked confused. Sweetheart, we all are.

This new addition to the royal family – born into obscene privilege and wealth – is the only third-born child in the UK that the Government thinks it is appropriate to support.

When we point out that glaring inequality, we’re not taking aim at a new baby – we’re highlighting that the “British values” of which we hear so much are founded on glaring hypocrisies.

The royal baby can no more help being born into privilege than any of the children born into absolute poverty. If financially supporting the royals is patriotism but leaving children in low-income families to struggle is pragmatism, then that’s a clear signal that the priorities are wrong.

The fact that allowing a few thousand unaccompanied refugee children into the UK was even a debate is testament to that.

So while commentators complain about the lack of flag waving in some quarters at the arrival of the new royal baby, they should stop and think about whether their approach is consistent.

If the Scottish Government’s baby boxes are a waste of money, and their universality is nothing more than a bung to middle-class parents – then how do you justify keeping the lights on at the palace?

If refugee children are too much for councils to contend with – then are golden carriages for one family really a necessity?

If low-income families having a third child is excessive and costly to the state – then do the royals really need a 50,000-acre estate as a holiday home?

Congratulations to Kate and William. Babies are a joy. How lucky for them in being one of the few families in the country that has a true safety net against the unpredictability of life.