IN view of the excellent work of the ongoing Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, which has included historical abuse in residential institutions run by religious orders, is it now time for the Scottish courts to catch up with the rest of the UK and afford a higher priority to those who claim to have experienced abuse in day schools managed by religious orders? I ask this question based on my own experience as a boy at a Catholic independent day school in Scotland in the sixties.
It appears that lawyers representing schools against which complaints have been levelled have adopted a vow of silence, clearly, in my view, designed to frustrate the attempts of survivors to achieve recognition and justice.
This apparent reluctance to engage constructively with lawyers representing victims of historical physical and emotional abuse, including coercive control and excessive unreasonable beatings is, I suspect, due to the fact that, in the past, Scottish courts have tended to disregard the argument that such acts were unreasonable for that time because they took the view that it was not possible to judge what was accepted practice, as they would only be able to do so by today’s standards.
This view, were it to continue as the default position, denies victims the recognition and justice they deserve by appearing to excuse historical cruelty. In the meantime, I understand that solicitors are preparing to seek a positive precedent, courtesy of test cases, in the hope that those, like me, will not have to wait years for recognition and justice.
Finally, I have written to the First Minister and to the Right Hon Lady Anne Smith, chair of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, pictured, to express the hope that the work of the SCAI may be extended, such as to consider the plight of this “forgotten army” of pupils.
Sean Stoddart
via email
I WAS surprised by Richard Mason’s article (Farmers concerned about diverging from UK, September 2) in which he reports that Jonathan Hall, director of policy at the National Farmers Union Scotland, has indicated his concern about the effect of possible different standards being adopted by devolved governments.
I was particularly surprised given the example Jonathan Hall indicated to support his concerns, the possible reduced sales of more expensive Scottish crops if the use of glyphosate weed killer was allowed in England but not in Scotland. The possible banning of glyphosate use has been raised in Europe and elsewhere due to concerns that it may be linked to cancer and the demise of bees and other pollinators.
I would think that, particularly give the coronavirus experience when the health of their families was the clear priority, the market for healthy, more environmentally friendly food grown in Scotland to higher standards would increase, including in England.
The priority for a devolved government must be not how cheaply a crop can be produced but that what is produced is healthy for consumption by its citizens, with a reduction in environmental consequences being a bonus.
After all, unless such concerns exist there would be no reason for a devolved government to set a different standard.
Jim Stamper
Bearsden
TORY ministers would like to introduce American-style polygraph tests. I think it’s a great idea and it should start in the House of Commons. The technology exists with smart watches.
Imagine if every MP was forced to tell the truth fearing the beep of a lie detector, it would revolutionise government.
Honesty would be normalised. People would begin to have faith in government and politicians again knowing they were being told the truth.
READ MORE: Scottish ministers reject 'Jeremy Kyle' terrorist lie detector test
Of course the technology is not fool-proof. Take Boris Johnson for example. Being indifferent to the truth and in the most part not even being aware when he is lying could play havoc with the equipment. Without missing a heartbeat he could confound the technology giving a false result.
So only the honest liar would be caught, those who have the grace to feel uncomfortable about telling porky pies while the professionally disingenuous would appear to be telling the truth. On second thoughts, polygraphs are a bad idea.
Mike Herd
Highland
MICHAEL Davidson (Letter, September 4) forgets one thing. The Scottish Government has to work within the cash limit set by Westminster. We aren’t an independent country able to raise the revenue required for the programme we set out.
I too would love to see a National Care Service but I recognise the difficulty in setting it up today. On a fixed budget, where would he be happy to see less spent in order to balance the amount needed for care?
It’s time he and his friend, Richard Leonard, joined the real world and help to push for independence which could make a National Care Service a reality?
Catriona Grigg
Embo
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 here