I WAS very saddened to learn that the Named Person Scheme has been scrapped by the Scottish Government.
Apparently the “Scottish” Conservatives said the move was a “complete humiliation” for the Government.
I have no doubt that these very same “Scottish” Conservatives will be the very first to cry crocodile tears, call for public inquiries, and for heads to roll the next time that a child is injured or killed as a result of undetected abuse or neglect, especially by a family member.
READ MORE: Named Person scheme scrapped by Scottish Government
Declan Hugh Hainey was born on April 17, 2008 and died at his home in Bruce Road, Paisley between July 1, 2009 and August 31, 2009. The precise date of his death is not known and the cause of death is unascertained.
Kimberley Hainey, his mother, was found guilty in December 2011 of the murder of her son, but she appealed and in April 2013 the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed that conviction.
The horrific details and failings surrounding his death are freely available online by simply searching for his name.
I understand that the legal challenge to the proposed legislation was supported by the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) coalition, which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), Tyme Trust and the Family Education Trust.
What ever happened to “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me” (Matthew 19:14)?
These so-called Christians argued that the Named Person legislation would lead to “unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights” and that responsibility for monitoring a child’s well-being should be the role of the parent, not the state.
Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the Court of Session in Edinburgh, which said Named Person did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”.
Children’s charities including Barnardo’s, Aberlour, Action for Children and Children 1st accused opponents of the scheme of making “inaccurate and unjustified” statements.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
AS the unmourned Named Person legislation is finally laid to rest, we must remember that its spirit lives on in the tightly knit world of Scottish Government, education, social work and children’s charities.
In some areas, this spirit will be embodied in non-statutory Named Persons, but everywhere the same insidious philosophy will still infuse professional attitudes.
The spirit animating the Named Person scheme has seven elements:
- Distrust of parents
- The imposition of “expert” parenting approaches on all parents
- The undermining of parental authority and the elevation of child autonomy (often in the guise of Children’s Rights)
- An excessive assessment of the vulnerability of children to everyday events and interactions
- The assumption that parents who punish their children are damaging them. The smacking ban is just the first step.
- A desire to “protect” children from the values and beliefs of their parents where these diverge from those of the state.
- Viewing parents as equal members of a larger team of adults looking after a child.
So, while we may enjoy a glass of champagne at the graveside of the Named Person legislation, the fight to protect family life in Scotland from state overreach goes on.
Richard Lucas
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel