The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


Talking points

Posted on May 15, 2015 by

We’re still on semi-holiday and the sun’s out, so rather than do any actual work by analysing and commenting on the last few questions we asked people in our most recent poll, we thought we’d just stick the tables up, let you have a nose through them and discuss them amongst yourselves. Click the image to enlarge.

pollbits

And finally a few more little data-snippets, in case you STILL don’t follow us on Twitter for reasons which defy any known science, logic or basic human courtesy, and therefore missed them when we tweeted them last week.

On who runs Scottish Labour:

pollslab

Gender breakdowns for some of those social-attitudes questions:

pollgender

And the UK’s view of Scotland:

pollhostile

Print Friendly

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 15 05 15 11:33

    Talking points | Speymouth

  2. 28 03 16 17:37

    Think of the Children | A Wilderness of Peace

330 to “Talking points”

  1. Jamie says:

    Surprising and disappointing that so many people support the named person policy, another authoritarian policy passed by the SNP on par with forced adoption which is practised UK wide resulting in hundreds of families fleeing to Ireland where support is offered. If the SNP keep going down this path, it won’t be long before we are wearing microchips and a majority of the population think it’s a good idea, seriously, how stupid are people?

  2. Maureen says:

    I used to be so good at maths but I’m obviously not now cos I’m finding it hard to understand what the percentages relate to in those tables. All help gratefully accepted. Eg in table 2, conservative = 42 with 31% but labour = 70 with 27%. I’m just not getting it

  3. Fiona says:

    @ Jamie

    GIRFEC is the problem, really. The “named person” has attracted the media attention but GIRFEC has not really till now, though it has made the job of social workers impossible and changed its character completely

    On this issue the SNP are just as wrong as it is possible to be.

  4. The Man in the Jar says:

    @Jamie

    at 10:06am

    ” resulting in hundreds of families fleeing to Ireland where support is offered.”

    Got any evidence for that?

  5. Doug Daniel says:

    Maureen – 42 of the 136 Tory respondents = 31%, whereas 70 of the 262 Labour respondents = 27%.

  6. wee_monsieur says:

    In Q.22 – Highly illuminating that even a majority of Labour supporters don’t believe Jim Murphy has any power!

  7. gerry parker says:

    @ Jamie.
    “forced adoption which is practised UK wide resulting in hundreds of families fleeing to Ireland where support is offered.”

    got a link for that?

  8. jason says:

    Maureen,

    The 31 % of conservative is 42 out of 136 as expressing that they are conservative voters, it is not related to the labour %.

  9. Pete says:

    I genuinely don’t understand the objection to the “named person” policy. Social services have long had the powers to take children off parents that are deemed abusive. It seems that the objectors are mostly religious people that worry that attempting to restrict their child’s education or prevent teenagers from accessing sexual health services will result in intervention?

    If someone could give a specific, plausible scenario they’re worried about that isn’t already possible I’d like to see it.

  10. Michael says:

    I think it is because there are more Labour then Tory respondents:
    42 out of 136 = 31%
    70 out of 262 = 27%
    Not sure the arithmetic is right but there may be weighting and/or rounding to factor into that

  11. gerry parker says:

    Sorry Ian, just seen your post.

    🙂

  12. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Jamie at 10.06

    And how stupid are people who describe as stupid the significant majority of normal people who support measures to provide protection for children at risk.
    Particularly when the person calling other people stupid makes a particularly stupid and irrelevant comment.

    Significant indeed that a number of issues that have been used by the anti SNP press to attack the SNP have in fact substantial majority support.

  13. Michael says:

    @Jamie
    Are you asking “How stupid are people to believe your suggestion that we will all be wearing microchips is in any way realistic and reflects SNP policies” or just a general “how stupid are people?”

  14. Baheid says:

    Jamie

    “Hundreds”?

  15. Jo says:

    The percentages are based on the total number of individual party recipients and as more Labour people took part than Tory – the % for them is lower ie 70 as a % of 262 and 42 as a % of 136

  16. Macca73 says:

    Fairly damaging to everyone in Scotland of all the parties when you look at how Scotland is percieved in the media right across the spectrum almost everyone felt it was more negitive towards Scotland.

    That has to change or be damned. Following on from yesterdays question about the beeb this is just as bad for the printed press. Someone needs to tell the Record that they should lose that “Scotlands Voice” tag … it backed the wrong party!

  17. desimond says:

    Jeezoh…Rev arent you paid to do all the analysis work for us?

    Too soon?

  18. iheartScotland says:

    I agree with the ‘named policy’
    Too many children are left to be abused because of underfunded institutions. I think every child needs a ‘champion’ in their corner. As long as their ‘champions’
    Are decent people.

  19. Jo says:

    If the named person policy saves the life or indeed just improves the life of one child – it is worth it. I don’t see why folk have a problem with this at all

  20. Scots Renewables says:

    The attempt by people like ‘Jamie’ to represent the ‘named person’ policy as some sort of sinister Orwellian descent into total state control over peoples’ lives is laughable.

    Their daft supposition seems to be that the named person will actively snoop their on their charges, interfering in private lives on a whim. The truth is that the role will only come into play if there is a problem. Instead of removing parental rights appointing a named person means parents and children can get additional support and advice when this is needed.

    Seriously, suggestions that the named person might take rights away from parents are either paranoid fantasy or pure political propagandising. In reality this legal provision gives parents and children additional rights to call on professionals when they need advice, information and support, and a route to do so.

    The problem with the paranoid fantasies of people like Jamie is that they assume the named persons (generally, head teachers, social workers etc – are insane control freaks with all the spying apparatus of MI5 at their disposal and nothing better to do but interfere wilfully and unnecessarily in the lives of their charges. Of course legislation like this COULD be misused by an evil neo-stalinist state, but the existence of such legislation does not posit the existence of such a state – and to suggest it does is laughable.

    What I find intriguing about the tables is the way support for GIRFEC splits along party lines, with the SNP, Greens and UKIP as unlikely allies, all being strongly in favour.

  21. tartanfever says:

    Jamie and Fiona have posted interesting comments on the ‘named guardian’ issue.

    If you can guys, can you post some links to any articles you’ve read. I’m pretty ignorant on the details I’m afraid and some in-depth analysis would be appreciated.

    Cheers.

  22. Anagach says:

    “Jamie says:
    it won’t be long before we are wearing microchips”

    You mean your not already ? no phone ?, no customer loyalty cards ? no cash machine card ?, no credit cards ?.

  23. I don’t follow you on Twitter because you blocked me for some unknown reason

  24. One_Scot says:

    When did the Labour supporting gutter pamphlet Daily Record realise they were never “Scotland’s Champion”, it wouldn’t have been May the 8th by any chance.

  25. John king says:

    Jamie, second names not Black is it?

  26. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Here’s a thought.

    UKIP’s participation in last year’s English local elections resulted in large scale disaffection with Tories being directed into UKIP votes and not to Labour. Labour made very little advance

    UKIP’s participation in this year’s English General Election resulted in large scale disaffection with Tories being directed into UKIP votes and not to Labour.
    Labour made no advance against an unpopular Tory Government

    Is there a plot? Is Nigel going to the House of Lords? He’s awful cheery for a guy whose vote gave him nothing.

  27. Capella says:

    People concerned about the named person policy would be better informed if they read the act.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/part/4

  28. iheartScotland says:

    Umm,
    Rev, aren’t WE paying your wages.
    How dare you take time off without our permission.
    Enjoy your break! 🙂

  29. Grouse Beater says:

    Jamie says:
    …we will all be wearing microchips

    The domino theory was discredited as far back as US destruction of Vietnam. You might as well say ball and chain, or large yellow star sewn to our clothes.

  30. Robert Whyte says:

    I do not follow any twitters I chose not to own a mobile phone. When I want to be informed of something I will look it up.

  31. Aceldo Atthis says:

    So, Sturgeon and Cameron are meeting today. Likely outcome?

    Just a matter of time before the Tories say or do something that is damning and deeply insulting towards the Scottish people; maybe today is the day.

    My expectation is that we will have another referendum very soon but it won’t be on independence, it’ll be on Devo-Max. Before we get there, the SNP will spell out exactly what Devo-Max means so that we are all clear afterwards.

    As I recall, Polls suggested about 85% of Scottish people would be happy with Devo-Max. So we get to keep the pound, keep our passports, keep trident, and contribute to foreign and defence policy.. everything else is ours.

    Would we be happy with that? Nah, not really, but it would be a good place to start.

    I hope the SNP reject the Smith proposals, tell them to stick them…

  32. george says:

    good to see such strong support for home ownership. i’m of the opinion that owning an affordable home should always be a choice; now to crack on with building more.

  33. Cash_x says:

    @ Fiona

    10:18am

    “it has made the job of social workers impossible”

    Could you elaborate on this Fiona..I’m lost on this subject matter.

  34. Roland Smith says:

    Anyone else think that Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems should merge now in Scotland and become the Official Unionist Party?

  35. Lollysmum says:

    Re: Named person policy. As someone who works in health & social care & deals with Safeguarding of Vulnerable adults & children on a regular basis albeit in London, I have to say that I would welcome it being introduced here.

    I’ve read (contributed to)so many Serious Incident Reports into deaths of adults & children in the last 10 years, which mostly end up being an excercise in passing the buck on who is to blame & why it happened. But lessons are never learned and children continue to pay the price with their lives.

    At the heart of every single report is the message that the deaths could have been prevented if information had been shared with a person nominated as the lead ‘named person’ who holds responsibility for the child who can provide advice & support when needed or quickly convene a multi agency meeting if the concerns are urgent. It makes sense for that lead person to change as the child ages /moves through the different stages of their life. The welfare of the child is paramount & always must be.

  36. No no no...Yes says:

    My wife works in the pre-school education sector and the vast majority agree that the named adult is necessary to better protect our children. I also worked with vulnerable families and whilst all the relevant support agencies do their best, breakdowns in communication can happen unintentionally.

    Of course any new system/ programme needs proper scrutiny and the Scottish Govt. are taking the proper measures.If this new system saves the life of ONE child it will be worth it.

  37. Clootie says:

    a) High LibDem support for stop and search of under 12’s
    b) Significant (58%)LibDem opposition to “right to buy”
    Does Willie Rennie actually talk to his voters?

    c)More Conservatives think Jim Murphy calls the shots for Labour policies in Scotland than Labour supporters do.
    d)The majority of people in every Party in Scotland recognise the increased negative tone used against Scotland.

  38. pmcrek says:

    I dont really have an opinion on the named person policy as I dont know much about the subject. It does seem like a good idea at face value, however I’m more than willing to change my mind if someone could provide reasonable evidence from a social worker or human rights point of view on why it is a bad idea?

    So far the only objections I’ve seen are simplistic political attacks against the SNP. If someone involved in social care could provide a reasoned argument for/against on how the policy would help/hinder with their efforts I would be most grateful.

  39. heedtracker says:

    Jamie says:
    15 May, 2015 at 10:06 am
    Surprising and disappointing that so many people support the named person policy, another authoritarian policy passed by the SNP on par with forced adoption which is practised UK wide resulting in hundreds of families fleeing to Ireland where support is offered.

    Look at the socio economic break down though? C2DE all favour these policies by a big majority, whereas middle class not so much.

    Wonder why.

    End of era SLabour should and could be doing polls like this but its probably too late now. All they can do via a whiny dope like Keza, is rage against college places getting the chop, like flower arranging, basket weaving, UFOlogy etc.

    As for hostile teamGB media, check out for example rancid THE Guardian CiF today.

    Ouchee teamGB.

  40. Lollysmum says:

    Stuart
    Ignore these slavedrivers posting today-you have more than earned a break. Please take a few days off (I also mean from Twitter too)-surely someone can stand in for you to allow that to happen 😉

    You being ill is the last thing we need on WoS!

  41. iheartScotland says:

    What is really depressing is that labour voters think they have an influence.

  42. Clootie says:

    John king says:
    15 May, 2015 at 10:57 am

    …not Jamie Black the famous NO voter from Gourock!

  43. Fiona says:

    @tartanfever and CashX

    I don’t have time to write what would be a very long post about the truly complex issues relating to GIRFEC. But I can give you a link to a more specific post which touches on the problems with GIRFEC and which I wrote some time ago. It is long but I hope it might indicate some of the difficulties which have essentially driven me out of my profession.

    http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=50970022

  44. Bob Mack says:

    @ Jamie,
    The Conservatives are about to make us one of the most spied upon nations on earth.Think before you talk rubbish.
    In addition they want to remove Human Rights legislation.
    People amaze me sometimes

  45. frances says:

    And following on from reading Capella’s link to the act, here is summary of it by Lord Pentland in a Judicial Appeal against the act:
    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=1dadc2a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

  46. edulis says:

    A couple of things to say. Those of you who have a distaste for the named persons legislation should understand that it has been a very successful pilot scheme in the Highlands for many years. It is not a big brother exercise but a genuine way of ensuring we don’t have some of the tradegies with children that have occurred elsewhere.

    It is no different to the close community ideal which is characteristic of small rural societies where everybody looks after each other. What is not to like about that?
    Knowing one of the people who set it up as an experiment, I can say it was done for the greater good. It is most definitely not a snoopers charter.

    On the tables, the Greens seem to like the right to buy. How strange!

  47. a supporter says:

    It amazes me that so many are so dim-witted as to think there hasn’t been more hostility to Scotland from England since Indy and GE15. Have they been living on Mars: or is it NO supporters’ wishful thinking?

  48. call me dave says:

    @Capella

    Thanks for that link. I will.

    PS:
    Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid…skeletons rattling in cupboard rumours daan South. Is there no place labour can put it’s feet before getting them injured by the grapeshot?

    PPS:
    A view from the bubble..

    https://archive.is/WTxMu

  49. Andrew McLean says:

    @ Ronald Smith
    I thought they had OUP’S!

  50. Connor McEwen says:

    Divide the ” less able ” and walk off with the loot.Silly Billy!

    The milk fae the coo fur the porridge will be milked dry to London before Dastardly Cameron lets Scotland go.Easy peasy.

  51. Jamie says:

    The documentary is called “forced adoption UK” it can be found on the RT website. In Ireland parents with disabilities are supported to raise their children in the UK the children are removed. Also, one family was harassed by social workers to have an abortion, personally I find that disgusting.

  52. a supporter says:

    “And…in case you STILL don’t follow us on Twitter for reasons which defy any known science, logic or basic human courtesy, and therefore missed them when we tweeted them last week.”

    Stu. I am ‘half’ blocked by you. I still see your tweets on my timeline but cannot ‘retweet’ or ‘favourite’ them nor can I reply to you, although you can reply to me.

  53. Algernon Pondlife says:

    I do not follow you on twitter because I do not have a twitter account.

  54. fred blogger says:

    can anyone show me one page of the consultations that took place between children, recovered victims (survivors), and other experts in the subject of CSA/CA recovery, on the named persons act?

  55. Dr Jim says:

    If a government comes up with an Idea the opposition will always oppose it even if it’s the best idea anybody’s ever had that’s politics

    What gets me is all this moaning about stuff that hasn’t happened, it might be good but the moaners don’t care about that because the moaning becomes more important than the original subject

    We demand our right to moan and detract from any thought other than our own
    While gnashings of teeth and stamping of feet become even louder

    Give the stuff a chance if it’s not good then we change it to make it good
    You fall down a lot when you’re learning to walk
    But moaning’s really easy to do even without practice

    And now a song to make us cheery
    But who’s going to pick the song?……Fight…

  56. Thepnr says:

    Interesting result from the last table.

    I voted Yes 438; I voted No 541; I did not vote 34.

    No 55% Yes 45%

  57. Democracy Reborn says:

    @Jamie

    I respect anyone coming on this site and expressing contrary viewpoints on an issue to that of one of the main parties, SNP or otherwise. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the ‘named person’ policy.

    But to then immediately go on and refer to “microchips” is ridiculous. You’re not a fan of Iain Martin by any chance?

  58. Jamie says:

    I found a claim by the Telegraph April 14 2008, Hammersmith and Fulham council, in west London, was paid £500,000 as a reward for placing more than 100 children for adoption in three years.

    Given this sort of incentive, it becomes easy to see a conflict of interest as to why cash strapped councils might become over eager to take advantage of “Forced Adoption” legislation against parents.

    The RT link I gave in my previous post says “The UK is just one of two countries in Europe (the other is Croatia) where adoption without the consent of a child’s biological parents – known as ‘forced adoption’ – is practiced.

    Despite international law calling it an emergency measure, “there were over 2,000 children forcibly taken from one family to another” last year, MP John Hemming told RT’s documentary channel (RTD). Every year, some 11,000 children are taken into local authority care without the consent of their parents.”

    I think it is rational that I am alarmed by this, surely any rational person can see there is a problem here?

    By the way, I am an SNP member and yes voter, this issue is much more important that party politics and even though an SNP member I reserve the right to disagree with them, which I do on many issues, I am not a sheep. I think the SNP is the best vehicle for achieving independence but as a party I am much more libertarian and socialist than they are.

    I am entitled to my opinion, party member or otherwise.

  59. Andrew McLean says:

    O/T

    My what happened in there,he looks a worried man!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32746049

  60. Fiona says:

    @Jamie

    In Ireland parents with disabilities are supported to raise their children in the UK the children are removed.

    That is nonsense, frankly. Please do link to your evidence for it, since it is wholly at odds with my experience.

    For the avoidance of any doubt I may have caused: I am in favour of the named person policy. I am opposed to GIRFEC, however, and the implementation of the named person policy will not be as good as it should be in the context of GIRFEC

    People may also be interested to read a second document

    http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/91931/0021949.pdf

    also produced by the scottish government. As you can see it is wholly at odds with the GIRFEC approach. Personally support the 21st century analysis, but the departments have preferred GIRFEC. That is because GIRFEC is predicated on tick boxes and on enhanced management information: which makes them feel comfortable and is in line with the attack on professional judgement and responsibility; in favour of universal manegerialism and a touching faith in the concept of “leadership”

  61. Fiona says:

    @ Jamie

    You do know that social work in Scotland is completely different from social work in england? I have worked in both: children’s services in scotland are imo very much better. Sadly, as with a lot of things, we are moving to ape an inferior english system on very simplistic and stupid grounds. Once again the issue is addressed in a very one sided way, and that is so typical of policy these days in many fields.

    Despite that, though, the differences are enormous still: and it is important to make the distinction

  62. Cheryl says:

    – Pete at 10:29 am

    I agree. Most people I come across who object to it do so on every basis apart from a child welfare one.

    I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. Plausible scenario, my husband leaves, I’m left with baby, mental health deteriorates, don’t leave the house, neglect child. I’m perfectly happy that there will be a nominated person to pick up on something which threatens my kid.

    People always moan that ‘something’ needs to be done when we’re faced with horrific stories where children have slipped through the net, but that ‘something’ is always going to be resisted.

  63. manandboy says:

    Todays meeting in Edinburgh at Bute House which includes Nicola and the PM, will have been conducted in private, with those present operating under the constraints of The Official Secrets Act.

    The significance for the electorate is that we will not be told about everything that transpired at the meeting. Once again, the voters are treated as a lower class who should not concern themselves with the business of how they are governed, how they are manipulated, and how they are exploited.

    This meeting is a very big test for the Scottish Government, for Cameron will be unable and unwilling to offer Nicola a fair deal. How she responds will be a defining moment in her leadership. Here’s hoping she has put on her Manager shoes for Cameron will likely be wearing his Bossy boots.

    Whatever the outcome of today’s meeting, we have a very long way to go before we arrive at an open and transparent democracy. I do not exclude the SNP.

  64. chalks says:

    Can someone tell me what GIRFEC is?

    Also:

    ‘Thepnr says:
    15 May, 2015 at 12:11 pmInteresting result from the last table.

    I voted Yes 438; I voted No 541; I did not vote 34.

    No 55% Yes 45%’

    Polls are weighted to reflect referendum vote now, think the majority are…so it’s no coincedence LOL

  65. chalks says:

    @manandboy

    Hopefully she kicks his arse.

    It’s funny though that all the talk about giving us FFA has now ceased, it’s like they wanted us to jump all over it and beg them for it….they didn’t go for our baiting either though, so it looks like the tories are prepared to sit things out and see through their plan of fking us over very slowly via income tax and the gradual removal of the barnett formula

  66. Fiona says:

    GiRFEC = ~Getting it right for every child.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/background

    The snazzy title is a sad feature of child care policy coming out of the scottish government

    another one is called “it’s eveyone’s job to make sure I am alright”

    Doesn’t make it easier to talk about such things when they have such clumsy titles

  67. pmcrek says:

    Fiona, thanks for the excellent link and sharing your experiences and thoughts, its been most enlightening.

  68. Paul says:

    @Phoenix45Blog

    Hi – Rev Stu mentioned this recently, to paraphrase:

    “If you’ve been blocked on twitter and aren’t a unionist zoomer then the likely reason is that you have tweets on your timeline that a long sting of characters (i.e. ‘hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha’) and this breaks my twitter client. Only way to get my twitter client working again is to block the person who made the tweet and it happens so often that it would take up most of my day trying to contact people to have them delete the offending tweet, so easiest option is just to block.”

    Have a look through you twitter timeline Phoenix and delete any tweets such as the example above, then perhaps drop the Rev an email to see if he’ll unblock you. 🙂

  69. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jamie says: 15 May, 2015 at 10:06 am:

    “Surprising and disappointing that so many people support the named person policy, another authoritarian policy passed by the SNP on par with forced adoption which is practised UK wide resulting in hundreds of families fleeing to Ireland where support is offered. If the SNP keep going down this path, it won’t be long before we are wearing microchips and a majority of the population think it’s a good idea, seriously, how stupid are people

    Utter claptrap. You obviously have no concept of what the whole idea is.

  70. Fiona says:

    @pmcrek

    You are very welcome. These issues really matter to me and so I tend to get a bit heated about them. The public perception of social work is appallingly ill informed. We were the first group to experience the tory attack on public service: being a small number with a difficult and poorly understood role, as well as being bound by confidentiality to the extent we could mount no real defence, we were easy pickings. They honed the technique with us: and then widened it to all public service. By now they are going for the high status ones like doctors. But it is all part of the neoliberal project.

  71. manandboy says:

    On the subject of chips, consider the transforming effect on life as we know it, of a memory chip capable of being inserted conveniently and wired to the human brain. Upon availability, I will certainly be putting my name down for one.

    There will of course be more than a few downsides to having a perfect memory; for a start, I won’t have any excuses for not fulfilling the daily list of things my wife would like me to do while she’s out.

    On the upside, well, it’s mostly upside isn’t it. Or, is it?

  72. Cash_x says:

    @Fiona

    Cheers Fiona, got the link ok but might need three weeks aff ma work tae read it..but read it I will.

  73. Andrew McLean says:

    @ Manandboy,

    Be careful what you wish for! have been suffering the effects of microchips,

    and burgers, pies,,!

  74. Jamie says:

    I decided to start a petition on 38 degrees about forced adoption please think about signing it.

    https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/scrap-forced-adoption

  75. sensibledave says:

    @ Aceldo Atthis

    “I hope the SNP reject the Smith proposals, tell them to stick them…”

    @ manandboy, 12.34

    Come on people, give them a chance. The mood amongst the Tory hierarchy appears to be to want to try and come up with solutions with the SNP. As I have said before, it doesn’t matter what Cameron “offers”, politically, it well never be enough will it. But, within the context of the huge win by the SNP in the GE and the “No” in the referendum – it is incumbent upon Cameron and Sturgeon to try and find a way forward. So shouldn’t both sides be cheering them on?

    This next question is, genuinely, not meant to be inflammatory or provocative. If some version of devo/mid/max was agreed – would that be perceived as helping, or hindering, the ultimate goal of a “yes” vote?

  76. manandboy says:

    The Nominated Person scheme appears to have overlooked the fact that should a child be removed from parental responsibility, he or she may find themselves in an institution where Establishment paedophiles have both organised access and protection from the Government against investigation and or prosecution.

    Until paedophilia as we know it in the UK gets sorted, the Nominated Person scheme will appear like a good idea, but remain custom made for men who like boys.

  77. Robert Peffers says:

    @Capella says: 15 May, 2015 at 11:05 am:

    “People concerned about the named person policy would be better informed if they read the act.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/part/

    Great Post, Capella. I thought much the same but lifted my fingers from the keyboard, (A bit like biting the tongue in text based media).

    With all the cases of abused children and children murdered by parents and family members I find myself that anyone knowing the scheme’s aims has to hide? I’ve come across some horrendous cases in my time. Children do need someone to stand up for them.

  78. fred blogger says:

    the welfare of the child is paramount.
    as well as my questions above, can anyone tell me if the rights of the child to reject any named person is also enshrined in law?
    the child’s voice MUST matter, the child for sure knows if they are being abused or not, and must be enabled speak out and be heard before their voice is crushed, as mine was.

  79. manandboy says:

    Knowing full well that the Smith Commission proposals have been stripped to the bone by Tory hyenas, Cameron attends an hour long meeting and goes through the motions.

    There will be a world of difference between what Cameron said today to Nicola, and what he has said to his Cabinet colleagues in No 10 Downing St.

    Therein lies Nicola’s basic problem – Cameron is completely untrustworthy.

  80. Joemcg says:

    I see Dave has been giving it the “one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world” Schtick again at Bute House this morning. Slaps hand on foreheed.

  81. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @Fiona 11:41am

    HEARTBREAKING.

    I read your review and would suggest that any ill-informed ‘keyboard social worker’ commenting on this topic of GIRFEC actually reads your linked post.

    (That was one of the most haunting cases of recent times)

    Child & family social care is far too complex an issue to be knocked around on a predominantly political blog that by and large cannot and does not have the professional insight & knowledge to equip those wishing to comment with any degree of certainty.

    All one can really comment upon is the hope that the Scottish Government ultimately have (which I wholeheartedly think they do) the best of intentions for the children of Scotland.

    (raw nerve pinched)

    Shame on those who attempt to make political points out of this issue without becoming fully acquainted with the subject (elsewhere) and so cheaply like to criticise with the proverbial “Big Brother” soundbites (here on WoS).

    It really pisses me off that folks are quick to condemn Government and their health agencies when children are coming to harm, but also so damn quick to condemn without constructive comment on what can be done as a society to mitigate such events being repeated.

    Either you want to live in a society that is looking out for others, or you want the alternative promoted throughout the late 80’s & early 90’s of self self self.

    Fiona, you have my utmost respect for what you try to achieve.

  82. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Strange – In the last question 19:

    29% of the respondents said they did not vote.

    I thought the turn-out was supposed to be 84.59%

    29% + 84.59% = 113.59%!

    One for James Kelly on Scot Goes Pop – must just be an odd sampling error.

  83. Jamie says:

    How do we change the image beside our name? I don’t like mine. Is it randomly assigned or what?

  84. Fiona says:

    @ Jamie

    Your petition is one of the most ill informed I have ever read. I will not sign it.

    You do not address the law in this area, as it stands in any part of the UK. I do not think you know what it is,anywhere

    You do not address any of the real complexities surrounding adoption or foster care, or the reasons for the government’s position on promoting adoption (not all of which I agree with, but at least I know what they are).

    If you wish to inform yourself about these matters you need a little more than reports on RT and the Telegraph.

  85. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Oops – scrap that last comment picking up the wrong % data on the row below – text too small and glasses are rubbish!

    @Jamie,
    you can set up a WordPress account and pick you own Gravatar and picture.

    Just click on my Hoss Cartwright photo above which take you to the WordPress Gravatar page and use the sign up option on the left and then set up your own account and pick your favourite cowboy picture!

  86. Fiona says:

    manandboy says:
    15 May, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    The Nominated Person scheme appears to have overlooked the fact that should a child be removed from parental responsibility, he or she may find themselves in an institution where Establishment paedophiles have both organised access and protection from the Government against investigation and or prosecution.

    Until paedophilia as we know it in the UK gets sorted, the Nominated Person scheme will appear like a good idea, but remain custom made for men who like boys.

    This, too, is nonsense.

    You have no fucking idea how difficult these decisions are, often precisely because a child living in a risky or dangerous situation may end up in utterly inadequate care alternatives if they are accommodated. Weighing up the risk of harm at home against the risk of harm in care was my daily bread as a social worker and it is not easy to sleep at night when making those judgement calls. And you blithely assume it has been overlooked? Give me strength! Your arrogance knows no bounds

    And that has nothing at all to do with the named person policy: really, nothing.

  87. Aceldo Atthis says:

    @ sensibledave

    ” it doesn’t matter what Cameron “offers”, politically, it well never be enough will it”

    You’re right. And the reason it will never be enough is because it will not be enough.

    The tories have signalled their intentions to play hard-ball with the SNP. From their perspective, they own Scotland — that, for them, is what the Treaty of Union spells out, their ownership.

    So, why would they give us a thing? I occasionally delude myself into thinking there might be some ulterior reason for the Tories to do a deal with us (making more likely their domination of English politics into the future, etc.), but it’s just wishful thinking; they’ll take great pleasure in acting macho towards us and the truth is there isn’t a lot we can do about it.

    The No victory in that rigged referendum is going to haunt us for decades.

    Once the SNP leadership realise that the Smith proposals represent what is available for us at most — with stress on the ‘at most’ part — they will hopefully grow a pair and stop playing games. To be fair, I understand that they need to be seen to go through the motions on the Smith proposals and negotiations generally, but we all know this Phoney War phase that we are in right now is just a big waste of time.

    The sooner we go to the mattresses, the better.

  88. Jim Thomson says:

    @Jamie – look here: https://en.gravatar.com/ and follow your instincts 🙂

  89. Grouse Beater says:

    If some version of devo/mid/max was agreed

    Usual risible ‘send before thinking’ post from SD.

    Cameron nixed the Devo-Max question in the referendum. The notion he might now allow its content to be fulfilled amply demonstrates your ignorance.

  90. Fiona says:

    @ Grouse Beater

    I agree it is unlikely: but seriously, who can fathom the mind of a tory? Anything could happen, at least in principle. We do have to negotiate in good faith

  91. bjsalba says:

    @Jamie
    I have unsubscribed from 38 degrees because of petitions like yours.

    I live in the Highland which was one of the trial areas for the system. When the media got hold of it as an anti-SNP hysteria theme I set about finding out about it.

    I talked to several different people who have actually been involved in various ways. They all say it is a pretty decent way of dealing with some pretty difficult problems. It is not perfect, but then what is.

    Your description does not in any way matched what they said. What ACTUAL experience of the system do you have?

  92. Aceldo Atthis says:

    Grizzle McPuss & Fiona, I really don’t know what you are moaning about. The poll suggests 52% support the Scottish government’s policy on guardianship with about 20% uncertain, what more do you want?

    I haven’t commented on the policy and won’t be commenting on it — I think these things should be left to the experts — but it looks to me like you are going out your way to be offended over this when the stat’s show resounding support for the policy.

    Maybe I misunderstand… it happened once or twice before.

  93. stewartb says:

    Named person: “…. another authoritarian policy passed by the SNP.” What nonsense.

    What follows are extracts from an open letter dated 17 June 2013 written by individuals from leading children’s charities in Scotland: Ken Dunbar, Chief Executive, Aberlour; Carol Iddon, Director of Children’s Services (UK North) Action for Children; Martin Crewe, Director,  Barnardo’s Scotland; and Anne Houston, Chief Executive, Children 1st.

    For those here that may not have followed the Scottish Government’s policy in this area, their views provide some useful perspective and balance to counter the extreme, negative comments in some posts.

    ‘“…. we wanted to highlight the importance of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, and in particular the intention to put the principles of ‘Getting it right for every child’ (GIRFEC) into law. In our experience the application of GIRFEC is helping to deliver a culture shift for Scotland’s children, putting their wellbeing and their needs at the centre of how we deliver services to children.”

    And:

    “… we are aware that there is some degree of concern about ……. a ‘named person’. The reality is however, that this ‘named person’ should serve to connect the family more effectively to a range of services and professionals when they are needed without excessive red tape or delay and will rightly be somebody that the family are likely to already know and be happy to approach, like a head teacher or a health visitor.”

    “The statutory named person role reflects what we know to be good practice. It codifies the role of the health visitor, who knows the children and families on their caseload including who would benefit from a little extra support. It reflects good work of the Headteacher, who takes an interest in the overall wellbeing and development of the pupils in their school – not just their attainment levels in examinations.”

    Source: http://www.aberlour.org.uk/news/547_named_persons_provisions_in_the_draft_children_young_people_bill

  94. Jamie says:

    Fiona.

    Why don’t you watch the documentary I previously linked and think about that before jumping to conclusions about it.

    The cases given in the documentary featured couples where one of the parents had a disabilty which led to them losing their child even though one parent was fully fit. Further to this the legislation was used without any proper investigation and the parents have been in the appeal process for years.

    This is just not fair, and you should examine all evidence not just government sources which tend to be biased.

  95. john king says:

    Jim Thompson @1.49

    “Follow your instincts.”

    I did that once,… now look at me! 🙁

  96. john king says:

    Clootie @ 1.39
    None other!

  97. Fiona says:

    @ ~Aceldo Atthis

    I was not responding to the poll: I was addressing some of the posts on the thread. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to try to provide some information about the subject in response to what is clearly a strong thread of opposition to the policy. If that thread is not winning majority support that does not mean that an alternative view is pointless: sometimes cases become accepted by default and it is at least helpful for all sides of an issue to be discussed

    I do accept that my language in response to manandboy was unnecessarily robust, and I apologise for that. I should not let my frustration run away with me like that.

    So @manandboy: I am sorry

  98. HandandShrimp says:

    The first meeting between Cameron and Nicola seems to have gone smoothly. I wonder what they talked about for an hour? Cameron appears to be talking about pushing Smith straight through at speed and agreeing to look at additional powers with quarterly meetings to discuss progress and issues.

    I’m not holding my breath on this but with so little to lose in Scotland he may well consider a semi-detached Scotland would make his life a whole lot easier than one that is at his throat. However, do I trust Cameron?

    Nope.

  99. john king says:

    Sensibledave says
    “This next question is, genuinely, not meant to be inflammatory or provocative. If some version of devo/mid/max was agreed – would that be perceived as helping, or hindering, the ultimate goal of a “yes” vote?”

    Some people imagine a devolved Scotland with FFA would stop there and be happy to continue at that, personally I think it would be just another step to full independence as people see a country in charge of its own affairs is nothing to be afraid of, and certainly could be decided for us if the Westminster lot find us another part of the world for us (them) to piss off.

  100. Dr Jim says:

    I thought they were

  101. Grouse Beater says:

    I agree it is unlikely: but seriously

    There is justified grievance over aspects whittled back by Labour, (the party that got its reward from angry voters for its betrayal) indeed, disappointment over watered down proposals was acknowledged in the Report.

    At most, Cameron might allow those elements restored to their mature level, but beyond that he will dig in his heels. In fact, you can be certain he will make any emendations allowed his red line and state so publically.

    The worst scenario is concessions in return for agreeing to matters he agreed to in the first place under the Vow.

  102. Jamie says:

    Stewartb:

    Another problem with the named person legislation is that decent parents are needlessly given a named person which is a waste of government money during times of austerity.

    Secondly, the parents it is supposed to help or catch out tend to avoid the system in the first place by not informing a doctor that they are pregnant, not having the baby in a hospital, these children are missed by the system often until it is too late and it is worth noting that this is a small number of parents anyway.

    Further to this, the number of parents that actually will benefit from this is so small that it is not worthwile, a health visitor is more than able to help in the same way and every parent and child is entitled to a visit from a health visitor, this legislation achieves nothing new, it is legislation for legislations sake and costing more money at the same time.

  103. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @Aceldo Atthis

    As a father of five children and a desire to foster / adopt more, child welfare and happiness is an issue very close to my soul.

    What do I want?

    Ideally not to have 28% of respondents against what Scot-Gov is trying to achieve; but that’s me being idealistic and not living in the real world.

    As an immediate ‘want’…to perhaps have unified agreement that our most precious and vulnerable sometimes need intervention in their lives and need taken care of with varying degrees, WHEN NEEDS MUST…which is surely what any real caring society should practice.

    I’m on my ‘high horse’ because we have Scot-Gov attempting to introduce something constructive, as I see it, and arguably perhaps not perfect, but something none-the-less in the right direction.

    When austerity measures are biting at the heels of those folks more than ever, those who are less fortunate than perhaps many of us, then this is a time for constructive comments on the subject of social care.

    Or have I got the message of what an Independent Scotland, or at the very least, what the government at Holyrood aspires to?

  104. Bob Mack says:

    @Jamie,
    If this legislation had been in place years ago,we may not have been getting the revelations we have had over the past 5 years

  105. Jamie says:

    Cheers Jim Thompson, I am trying that out now, pretty nifty 😀

  106. Jamie says:

    Grizzle McPuss

    I might also be an idealist but I think if the government has any responsibilty towards children, it is firstly, to have children being raised by their parents in a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government, this is the most cost effective measure and the best measure.

    I beleive that whilst foster and adoptive parents no doubt in many cases care very much for the children, nothing can ever replace the love of the biological parents.

    I accept there may well be cases where this is not the case and government intervention may be needed but the numbers in my opinion and backed up by the linked documentary I gave earlier are too high suggesting that something goes wrong when the government gets involved and this needs to be considered strongly.

  107. scottieDog says:

    FFA misses out the most vital powers, namely monetary and foreign policy.
    That said yes campaign wanted to keep monetary power where it was, albeit with an input from scotland

  108. Grizzle McPuss says:

    …Or have I got wrong the message of what an Independent Scotland, or at the very least, what the government at Holyrood aspires to?

  109. Jim Thomson says:

    @John King 2:03pm

    Aye, when your instincts said “now that I have my tongue in the light socket, I’ll try switching it on because it’ll make me brighter” was that the time? 😛

  110. dakk says:

    Re the named person policy.

    We all hear about Scot Gov policy via the MSM.

    They will spin and attack everything they do or propose.

    This is more an administrative tweak than an Orwellian move,but as usual the MSM and unionist cabal will make it sound sinister.

    Whether it will work I have no idea,but sounds worth a try to me,so long as it is fairly cost neutral.

  111. heedtracker says:

    The Smith con will be the first big test for tory Westminster. A tiny majority for Cameron and a lot of angry red and blue tory gits will be wanting their own taste of the action. That’s what Scotland has always been for these guys, a pawn in their power games and a resource to plunder.

  112. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @Jamie

    With all due respect, you don’t sound particularly old enough or worldly-wise in some of your responses.

    I suggest in the first instance that you respect the opinion of someone like Fiona; she is at the sharp end, experienced and knows far better than you or I about the issues around child & family social care.

    One thing is for sure; no child is put up for adoption on a whim or for financial gain in Scotland.

    Take your opinion to China and even some areas of eastern Europe.

    Your line of comment is ridiculous and insulting.

  113. Robert Peffers says:

    @Fiona says: 15 May, 2015 at 1:39 pm:

    Thank you for that reply to Jamie, Fiona.

    “Your petition is one of the most ill informed I have ever read. I will not sign it.

    You do not address the law in this area, as it stands in any part of the UK. I do not think you know what it is, anywhere”

    I do not anger easily but found myself incandescent and actually lost for reasoned words as Jamie’s post upset me so greatly. I’ll just keep calm and not post to him but he did need telling.

  114. Gran says:

    My family is in a situation where having a ‘named person’ could only make things better. My only grandchild is deeply troubled: depressed, angry, not going to school etc. etc. and will not talk to anyone about what is going on in their head, though they are clearly feeling miserable and out of control. My daughter, after battling away on her own for a long time, has been involved for months in trying to get help for her child. To do so she has had to repeat her story again and again to school, family support, social work and youth services while dealing with her own anxiety, stress, exhaustion and depression (caused by worry about her child). She has been back and forth between agencies; between visits to the doctor for more pills, more cognitive therapy, more blood-tests; and is sometimes listened to, often told it’s all her fault and sometimes told she’s over-reacting. She has been sent to useless teenage parenting classes more than once despite the fact that anyone with an ounce of sense could see that the poor kid has a mental health issue.

    If she had one person as an ‘anchor’ who would fight her corner, co-ordinate services and act as a focus for what really matters here – a family needing help – my grandchild might get that help before they destroy both their own and my daughter’s lives. I understand the fear of ‘Big Brother’ (as if we didn’t have that already!) but sometimes a government move to help people is exactly what it seems – help. It’s just that we’re not too used to seeing such things, certainly from Westminster, but I have rather more faith in our own parliament; mostly because it is so much more vulnerable to voter power.

  115. pmcrek says:

    Jamie,

    “I beleive that whilst foster and adoptive parents no doubt in many cases care very much for the children, nothing can ever replace the love of the biological parents.”

    If you think about that statement, I’m sure you will understand why you ought to be thoroughly ashamed making it and hopefully retract it.

  116. Fiona says:

    Jamie says:
    15 May, 2015 at 2:37 pm
    Grizzle McPuss

    I might also be an idealist but I think if the government has any responsibilty towards children, it is firstly, to have children being raised by their parents in a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government, this is the most cost effective measure and the best measure.

    It is also the law. Certainly there are resourcing issues which mean that services which should be available are not: and that includes care options as well as at home support. That is a consequence of what the UK has voted for, in terms of how it will fund social and health services. But nonetheless the law requires that families are kept together wherever possible, as a primary responsibility.

    I beleive that whilst foster and adoptive parents no doubt in many cases care very much for the children, nothing can ever replace the love of the biological parents.

    That is true where that love exists: and where it is expressed in safe and loving care. For many children that is not an option.

    I accept there may well be cases where this is not the case and government intervention may be needed but the numbers in my opinion and backed up by the linked documentary I gave earlier are too high suggesting that something goes wrong when the government gets involved and this needs to be considered strongly.

    You have absolutely no idea at all what is the “right” number. No-one does.

    The documentary makes a lot of false claims, and it is very noticeable that only one side of each case is outlined. Contrary to the impression conveyed it is not at all easy to remove a child from a parents’ care. Nor is it true that social workers can do it: unless in an emergency situation when in fact it is also open to the police to take that action. Where that happens the decision is reviewed in court or at a children’s hearing within 72 hours.

    I note that much was made of grounds of “future emotional harm”. It said this is legislation within the last 5 years. That is a lie. Emotional harm has been a ground for intervention certainly since the 1995 Act and IIRC it was also included in the 1968 Act, in Scotland. It is very rarely used, because it is, rightly, difficult to establish.

    Nor is it true that a child is entitled to a lawyer, and that entitlement is not honoured. A child’s interest is, in Scotland, represented by a Safeguarder, and/or a guardian ad litem.

    The documentary is almost wholly misleading as to process, and to practice.

    The worst thing is the assumption that social workers wish to remove children: nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed we are often criticised for not acting early enough and for leaving children at risk for longer than we should. That is true, and much more often the error, than the opposite is. This is due to the statutory obligation to try to keep families together; the obligation to seek to place with close relatives if the child must be removed; the practical problem of having few good alternative places for children; cost (which should not matter but does); the problems of getting hard evidence in situations of child abuse within families (which is also a problem in cases of spousal abuse and of rape); the fact that most children want to stay with their parents no matter what is happening to them, since they know nothing else; and on and on.

    Someone asked you above what experience you have of this issue: I would like to know too

  117. HandandShrimp says:

    The named person approach may seem a tad good intentioned but over the top but it strikes me that the hundreds if not thousands of young people over the years that suffered of the Saviles, various care homes, boarding schools, right through to modern day grooming rings in Oxford, Bradford and the likes had had recourse to a sympathetic ear then things might have been different. I think it is against this backdrop that people are sympathetic to the idea.

    The named person isn’t some ivory tower individual but most likely a district nurse or a guidance teacher or similar.

  118. Fiona says:

    Comment in response to Jamie went into moderation. I have reposted here

    http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=57641361

  119. Jamie says:

    Grizzle McPuss,

    It is surprising that you would jump to conclusions about me and make a comparison with myself and Fiona, you may well know Fiona but you do not know me.

    I studied Social Policy at Edinburgh University, I am fairly well read on the subject and I have 3 children and whilst I have had no probem with my health visitors I can sympathise with those who do have problems and I like to stand up for the rights of the marginalised in society. When it is family V government I will always side with the little guy.

    Your attack on me is unfair and unwarranted when I am trying to raise an important issue, but it makes me feel vindicated because people can no longer attack my argument but instead must try to attack me instead, this is common when people are losing an argument.

  120. sensibledave says:

    @ Grouse Beater 1:50 pm

    “Usual risible ‘send before thinking’ post from SD”

    Or, “usual Grouse Beater twaddle”. Grousey, you can dig a big hole and bury yourself in at and pretend that the world isn’t really there – or, you can do what Ms Sturgeon is doing – and discuss things in order to try and make things better?

    Clearly, there are all sorts of sub plots that will be played out by both sides – there always is. Both sides will try to do a deal, and want to be shown to have gone further than they needed to have done and both sides will claim the other side were intransigent on some point or another.

    But what do you suggest Grousey? You are very good at sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks at every suggestion – but you seem incapable of coming up with one workable solution yourself that reflects the outcome of both the referendum and the GE.

    Its a good job Ms Sturgeon is in charge and not you. Are you going to turn on her when she doesn’t deliver Independence out of these negotiations?

    The No vote will be a constant issue until there is a Yes vote. Ms Sturgeon will call for another referendum when she feels it can be won, and not before. So until there is another referendum and Yes vote – this is the reality the rest of us have to work with (all except you in your hole in the ground).

  121. Jamie says:

    pmcrek;

    do you care to illustrate why I don’t understand what you are getting at?

  122. Fiona says:

    @ Jamie

    I am not attacking you: but I am drawing attention to your obvious ignorance. If you have studied social policy, I see no indication at all that you are aware of the law in this area

  123. Jamie says:

    I should also add my father lived in an orphanage, had various foster parents and those experiences were very negative for him on the whole so much so that he accepted and opportunity at the age of 14 in 1962 to work so as to no longer be in care.

    To think care homes, adoption or foster parents are the best solutions to the problems families can have is short sighted and naive.

    The long term impact on the child is never considered in this legislation only the narrow “protection from future harm” which involves social workers, who may well have falling out with the parents deciding if the parents are fit or not, as the documentary shows, the parents may be working class, not very well spoken but they clearly loved their children, so much they were willing to flee to Ireland. That is shaming to this country, how can no one see that?

  124. mike cassidy says:

    After his crocodile tears during the referendum campaign, I can’t believe Cameron’s trustworthiness rating is up for debate.

    Maybe we should ask Lord Andrew Dunlop to referee.

  125. manandboy says:

    Fiona, thank you for your apology which I accept. I in turn, owe you an apology, for I have no formal training in social work and no expertise in this matter except in so far as I am a parent with children and have worked in and with the caring professions for a long time. I am aware, thanks to your comment, that mine was imbalanced and skewed not only by my concerns about the policy, but also by what is a bee in my bonnet about Govt. protection of high profile paedophiles. My blood pressure may be ok at the moment, but my government cynicism levels are sky high.

    Please accept my apology.

  126. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @Fiona 3:35pm

    I rest my case

  127. Juteman says:

    Superior trolling at the moment.

  128. Thepnr says:

    Jamie says:

    “I might also be an idealist but I think if the government has any responsibilty towards children, it is firstly, to have children being raised by their parents in a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government, this is the most cost effective measure and the best measure.”

    Jamie you have no real understanding of the “real world” as someone who spent a lot of my childhood in childrens homes and in foster care in the 60’s and early 70’s I think I have a good idea of what this means.

    However loving your parents may be they are not always capable of caring properly for their children.

    As the oldest of five children I remember well going to the panel with my mother and seeing huge numbers of people waiting for their appointment to see if the government would spare a few pounds so as their citizens could eat.

    I remember going with my mother to The Samaritans and begging for help, they gave us a half used tin of powder soup.

    You don’t have a clue what it really means for the deprived children in our society, 20% of which are already described as being in poverty.

    POVERTY see that word, this is why as a society we need to behave differently, we must look after the vulnerable.

    There are no more vulnerable than a child with no food in his belly because a mothers benefits have been stopped. So please don’t spread the crap such as

    “a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government”,

    There is no assistance that is why we must change the system and look at things differently.

  129. Cadogan Enright says:

    @Jamie
    It seems to me as a person that has been involved in Family Law issues that what the Scottish Government has proposed is basic common sense and a key need in guaranteeing human rights for all children.

    The trouble is that the MSM could grossly distort the policy to put a wholly false gloss on it.

    These falsehoods could gain currency in the manner that Fleet Street has monstered the EU using stories based on sheer falsehood. Once the myth was established, it could be used to smear the SNP by those who oppose the broad path forward of the SNP. Unionists down though the years have demonstrated their ability to plumb every depth.

    The arguments for the policy are unanswerable – but the danger of mis-representation and smear is very real.

    Maybe setting up an ‘Independent Commission’ of experts to investigate arguments against the policy and to report back on what is the best policy to meet the need is the answer. This may delay getting needed services to children – but it would preserve the Governments ability to deliver social justice in the long term.

    There is little danger that a genuinely independent group of experts would come back with anything other than the best solution for vulnerable children.

    This would pull the teeth of those would would use the issue for party political issues. We know they would be totally regardless of the needs of vulnerable children.

  130. pmcrek says:

    Jamie,

    The value & capability of love is not predicated on a “biological” distinction.

    Many people are adopted and dont know their biological parents, others are unable to have children and seek to adopt, please understand a statement like that is like a total slap in the face to us.

  131. One_Scot says:

    Man, I’ve seen fewer Satires at a Scotland match.

  132. Jamie says:

    HandandShrimp; I think that the children could have called child line which I believe was around at the time of the incidents but the real problem was that those who did come forward were either not believed or discredited, a named person would have done the same if that’s what the police did. I agree with you though that the legislation is over the top.

    On another separate note that I think people should be aware of is that the only other country that uses forced adoption legislation is Croatia, does that not tell you something? How does the rest of Europe manage without forcibly adopting children but the UK and Croatia somehow cannot?

    Fiona, I did not study law at all at university, however a friend of mine did and we both concluded that law is by its very nature exclusive, shrouded in pretentious language in order to exclude and ensure only those who have studied many years can have a say on it.

    Well I think that is unfair, I believe I am entitled to my opinion, and I think it is right that ordinary people stand up for what is right because I do not believe the laws of the land should be written by a few chosen people and go unchallenged. It is democratic that issues are raised and concerns are discussed, I see and have seen many examples where forced adoption legislation has failed people in the UK and that alone means something should be done.

    Secondly, the GIRFEC or name person legislation simply seems over the top and I do not see how it can offer anything more positive than a health visitor already offers. Any concerns parents currently have can be raised at a GP too where they can be directed to the right people all without the cost and fuss of GIRFEC.

  133. One_Scot says:

    Why not go the whole hog and Photoshop Mel Gibson on the flag. Lol.

  134. Jamie says:

    Thepnr, that is my point, some problems would be solved today by giving the parents some food and money which would be a lot cheaper than using forced adoption legislation. Also, the named person is not going to give the parents food or money but may well encourage forced adoption legislation to be used surely you would not have wanted that to have been used in your case? How could a named person have helped you growing up?

    pmcrek, I apologise if I offended you, it was not my intention it is however my belief that children, WHERE POSSIBLE, and I stress that, should stay with their family, I just feel that is not happening enough at the moment based on what I have read, seen and watched.

  135. Hortense says:

    I also don’t agree with the fuss about the named person thing. It just ensures that a child has someone throughout their childhood who ensures that everyone communicates well about the child. People are building it up to be something it’s not. I should know. I work in the field. Some of you would be the first to be jumping up and down if something went badly wrong in a child’s life. It also recognises that a child is an individual in their own right and have rights separate to their parents.

  136. fred blogger says:

    i was @ the sharp end CSA/CA, i have recovered, i am an expert on this subject.
    will someone please answer my questions, how about you fiona?

  137. fred blogger says:

    pmcrek
    you’re absolutely SPOT on.
    good enough parents meet the bio needs of the child on DEMAND, and this is what is required.
    the abuse occurs when for…no good reasons…those needs cannot be met.
    the child totally understands accidents and truth.

  138. Calgacus says:

    @insensible dave, Grousebeater has posted more sense on this blog and his own than you could comprehend.

    There is absolutely nothing worthy of your petty criticism in Grousebeater’s analysis of today’s events.

    Please find somewhere else to play your Britunculi games.

  139. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Duh – Sorry guys should have read the thread before telling Jamie how to set up an Avatar.

    @Jamie – you were supposed to use a cowboy as your avatar and not use a saltire with blue bits stuck on the top and the bottom.

    Can you please fix and also make sure the blue is Pantone 300.

    Rev Stu is a stickler for detail.

  140. steveasaneilean says:

    Jamie – as someone who also works in this area I would urge you to do some background reading on where all this came from and in particular the harrowing cases that lay behind it.

    I agree that as far as possible children should be maintained in the family home. But unfortunately I have also seen many instances this desire has over-ridden the welfare of the child and real and predictable adverse outcomes have been the consequences.

    GIRFEC and named person are not perfect and you are right to highlight concerns so that these can be discussed. But please don’t fall into the dated naivety that parents always know best because I know from first hand experience many most definitely do not.

  141. Jamie says:

    Fiona;

    “It is also the law. Certainly there are resourcing issues which mean that services which should be available are not: and that includes care options as well as at home support. That is a consequence of what the UK has voted for, in terms of how it will fund social and health services.”

    I agree, that is why I am against forced adoption and named person legislation, because I believe the emphasis should be on keeping families together not on the cost, but I also believe it would be cheaper to offer the support when you consider the long term impact on people of going through the care system, children who go into care tend to have worse outcomes in life, worse jobs, worse health and more likely to end up in prison.

    So even though the UK may not be willing to pay for it at the moment, it is something people should want government to pay for, which in turn would lead to the government paying for it.

    You then went on to say;

    “Contrary to the impression conveyed it is not at all easy to remove a child from a parents’ care. Nor is it true that social workers can do it”

    On this point, the documentary showed the examples of people who said their children were taken from them due to the social workers insistance. You say it can’t happen, but yet, it did happen.

  142. sensibledave says:

    @ Calgacus 4:36 pm

    … maybe he’s just having a bad day then.

    On the generality of your comment i.e. “the go away because I disagree with you” stuff – who do you actually agree with? Ms Sturgeon who has started negotiations or Grousey that sits and shouts that the SNP shouldn’t agree to anything?

  143. Fiona says:


    Jamie says:
    15 May, 2015 at 3:41 pm
    I should also add my father lived in an orphanage, had various foster parents and those experiences were very negative for him on the whole so much so that he accepted and opportunity at the age of 14 in 1962 to work so as to no longer be in care.

    To think care homes, adoption or foster parents are the best solutions to the problems families can have is short sighted and naive.

    The long term impact on the child is never considered in this legislation only the narrow “protection from future harm” which involves social workers, who may well have falling out with the parents deciding if the parents are fit or not, as the documentary shows, the parents may be working class, not very well spoken but they clearly loved their children, so much they were willing to flee to Ireland. That is shaming to this country, how can no one see that?

    It is true that both adoption and fostering can be negative experiences, as can care homes. Absolutely nobody is unaware of that. That is why we are legally required to try to keep families together, where that is consonant with safety and welfare of the child. Unfortunately birth families can also be very negative experiences and per what little research we have both physical and sexual abuse are most commonly found within the family. Per childline, 59% of children who reported sexual abuse suffered it within the family: and that is just what you would expect, for who else has that kind of access?

    The long term impact on the child is ALWAYS considered. And if you imagine that “falling out with the parents” is a motivation for taking children into care, you have a seriously strange perception of how things work. What is true, though it may surprise you, is that very many people whose children are accommodated cooperate with that decision. This is because most people do actually want what is best for their children and are self aware enough to recognise they are unable to provide that. That is not usually true at the outset, but then unless there is provable harm in the form of physical or sexual injury, we seldom accommodate children at the start of contact with a family. That you imagine that is common again speaks to your ignorance.

    In a great many cases, parents who do agree with the decision do not acknowledge that to their neighbours and relations: for very obvious reasons. People have to live in their communities and “evil social workers stole my weans” is an acceptable story, especially after years of this media misinformation. I do not blame such people at all. But I do know that “they took my children for no reason at all” is false. I also know that “the courts do what social workers tell them” is false. The departments do win a lot of cases: and that is largely because we do not take iffy cases, but rather we take cases where there is a great deal of evidence, over an extended period.

    As to class: do me a favour. Social workers are one of very few groups left by now who stand for the poor and do not make decisions based on that sort of prejudice: and believe me the pressure to behave like that is stronger than it used to be, in the current climate. We resist. And so our wardrobe of hats is extensive: we have an “evil agent of the state running about stealing weans” hat: and we have a ” bleeding heart softie who knits their own muesli and tolerates dogshit on the floor” hat; and we have a “hard left ideologically driven stalinist who imagines there is something wrong with a society which leaves families unable to feed themselves properly” hat. We wear them all when the media has an axe to grind.

    What is true is that there is reason to suppose that a lot of middle class abuse is missed. This is because the middle classes are not visible: they can buy privacy, and they can use privilege to hide problems. And that is why a named person for EVERY child is important. Because people like Jimmy Savile and Greville Janner are protected by their status and the children they abuse are not, as the other side of that coin.

  144. Thepnr says:

    @Jamie

    Below is what you stated:

    “a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government”

    Will you now retract that statement and admit that change is necessary since their is no government assistance. Only foodbank charities. You have now gone so far as to say that:

    “some problems would be solved today by giving the parents some food and money”

    Which is the opposite of the first statement where you imply that government already does. Clearly something is wrong, any attempt to make it better is to be welcomed.

    Take it from me giving parents some food and money may resolve issues for some families but not all. There will still remain a great many vulnerable children where the issue was not in any way financial.

  145. Fiona says:

    @ Jamie at 4:10

    You really have no idea how things work. Once again a link to a post I wrote some time ago

    http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=55436180&p=388422007

  146. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @fred blogger

    I have too have had extensive and destructive dealings with the servants of hell, aka CSA.

    With respect to Named Persons and consultations, I have no idea.

    On a related theme (for fathers), this might be worth a read…

    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/76595.aspx

  147. G4jeepers says:

    I often wonder if it wouldn’t be a better idea to have a guardian for every adult.

  148. Aceldo Atthis says:

    grizzle & Fiona,

    As I said, over 50% support for the policy and 20% or so undecided. That’s a slam dunk, you should be happy.

    I see that both of you claim to have some special interest or stake in this and I’m uncomfortable with that idea — we all have a huge stake in child welfare and if we as a society can’t make sure children are taken care of then we have all failed dismally as a society.

    We all know that the most vulnerable kids, or should I say the majority of vulnerable kids, have parents that are experiencing drugs and drink related problems. There’s a bunch of social problems that have drugs and alcohol correlations at their core or at least that’s how they explain it.

    The truth is that 90% of crime and social problems would probably disappear if we eradicated poverty — that includes the vast majority of drugs and drink related stuff.

    We should remind ourselves every day how different Scotland could be. Those junkies, booze-bags, and criminals could so easily have been photographers, technicians, and teachers; if only we had an economy. (I refuse to refer to grocery shops, bookmakers, and pubs as an economy and in many parts of Glasgow that’s just about all there is.)

  149. Jim Thomson says:

    For those of you who want to be properly informed about the “named Person” aspect of current legislations, the Act is here:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/pdfs/asp_20140008_en.pdf

    And you’ll want page 12 which is where it is detailed.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I think it’s a good thing.

  150. Caroline Corfield says:

    Well said Fiona.

  151. Fiona says:

    @ fredblogger

    Not sure what you are looking for but there is some information about the consultation process here

    http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00416972.pdf

  152. galamcennalath says:

    Hostility from UK politicians and media.

    If you add ‘improved’ to ‘no change’ you get a feel for which groups think it’s a case of UK OK.

    Only Tory voters don’t see the problem. Perhaps they don’t watch the news! I thought it was Wingers etc who had given up on the MSM news! I suspect Tories ARE the group who are exposed to the hostility, and yet seem unaware. Blinkered, clearly.

    SNP and Green voters are well aware of the hostility. Not surprisingly.

    However, perhaps most interestingly, a majority of 2015 Labour voters are aware of hostility. A minority see UK OK. That gives me hope that, if not the SNP, other Indy parties ie SSP and Greens, might pick off some of these Labour folks who must be feeling the anti-love being directed our way.

  153. john king says:

    I notice you haven’t denied being Jamie black, the same Jamie Black that Newsnet hunted for being a pain in the arse!
    Hes a troll guys tell him to fuck off.

  154. Jenni says:

    Couple of things:

    Firstly, thanks very much to Fiona for trying to educate us all on this issue of GIRFEC. On the face of it, the policy seems sound. I don’t work in social care but my mother was a senior social worker in child protection for a long time and went from there to the Care Commission. I fully recognise that case loads are heavy and staff are underresourced; if Fiona’s argument is that GIRFEC increases work load instead of alleviating it then I bow to her experience and superior depth of knowledge. Perhaps it will be possible to raise the need for increased resources with ScotGov in order to better implement what seems like a reasonable plan. The notion that there is one named person per child, responsible for co-ordinating all the various services which may be required to meet that child’s welfare needs seems like a good thing to me.

    Secondly, Jamie, while I appreciate and respect your right to your opinion, it is perverse of you to maintain it in the light of new information. You have been told that your documentary evidence is one-sided and in fact erroneous in several places. You then go on to claim that no, you don’t know the law on these issues but that doesn’t matter because you believe anything that difficult to understand is exclusionary and therefore you choose to ignore it. A very basic precept of the law is that to be ignorant of it is no excuse for breaking it. To proclaim your ignorance so proudly seems simply foolish to me. Please stop.

    Thirdly, regarding the right to buy scheme for social housing: I disagree with this principle strongly and I live in social housing! While a mortgage may be aspirational, it is not appropriate for some people. And, much more to the point, the depletion of social housing stock because of ‘right to buy’ is what has caused the current housing shortage! There are plenty of property developers building new homes if you choose to buy a house, leave the social housing stock available for those who need it!!!

  155. john king says:

    And take your fucking avatar with you.

    on the same subject,
    does anyone know what Will Podmore ACTUALLY wants here?
    if your there Will one knock for yes two knocks for no maybe we can send you to a happier place?

  156. Jamie says:

    Fiona; the named person would not have helped in the Savile case, as the victims said, no one believed them when they first came forward, others were too scared to come forward for fear of not being believed. Named person or not, if the person does not feel like they will be believed it matters not. If they feel they will be believed and treated with respect, they will tell the police or GP.

    I find it sad that people choose to give up more and more freedom to the nanny state, I believe there should be less government legislation and less government overall. Government when people need it but not there to interfere needlessly in other people’s lives.

    You are authoritarian, I am libertarian, you are a defender of government and legislation, and I am against government interference in daily life. We will never agree, you will also never understand my position, possibly because you have been in the system too long and possibly your livelihood is dependent on defending that failing system.

    I have seen that system destroy lives and I have learnt that government is not the answer, to trust politicians during an era that is showing politicians and show business folk that are up to their necks in scandal is all the more reason why folk should not be trusting their children with institutions at all.
    Why should I or anyone else trust a stranger?

  157. Inkall says:

    Peronally I don’t feel I know enough about the “named person for child welfare” thing but my gut feeling is opposition to it.

    On a much less important question the results of the “are females better” question surprised me.

    Part of me gets the feeling that many of those who put don’t know thought that disagree = men were better, rather than it just meaning the sex of a politician doesn’t make a difference to how crooked or not they are.

  158. thomaspotter2014 says:

    Juteman @ 3.55

    Superb observation.When the cats away!

  159. manandboy says:

    Don’t know the source, but apparently the 56 were being schooled by an official of the Houses of Parliament about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour in the Palace of Westminster, one of which, the official stressed, is hand-clapping after a speech. When his rather lengthy introduction to life at Westminster was over, there was the briefest pause before the 56 gave the official a round of applause !

  160. Ken500 says:

    The Unionist trolls are making a concerted effort to try and infiltrate Wings. They have mucked up every other website. Rev Stu should keep alert.

    Nicola can say what they discussed, or else she can leak it. Whisteblower. M15 will try and discredit her. It won’t work. Thry have been trying to discredit Alex Salmond for years. That hasn’t worked. He says what he likes and is more popular than ever in Scotland. Westminster Parliamentary Privilege in Westminster. MP’s can say what they like as long, as they say it in a pretendy ‘posh’ voice and don’t swear.

  161. Fiona says:

    manandboy says:
    15 May, 2015 at 3:48 pm
    Fiona, thank you for your apology which I accept. I in turn, owe you an apology, for I have no formal training in social work and no expertise in this matter except in so far as I am a parent with children and have worked in and with the caring professions for a long time. I am aware, thanks to your comment, that mine was imbalanced and skewed not only by my concerns about the policy, but also by what is a bee in my bonnet about Govt. protection of high profile paedophiles. My blood pressure may be ok at the moment, but my government cynicism levels are sky high.

    Please accept my apology.

    Och no worries: we all get a bit heated on this subject, I suspect.

    I did want to pick up on your point about government protection of paedophiles, however, because the MSM appears to have forgotten their complicity in fostering the problem: and so does the public

    You may not remember Cleveland; I have no idea what age you are. But Cleveland is not forgotten in social and health care settings. It has had a long term effect on child protection and it is not a good one.

    At that time the MSM and the public were absolutely certain that the incidence of child sexual abuse which was reported just could not be true. Marietta Higgs was pilloried all over the press, as was her colleague Dr Wyatt, and also the social workers involved. Everybody “knew” that sexual abuse was rare and that this was just over reaction by health and social work professionals who were arrogant and quite possibly power mad. The scandal went on for months and the departments were seriously damaged by it.

    As it happens social workers were prepared to believe that level of abuse did take place. That is because of the number of disclosures by adults that we run across all the time. But it is not easy to detect and it is harder to establish because most doctors will not commit either way. That is fair enough: if they cannot say for certain they should not. But without medical evidence it is hard to take things forward, because the public appear to believe that there is always medical evidence of abuse: in practice that is seldom true even in the case of broken limbs. But there it is.

    In Cleveland what most who remember it at all recall is the Butler Sloss report and the fact that most of the children were returned home. What is not remembered is that a great many of those children were in fact suffering abuse at home, and Senior paediatricians who investigated after the event concluded that around 70% of the diagnoses were correct. The report of their findings has not been made public, so far as I know, but that figure has been in the public domain since around 1997.

    Since Butler Sloss criticised social workers and medical staff for being gullible, it has had a long term impact on how such things are approached. It is fine to report one instance of sexual abuse: but suggest there is organised or very widespread abuse and you are on very very thin ice indeed

    Until now. Now it seems the press are taking a different view, and widespread sexual abuse within the elite is seen as plausible. I have no idea what has changed, but be aware that our understanding of what is going on is led by a media response, both then and now.

    We are all complicit

  162. Jamie says:

    John King;

    I am not Jamie Black. I have raised my opinion’s here in what I think is a fair and polite way, if a bit heated yes but I think that is understandable given the topic. I never swore or was rude to anyone, I think the way you have spoken to me is out of order and not warranted at all, I am entitled to my opinion even if everyone in the world disagrees with it and I will not be silenced by people like you.

    JENNI;

    I do not agree the RT evidence is flawed I have a lot of respect for the evidence they present I think it is a good documentary and I disagree with Fiona’s interpretation of it, although I respect her right to critique it.

  163. Flower of Scotland says:

    When the Rev,s away the trolls come out!

    I’m away till the Rev returns!

  164. Fiona says:

    Jamie at 3:31

    Your attack on me is unfair and unwarranted when I am trying to raise an important issue, but it makes me feel vindicated because people can no longer attack my argument but instead must try to attack me instead, this is common when people are losing an argument.

    Jamie at 5:28

    You are authoritarian, I am libertarian, you are a defender of government and legislation, and I am against government interference in daily life. We will never agree, you will also never understand my position, possibly because you have been in the system too long and possibly your livelihood is dependent on defending that failing system.

    You don’t do irony, do you, sunshine?

  165. Ken500 says:

    The named person is just the person who has knowledge of the situation and can be contacted quickly , so there can be contact between all the help agencies. Co ordinated help. Adoption has just been speeded up so it doesn’t take years and children who need a home are not left in Children Homes for years. It is easier for adopted children to eventually contact their birth family and reasonable contact can be arranged.

    A lot of grandparents look after children nowadays. They should get kinship payments because so are not well off and struggle to provide for their grandchildren, until when their parents are fine. (drug,drink addiction or illness etc.) Kinship payments are half the cost of keeping children in foster care or state care. The child is kept within the extended family. More cost effective.

    Psychologists now believe that children who suffer trauma can be effected all their lives without proper help. Previously it was just thought people could just get over it.

    There are some excellent social workers and some not so good. Power kick. People can complain but it is difficult to sue. Vulnerable people are often not well off and legal action is expensive, unless they are awarded costs.

  166. Legerwood says:

    After following the discussion on here I am in favour of the ‘named person’ proposals.

    Jamie @ 5.28

    I think the named person would help the child in any situation such as the Saville case because they should operate on behalf of the child and as such their presumption must be to believe the child and take matters from there.

    In historic cases of abuse the presumption was that the child was not telling the truth.

    As to health visitors being an adequate substitute for a named person, that is not the case. They have a very specific and time-limited role which starts just before the baby is born and continues for just a few, very few, years thereafter. Part of their responsibilities include the mother as well as the baby. The role of the named person would cover the child through school years. Quite different from a health visitor.

  167. Robert Louis says:

    Is it not frankly bizarre, given how long people have been using the internet, that some still fall for blatantly obvious trolling, hook, line and sinker. Jeezo!

  168. Jamie says:

    Fiona,

    It’s not meant as an attack it was an outline of ideology.

    If defending government legislation and interference in people’s lives is not authoritarian then what is?

    I say that with respect and without meaning offence, literally authoritarian is someone who;

    “Favouring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom”

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian?s=t

    If you are offended by me saying you are authoritarian that must mean you do not think it is authoritarian to impose legislation on other people?

  169. Ken500 says:

    Unionist trolls try to muck up and destroy the Website. They have destroyed every other website. They want to disrupt any Pro Independence discussion. Thry have form. There are even some in Holyrood and Westminster. Ignore them. Let Rev Stu deal with them.

  170. Ken500 says:

    There is a new generation born every minute.

  171. Craig says:

    Did you vote in the Scottish Referendum?

    7% said Don’t know if they voted YES
    16% said Don’t know if they voted NO
    46% said Don’t know if they VOTED AT ALL

    Now that is extremely worrying, were they all sniffing glue with Jim Murphy who doesn’t know if he “sniffed” glue.

  172. fred blogger says:

    fiona
    no nothing in that paper satisfies my questions, like you i’m very passionate about this subject.
    Q1,’can anyone show me one page of the consultations that took place between children, recovered victims (survivors), and other experts in the subject of CSA/CA recovery, on the named persons act?’
    Q2,’the welfare of the child is paramount.
    as well as my questions above, can anyone tell me if the rights of the child to reject any named person is also enshrined in law?
    the child’s voice MUST matter, the child for sure knows if they are being abused or not, and must be enabled speak out and be heard before their voice is crushed, as mine was.’

    it’s very clear, the key plank of the named persons act is the childs wellbeing/mental welfare. ie learning abilities.
    no child frozen in terror of adults/older children, can learn properly with gummed numbed mind, until healed.
    i reject it as the child needs are not put @ the centre of it. .

    i draw your attention to the works of the late great, dr alice miller, dr dot rowe, esp her book ‘beyond fear’, dr bob johnson (the best, in my considered opinion), dr joanne moncrieff, (myth of the chemical cure) and robert whitaker, (mad in america).

    Grizzle McPuss
    i’ve seen your post, and thank you for the info, but i’m not interested in the states definitions, of anything relating to child abuse/child wellbeing, until it changes to put the child’s voice @ the heart of our culture, that is.
    in other words the child’s voice is paramount.

  173. Ken500 says:

    It’s OK selling social housing, after 25 years. If the funds are used to build more houses. Some people live in council houses for years and have paid for their home twice over. Mortgages come down while rents go up, over time. The Scottish Gov moratorium is sensible for now.

  174. Jamie says:

    Legerwood;

    My main point is that the police did not believe the victims, they are supposed to investigate a named person may well have not believed because of the culture of the time. I am not convinced a name person can or will help, I don’t see any evidence, it all seems like guess work at the moment. With regards a health visitor, yes, they are around a short time but then children are old enough to access other services such as a GP or the police on their own who can direct them accordingly.

    Robert Louis and Ken500;

    who are the trolls you are talking of, especially unionist trolls here today?

    I am an SNP member which I am more than happy for Rev Stuart to verify. I 100% support Scottish independence and I am very disapointed we are not yet independent. I also support further devolution, what on earth makes you think I am a unionist or troll?

    Is no one allowed to have a different opinion anymore is wings over scotland just to be an echo chamber? I am sure that is not what Rev Stuart wants and I reckon it is good for democracy that people have debate about issues that are important.

  175. Thepnr says:

    @Robert Louis

    There is more than one type of troll, there are those that upfront about their views and you would happily debate with.

    This is good, it gives those that disagree with their views an opportunity to debunk their arguments and highlight the opposing view.

    The other type is to be avoided at all costs, they have no arguments of their own but rather chose to wind everybody else up using controversial subjects. The aim is simple, cause as much disharmony as possible.

    Personally I find type one quite entertaining, the type two’s well they are a wee bit smelly and a bit off.

    To spot them just sniff the screen when you have a suspicion 🙂

  176. Jenni says:

    Jamie, you have been given countless explanations for why your interpretation of reality is at best misinformed and at worst wilfully ignorant of the facts. That you persist in your opinions in the face of this, tells me I’m wasting my time trying to communicate with you. There’s none so blind as those that won’t see…

  177. Grouse Beater says:

    SD at it again: Grousey that sits and shouts that the SNP shouldn’t agree to anything?

    Crippling grammar, usual bollocks, tiresome trolling.

  178. Famous15 says:

    Hitherto I thought the SNP Government was being a tad Big brotherish with this nominated adult thing.

    I have now read all the reports,comments and even a Court of Session judgement and i conclude that the SNP have treated a difficult problem with care,compassion and intelligence.

    Well done the Scottish Government!

  179. Jenni says:

    Ken500 says:
    15 May, 2015 at 6:22 pm
    It’s OK selling social housing, after 25 years. If the funds are used to build more houses. Some people live in council houses for years and have paid for their home twice over. Mortgages come down while rents go up, over time. The Scottish Gov moratorium is sensible for now.

    I’m not sure that’s the whole story though. As a council tenant my rent is far below any mortgage payment. I also benefit from servicing to things like the boiler, plumbing, wiring etc. I get upgrades every so often. Mostly though, I have security.

    If I became unable to work for any reason then housing benefit would cover my rent for the duration, it wouldn’t cover a mortgage payment. There’s also the safety of knowing I can cover my bills and needn’t run into debt just to keep the roof over my head.

    I used to have a mortgage, and, fingers crossed, will again some day. But I’d need to be very confident in my ability not just to pay a mortgage but also to service the house properly, and be able to maintain savings to cover a ‘rainy day’.

    Historically huge chunks of housing stock were sold and insufficent new builds went up to replace them. Social housing should be protected until we have a significant surplus.

  180. Ken500 says:

    The statistics do not discriminate between the percentage of the voters as a percentage of the whole electorate, which would affect the overall outcome. Just distinguish between a certain percentage of a random number of Labour or Tory voters. Not including the percentage of Tory or Labour (or whatever) likely to be in the election result. Ie there might be 50% Labour voters and 25% Tory voters as a percentage of the vote. That would have to be included in the sampling, to be more accurate for attitudes.

    Gender difference would have to be taken in a sampling of football fans, as more men than women are football fans, to give an overall attitude to the BBC by the electorate.

  181. Jamie says:

    Jenni;

    It is because I will never ever support government interference in people’s life’s that is a fundamental belief of who I AM. I am a libertarian; as defined by dictionary.com

    A person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
    2.
    a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).
    Adjective
    3.
    Advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
    4.
    Maintaining the doctrine of free will.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism?s=t

    I just do not believe I need government to protect me, further to this I do not believe governments do protect people I believe on the whole they do more damage than good and that a truly socialist society where people helped each other would achieve much better outcomes than one that constantly relies on government to fix problems.

    There was a time when what I am saying was well accepted if not agreed with at least understood. It really worries me today that so many people cannot even understand where I am coming from.

    I don’t mind that people disagree that is fine, but not even being able to understand where I am coming from is very worrying, especially for society.

    I understand where you and other are coming from, you believe that government is what protects people and people are not able to protect themselves or their family, I essentially disagree with that viewpoint.

  182. terry says:

    LBC just now – discussing devolution – a great guy just called in and mentioned Wings – LBC are now asking people to phone in about Wings and blogs and devolution – any takers?

  183. liz g says:

    Fiona
    I can understand that anything that saves even one child has to in theory be a good thing
    But I have to admit if my kids were still young there are things I would not disclose to my/their GP if I thought their
    deeply devout judgemental Headmaster could even only in theory access their and maybe by default my medical information.
    I know there is a fine line between state proctecion and interference but even the perception this named person thing is crossing it could have unintended consequences.

  184. Fiona says:

    @ liz. Agreed. That is a separate issue, part of the policy I disagree with but not directly related to the named person. That is about what is called the “single shared assessment”. I am completely opposed to that, though it is part of the GIRFEC agenda.

    It is quite telling that the bulk of GIRFEC is not being discussed and there is focus on the named person. The problems with GIRFEC are deeper and different

  185. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @Aceldo Atthis 4:58 pm

    Please read comments before replying, it’s exhausting answering the same point.

    “As I said, over 50% support for the policy and 20% or so undecided. That’s a slam dunk, you should be happy”

    I answered you on that one (go read).

    This issue happens to fall into my “shouldn’t be politicised bracket”, ie NHS, Social Care, Education.

    Need I state the bleedin obvious? These are issues that affect us all in our shared society and are the very same subjects that all political parties insist are “our priorities”. They are the fundamentals of care & nurture that we have striven to achieve both through our ancestors and our continued efforts. So therefore IMHO they have no part being kicked around as freely as they are.

    “I see that both of you claim to have some special interest or stake in this and I’m uncomfortable with that idea — we all have a huge stake in child welfare…”

    I haven’t made any “claims”, I’ve merely contributed and added to the debate; trying to counter the insulting guff spouted by A.N.Other.

    And what’s with the “I’m uncomfortable with that idea”?

    Is it now a case of having the likes of yourself sit in judgement, sniping unnecessarily at those making any utterance on a subject that they may have strong feelings about?

    No-one as far as I can read has taken ownership of the issue of Child & Family Social Care on this thread as being their sole prerogative.

    From what you go onto say, I actually agree with…and I’m not uncomfortable with it.

    @fred blogger 6:21 pm

    I wish I could help you on this.

    Without going into personal details, I can assure you that the child’s voice is now being recognised even more as being paramount.

    Humanisation has indeed crept into the Scottish Family Court system, and organisations such as Families Need Fathers is doing a lot of good work in this area.

    The English system on the other hand is an utter disgrace.

    And to answer a point made elsewhere; during the lull in normal transmission while both the Rev is having a break and there is relative calm, why shouldn’t we discuss & debate issues that are important socially with a view to what I assume we all want to achieve?

  186. terry says:

    huh – LBC have moved on – don’t often listen but it’s handy to know what others think sometimes….

  187. Thepnr says:

    Hey Jamie

    How can you justify this statement:

    “I just do not believe I need government to protect me, further to this I do not believe governments do protect people I believe on the whole they do more damage than good”

    With this statement from an earlier post?

    “a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government”

    I think you are full of shit Jamie and bend in which ever direction the wind blows.

    You describe yourself as a libertarian, I suspect you are far closer to a bullshitter and attention seeker.

    John King gave you good advice earlier in this thread, consider taking it as you are just digging a deeper hole with every post. There must come a point where you start to get embarrassed unless your a sociopath or even a Labour party member.

  188. Paula Rose says:

    Enough of rancour

    Time to sort the wheat from the chaff –

    We all agree –

    Kittens are cute.

  189. Andrew McColl says:

    O/T
    Just been watching on catchup tv a programme called The Worls’d Most Expensive Food which aired on Ch4 Wednesday night, 1 of 2.

    It happily and proudly ‘shows off’ the fact that London is the centre of the world for billionaire nouveau riche. In other words, those that haven’t merited their wealth, but have taken advantage of financial markets, property, inheritance, crime probably…not self-made men and women. And it is proud to showcase the nouveau barrow boys who have evolved to lamprey themselves to their wealthy intestines. Every one of them with an estuary accent. I can (just about) remember when that part of world actually MADE things, even if in recent years those ‘things’ were second iteration things like fashion, music and art. This is EXACTLY the road that we Scots want not to follow, the route of vapid vampires.

    Sorry, but it made me sick watching the programme, although educative about the worst excesses of the London ‘market’, which has no scruples, and sees only the price and not the value of things.

    Co-incidentally, one of the main lionesses was a spivette of caviar, and we did see a sturgeon being gutted at one point. How ironic, when our own version is trying to lead them out of the zombie apocalypse wilderness of their oh-too-conspicuous consumption, or at the very least leads Scotland away from this ‘feast of empty.

    As a tv programme that shines a light on how ‘our’ country (sadly, it still is our country) is heading, I recommend it. A better example of ‘what path not to follow I can barely imagine.

  190. Ken500 says:

    Rev Stu deletes and banns Unionist trolls, that is why this Website is so successful. Unionists troll have deliberated muck up all other websites to destroy all Pro Independence argument. It just becomes a boring ding dong, which people don’t like or view. Groundhog day. The Herald. The Scotsman is just a nonsense. It is just to get click bait for advertising funds. Anything informative or ‘controversial’ or Pro Independence is deleted or banned. The crowdfunder keeps Wings pure and Pro Independent. That is how Rev Stu and the commentators want it and gives it an edge. Genius.

  191. Jamie Arriere says:

    Aw Jesus Christ, someone who defines himself with a dictionary reference – I’m off

    I’d rather have our public services run by Fionas than Jamies

  192. heedtracker says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUsHFG4guwg

    “Ye shee, SNP won too many seats” and that’s really messed it all up for vile separatists, hick.

    Stand up comedy from our favourite far right unionist tory boy of the millennium. 3.30m, those swivel torygraph eyes really start swivelling.

    Trebles all round.

  193. Patrick Roden says:

    So Jamie has completely highjacked this thread and also did so from post one.

    Very rude and I’d imagine it wont go down well with the Rev.

    People, please don’t feed trolls who highjack threads for their own agenda, if they feel strongly about a matter that isn’t the point of any article they can start their own blog.

  194. Bill says:

    Huge problem with named person;

    It’ll be a teacher. They wont get extra funding, training, resources or pay. They’ll target undeserving families to meet quotas and miss shouty parents.

    Teachers arent social workers, they’re barely teachers.

    *face palm*

  195. Bill says:

    Ken, Im no Unionist and I nearly got banned!

    Free speech eh!

  196. Fiona says:

    @ Patrick Roden

    I am sorry you feel that way. I confess I think this is an important issue and I do not think it inappropriate to discuss on this board. But if yours is the general feeling, then I will certainly take that on board.

  197. handclapping says:

    @Fiona
    I disagree with Patrick R. The discussion followed out of the data displayed. I doubt the Rev would have picked it as a subject but he left it up to us. It is just a pity we had a know nothing who thought he knew everything making ill informed interjections in what has been an iluminating discussion.

    More power to your finger tips

  198. Robert Peffers says:

    @sensibledave says: 15 May, 2015 at 3:34 pm:

    In reply to Grouse Beater 1:50 pm

    “Or, “usual Grouse Beater twaddle”. Grousey, you can dig a big hole and bury yourself in at and pretend that the world isn’t really there – or, you can do what Ms Sturgeon is doing – and discuss things in order to try and make things better?”

    Oh! for the love of Pete! ?Don’t you ever listen or is your head so far into such a moist, smelly part of your anatomy you don’t hear outside things?

    If Nicola Sturgeon hasn’t said it enough times for your slow comprehension to catch up with reality I’ll say it again for you.

    “The Scottish Government will not be holding another referendum until the sovereign people of Scotland demand it”.

    Got that?

    Under the independent Scottish legal system it is not Her Majesty Elizabeth Queen of Scots, Not Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of England, Not Her Majesty’s Parliament of the United Kingdom and not Her Majesty’s Scottish Government that has the legal right to decide who gets to govern Scotland. It is legally only the sovereign people of Scotland that have legal power to do that.

    The most the SG can do is to put the intention of asking the Sovereign People to re-elect them in a future SG manifesto. Then if the Sovereign people of Scotland vote them back into power they have a mandate to hold the referendum their SNP manifesto had promised them.

    Do you understand the meaning of the terms, “Legal”, and, “sovereign”. Perhaps you may care to show the point in history when the sovereign people of Scotland legally gave away their sovereignty under Scottish law?

  199. Jamie says:

    I will be interested to know what Rev Stu thinks.

    I am not a troll, I have raised a point, it has been discussed. Now I am being called a troll for no reason as far as I can gather.

    Patrick Roden’ HOW EXACTLY HAVE I HIJACKED THIS THREAD?

    By responding to everyone who posted question to my point? I would have thought that is calle polite?

    If anyone is being trolled it is me, constantly being attacked for giving an opinion that is different from the majority.

    Need I remind you that Scottish independence is a minority opinion, does that make it wrong? Does that mean it should not be discussed?

    Also, are unionists banned from this site too? Surely this site and Rev Stu would welcome a unionist coming on this site to give their reasons for unionism so that we can show the person our viewpoint so as to persuade them?

    People have rightly put forward a defence of GIRFEC or named person and I have rightly put across my perspective.

    What is all so wrong in that?

  200. Cash_x says:

    Holy sh*t

    9 freekin’ hours later and we’re still entertaining jamie ?

  201. Jamie says:

    Thepnr;

    when you contrast my statements like that it stands out as contradictory, but taken in context makes more sense.

    I beleive that there should be less government involvement in day to day life, however, there is government involvement and sadly, unlikely to be less due to people like you, in this context I would then at least hope and try to convince people that government should support people fully in the ways wanted by the family.

    The reality is you are either trolling me or you have a bee in your bonnet about something that you are not being open and honest about here.

    I have said my opinion if you can’t handle it then tough cookie, that is your problem.

  202. Capella says:

    As well as reading the Act, those who want to follow up the named person issue would do well to read the judgement of Lord Pentland linked to above by frances at 11.46
    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=1dadc2a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

    It is a Judicial Review of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and a detailed response to petitioners wishing to challenge its legality:

    “Conclusions
    [98] I have concluded that the petitioners’ case fails on all points. Part 4 of the Act does not contravene Convention rights, EU law or fundamental common law rights. It is unnecessary to make a reference to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The subject matter of the legislation is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament. The first to fourth petitioners do not have standing to bring the present proceedings.

    Disposal
    [99] I have sustained the second, third, sixth and seventh pleas-in-law for the respondents; their other pleas are redundant or do not arise. I have repelled the petitioners’ pleas. The petition is refused.

    [100] I have reserved all questions of expenses.

  203. One_Scot says:

    Don’t tell me, I bet you also voted Yes, yawn.

  204. Ian Brotherhood says:

    It’s all getting a bit Norsey-redux in here, eh?

    Never mind.

    Until normal service can be resumed, here’s a wee Friday Night Poser for those who’d like to discuss something else.

    If you could pick one favourite moment from the whole GE campaign, what would it be? I’m torn between Murph’s ‘fundilymundily’ and the wretched Brian Donohoe telling RS, live, that ‘the piles are just too big’ prior to his official hoofing from Ayrshire Central.

    Those appeal because they’re still fresh, but there are so many others…

  205. Ken500 says:

    Teachers should training on additional needs. 10% of their pupils have additional needs. Teachers get hardly any training. 10% of teacher training should be a module on additional needs. It would help teaching all children. The Scottish Gov should introduce additional training. Most teachers are dedicated professionals. Things aren’t what they used to be. The Scottish Gov will continue to support education/NHS as a priority, in line with the majority people’s wishes.

    10% of Doctor’s training should be on addiction problems. Doctor’s get very little training on addiction drug/alcohol/anorexic. They are linked. It would help all their patients.

    The Scottish Gov needs the power to limit the sugar and tran fats in processed food and drink. There are 8 spoons of sugar in some cans of fizzy drinks. The power to tax ‘loss leader’ drink. To limit alcohol consumption. Prevention is better than cure. Divert spending to Health/Social care. Other countries can do it. Finland was once the most unhealthy country in the world. High heart attack rate. Now it is one of the healthiest with the most healthiest food in the world. It does have a high suicide rate but that could be because of Depression, the climate and hours of darkness in the winter. Mediterranean diet is healthy.

    The named person doesn’t have to be a teacher, it could be a Doctor, social worker or Healthcare professional. It is just a person who could have previous dealings with the situation so help can be co ordinated instead of bring given by separation agency who don’t know what the others are doing, in an emergency. The cases are really limited.

  206. Ian Brotherhood says:

    This has only had 117 views. Nice wee twist on Boney-M’s neological prowess:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZfLKJ_kdsA

  207. Cadogan Enright says:

    @Ian Brotherhood 8.19
    The reaction of the defeated Labour Party candidate Brian Donohue where he revealed that he was “ glad he can now tell people to “f*** off” that he’s no longer an MP”. This says much about the way the Labour Part in Scotland had fallen into a rut of taking people for granted, and paid the price for their scorn of the electorate.

    I missed where Donohoe told RS, live, that ‘the piles are just too big’ – tell us more about that . .

  208. Capella says:

    @ Ian Brotherhood
    I think Alex Salmond answering Jeremy Paxman with skill and humour on election night is superb. Answers the FFA and “once in a generation” questions too:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbrd41Kum-A

  209. fred blogger says:

    fiona
    i moved to scotland to heal many years ago now, coz of the amazing social language, of the people of scotland.
    i was right in doing so.

    so yes i know you’re right about the english system being an utter disgrace, i voted for indyscot to cut away from that toxic system.
    my views have been absolutely vindicated by our amazing passionate take no nonsense, indyref campaign.

    i’m not however reassured.
    for a child to thrive they don’t need biological parents, except ie, for child’s food (milk) from mother on DEMAND, that is how a child feed’s it’s own needs, that way self esteem is not destroyed.
    the love is empathy type, and compassion.
    their biological needs met on DEMAND.
    a child fed on DEMAND, has no emotional need of others, and learns easily.

    the child chooses to love/like lovable others.
    the expectations from others that they should be loved by child for not meeting their needs, is plain wrong.
    the abuse is when the child is expected to pay in some way or another for their bio needs to be met.
    sanctions and conditionality creep in.

    the child MUST choose, not father, not mother, nor state.
    or they suffer from a terror of rejecting.
    if a child is being used as an emotional pawn this is an abuse of the child.

    the abused child needs 1, unconditional sanctuary, 2 true healing therapy.

    http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/people-we-should-listen-to/
    ‘Bob Johnson has now commented
    The governor you talked to was following the party line – the ‘replacement’, the so called DSPD units (Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder units) cost £500,000,000, and achieved nothing. A Sainsbury Mental Health Centre Report condemned them – they never once asked me what I did … CBT doesn’t go to the root – which needs cutting.’
    his therapy/works saves minds and lives, by getting to the root of affects of CSA/CA, and cutting them so as to cure the victim.

  210. Ken500 says:

    Best bit – the GE win.The referendum result and then the GE result. It was unbelievable. The depression and then the exhilaration. It would have been better to have won the Referendum and not participate in the GE.

    Lost a YES bet on the Referedum. Lost a bet on the GE. SNP won more seats than participated. Gambling days are over.

  211. Thepnr says:

    Hey Jamie doll!

    It’s been fun, so thanks for the laughs.

    I can handle your opinion “Am I tough enough? Hell, yes, I’m tough enough.”

  212. heedtracker says:

    https://archive.is/0R1Il

    Save Jim Murphy! Lovely wee photo of Jim too, dreamy Jim. He’ll be toast by Sunday unfortunately, all over Sunday papers, with whatever it is Chucka’s done. Harriet Harman said Chucka only wanted peace and quiet, by standing as the Labour leader? C4 news that was but she was finding it hard to hear the studio as jets kept flying over and that made it hard to say what it was that made Chucka drop out.

  213. Legerwood says:

    Fred blogger @ 8.36 pm

    Small point, you don’t need the biological mother for milk for a baby. Wet nurses can fill that gap as they did in times past or dried milk.

  214. Thepnr says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    My favorite from the whole Independence campaign (not the GE) was this 22 second clip. Wish it was me that delivered this heckle 🙂

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODNlFyzbxnQ

  215. muttley79 says:

    @scottieDog

    FFA misses out the most vital powers, namely monetary and foreign policy.
    That said yes campaign wanted to keep monetary power where it was, albeit with an input from Scotland

    Arguably the most important powers in a modern state are taxation and welfare. Obviously foreign policy is very important as well. FFA means we would have to keep Trident. Holyrood would also not be responsible for when to go to war, or not as the case maybe.

  216. liz g says:

    Fiona @ 7.01
    Sorry for the delay
    It is a shame that the named person is always the focus of the discussions, because I think most would agree every check and balance we can think of should be put in place for these kids.
    The concerns about it may be overshadowing a more important discussion that needs to take place,and I (just my opinion) think we need child protection laws that everyone can support so that they stand a better chance of success.
    I take it from your posts you are involved in this area so….thank you for all that you do X

  217. Dr Jim says:

    Finished my stint for today and came on for a wee read to catch up but after having perused my way through the discourse I have no idea where to start so

    Can I just sign up for the three minute row as opposed to the full half hour argument or just a head to head with the latest Idjit

    A word to the Trolls don’t reply to me I’ll only switch on my tracker to seek and destroy your device with a really horrible programme

    To the regular nice folks,(you know who you are) you’ve got more patience than saints

  218. Thepnr says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    And my best moment from the GE2015 was this!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQH4BEl9JCg

  219. YESGUY says:

    Lively today.

    Trolls out in force and it’s STILL raining… 🙁

    SD. Mr Troll .

    Please go way . You always start of nice… throw in a couple of digs and off you go. Motermouth or what . That rant at GB had me rolling around laughing. You sad little man 😀

    Jamie – give us a wee break. Please.

    What to do now the election is over and the footballs finished too….. Wingers we need, no WE DESERVE a holiday. From the trials and anguish of the referendum to the historical route of the Unionists we have never given up and kept faith.

    Next few weeks should be intersting loved the story of the newbies clapping at WM when it’s not allowed . Tartan benches indeed.

    keep your powder dry for the next adventure on the ” Road to independence ” Be safe and happy..

    And ignore the trolls . ( Ah know .. me too 😉 )

    WE won ..YES WE DID … Onwards and upwards Wingers

  220. Ken500 says:

    There is no breach of confidence. It is just a person or professional who can be accessed quickly who knows if there is an on going situation, such as mental Health issues or addition problems. In an attempt make sure help is co ordinated by the different agencies as quickly as possible. People have died or become dangerously ill because different agencies were not co operating or aware of previous episodes.

    E.g there are schemes now were a mental health nurse is going out with Police to make sure people with mental health issues are not sanctioned and put in cells (for their own safety but it makes their anxiety or self harming worse) but taken to Hospital.

  221. Marcia says:

    Thepnr

    One of mine is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3KA0Tbh2aA

    Alexander’s face says it all.

  222. Stoker says:

    Ian Brotherhood wrote:
    “If you could pick one favourite moment from the whole GE campaign, what would it be?”

    The outcome.
    🙂

  223. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Cadogan Enright –

    Aye. That’s not verbatim, but as close as I can recall. Radio Scotland interviewed him, very briefly, must’ve been about two-ish on the Friday morning, and he admitted, flat-out, that he was a gonner. ‘I can see the piles, they’re too big…’

    It was something like that. I tweeted it at the time, and also commented on whatever thread was ongoing here. TBH, he didn’t even sound particularly surprised, just weary and mildly pissed-off when the interviewer (maybe Isobel Fraser?) asked him who we was losing to(!).

    And yeah, those comments you referred to are going to keep him busy for a while, explaining what the hell he meant. Reading the full piece in the Irvine Times, it’s possible to see it in a broader context, that he’s finally ‘free’ after a long time of having to bite his tongue, but that won’t be the way it comes across to Ayrshire folk who’ve been fed-up listening to his pish for a very long time. Hopefully, in a few years time, the only memorial to him will be archived copies of his unintentionally hilarious website.

  224. fred blogger says:

    Legerwood
    i know i was weened on ‘national dried milk’, the point i’m making is that this is the maximum requirement, and imv the best.
    coz i don’t come from a tin.
    🙂
    my fav moment Ian Brotherhood.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alwLk4t4xtA it cracks me up and says it all imo.

  225. Ken500 says:

    Harriet Harman Channel 4? Tessa Jowell (biding for Person Mayor of London?) Tessa Jowell had problems with her bribed husband. Italy. They to separate in a mass of publicity. He was found guilty in the end? He had to pay fine. The corrupt Italian Premier (bonga banga ) who’s holiday Villa Tony borrowed. Like continental musical chairs. Chuka has a house in Ibiza and was a DJ. Milliband was just on holiday in Ibiza, not in holiday time.

  226. asklair says:

    Any connection, David Cameron visiting Edinburgh today and a perjury trial beginning in the same city.

  227. Grizzle McPuss says:

    A good one from the Dug to lighten the mood…

    https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/resistance-is-fertile/

  228. David says:

    G4jeepers says:
    15 May, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    I often wonder if it wouldn’t be a better idea to have a guardian for every adult.

    YOU MEAN like a Scottish Tory POLLYTICIAN 😉

  229. Tackety Beets says:

    Just in as usual I read the latest From Stu , then jump to the last few comments before starting from the beginning to read all the posts .
    Sadly today , for the first time ever , I get the impression I needna bother ! Evening spoilt !

    IAn B , Alex , Marcia etc best bits GE 2015 , aye some good clips there , thank you.

    Marcia @ 9 pm

    I remember watching it live …..classic M Black trying her damdest , and really struggling to keep a straight face . Peer lassie was totrured trying to be respectful.

  230. ronnie anderson says:

    Tank fuek I have been otherwise engadged today,or I would have exploded on site.

    Mibbe now some of you,s will realise the folly of entertaining Trolls.

  231. Aceldo Atthis says:

    @ Jamie

    There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion and debating it. I have followed the debate with you and the others today and I think a few people presumed initially that you were some unthinking loudmouth that hadn’t given this subject serious thought.

    I am with the vast majority of people on here and in the country who support the policy, but I have concerns about the way you were hounded for having a differing view. Using an issue like this to bludgeon home some unchallengeable notion of superiority is quite sinister in my opinion.

    I’ll be glad when the discussion is over.

    And thepnr, I have a hunch that there’s probably more to you than this troll obsession. Maybe I’m just too optimistic when it comes to human nature. Either way, if these Trolls ruin forums my guess is it’s because people obsess about them too much and give them more attention than they deserve.

  232. crazycat says:

    @ Ian

    Donohoe wasn’t biting his tongue when he referred to the Travelling community as “a scourge on humanity”, nor sitting on his hands when he replied by e-mail to a settled traveller who took him to task, so offensively she had to block him. I’ve seen the text of what he sent and it brings his office into disrepute – and yet he was still claiming last Friday that he represented all his constituents regardless of how they voted. (The travellers weren’t his constituents, presumably, but the woman may have been.)

    I’m spoilt for choice about whose defeat to celebrate most, but he’s always pretty near the top of the list.

  233. Phronesis says:

    Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ (United Nations, 1948). In 1959 the UN made a specific declaration of children’s rights (replacing the earlier 1924 declaration by the League of nations).The UK has signed up to this treatise and makes a big deal of its record on children’s rights. In 2006 the UN revisited this declaration and focused on the particular challenges that apply to very young children because there is a growing body of evidence on the detrimental effects of adverse childhood experiences on a child’s emotional and physical well-being and neurodevelopmental outcomes (United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child 2006).
    The UN report specifically focuses on the persistence of child poverty (in this country and internationally) and its toxic effects on childhood that persist into adult health and well-being. It is acknowledged that economically disadvantaged children experience cumulative adversity as ‘multiple jeopardy’- the economic costs to society run into the billions of pounds but the emotional costs resist economic estimates.
    SG has a very robust early years framework to promote the health and well-being in early childhood and beyond.
    The new legislation contained in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 has 2 sections that are relevant to the ‘named person’ function
    Section 8- Aims of children services plan
    ‘a children‘s services plan should be prepared with a view to achieving the aims of providing children‘s services in the area in a way which: best safeguards, supports or promotes the wellbeing of children; is most integrated from the point of view of the recipients; and constitutes the most efficient use of available resources. Most integrated would be where service providers co-operate with each other to ensure that service provision is planned and delivered in a way which best meets the needs of children and families. Also, related services in the area are to be provided in the way which safeguards, supports or promotes the wellbeing of children, so far as this is consistent with the objects and proper delivery of the service concerned’
    Section 19- Named person service
    ‘named person service… an individual from within named person service providers who carry out the functions in order to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person. They will do this through a number of activities, including: advising, informing or supporting the child or young person or their parent; helping them to access a service or support; or discussing or raising a matter about that child or young person with a service provider or relevant authority’
    In the under 5s it is understood this should be the health visitor who has most contact with children in this age group and thereafter the education system will provide the named person.
    At the core of this legislation is the well-being of children, it is not a mechanism to catapult children into the child protection system nor is it intended to undermine the parental role. It is a holistic approach to provide support to vulnerable children and their families.
    Contrast this ideology with a UKOK government who are destroying child welfare systems with their retrogressive policies and prolonged austerity measures in the face of criticism from many child welfare organisations and frontline professionals who are well aware of the implications of increasing child poverty rates and decreasing social support. We have destitute families in this country and are returning to Dickensian levels of child poverty throughout the UK. It is not acceptable and the UK government is in breach of the UN declaration. SG wants control of all its economic levers to ensure it not only passes supportive legislation but can provide adequate social protection for its youngest citizens. WM does not have a mandate to make Scotland’s children poorer but we should be all concerned in UKOK-perhaps the monstrous spend on Trident renewal can be redirected into a cause that is worth the money ‘bairns not bombs’.

  234. Stoker says:

    @ Jamie.
    You wrote:
    “I am an SNP member..”

    What branch are you a member of?

  235. Paula Rose says:

    Thank you Fiona for your comments and links.

  236. Graham MacLure says:

    @ crazycat
    That wouldn’t be the same Donohoe who said he could now tell his constituents to “F*** off”would it?
    Bad timing as his constituents, being sensible Ayrshire folk had telt him tae GTF a week previously.
    Normal Labour one string fiddle player.

  237. TheItalianJob says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    My fab election moment.

    Mhairi Black’s acceptance speech when she told Dougie Alexander she “hopes he will continue in politics when he gets over the shock of me defeating him tonight” (or words to that affect).

    Brill. 🙂

  238. crazycat says:

    @ Graham McLure

    Yes; Ian had mentioned that BD had, if you give his words the kindest possible interpretation, expressed relief that he would no longer have to bite his tongue when dealing with his constituents. I was just illustrating that his previous score on that was far from perfect!

  239. Flower of Scotland says:

    ronnie anderson@9.28

    Will people never learn! Totally agree Ronnie.

  240. Paula Rose says:

    @ Aceldo Atthis – just so funny darling, when’s your next gig?

  241. Democracy Reborn says:

    Well, credit where credit’s due I suppose. Cable, Alexander, Laws and Hughes have apparently refused peerages (according to the Guardian). The punchline is that Danny Boy is too focussed “battling the SNP in Scotland.”

  242. ScottieDog says:

    @muttley79
    But remember the (artificial ) scarcety of money we are experiencing is down to those that have monetary power in our society. Money or lack thereof underpins everything we do.

    The choice of who to has the privilege of money creation in our society is the worst that could have been made.

    The confidence of bankers determines the money supply and where it goes in the economy – most for speculation – only 10% into the productive economy. More than 97% of our entire money supply is created by private banks. Many people think that govt/BoE issue our money, but that money (notes and coins) only constitutes 3% of all money. The rest is created as debt – we have to borrow it into existence. This is why the government are so keen to have us borrow.
    If we all decided to pay down our debts and borrowing slowed, then we would eventually be left with no money in the economy. (Money is effectively destroyed when debt is repaid)

    This debt based money system is in my opinion the main reason we are in such a mess.

    Having monetary controls for me is extremely important. I’m pretty excited about what Iceland is considering – taking the money creation power away from banks – basically what positive money are proposing…

    http://www.positivemoney.org/videos/introduction/3-simple-changes-banking-fix-economy/

    If we change who creates and controls the money supply, we can change the rest.

  243. Lollysmum says:

    Marcia & Tackety Beets
    I’m with both of you. Mhairi- trying so hard not to let her face show the result before it was announced that she had to keep looking at the ground. The joy on her face once the Returning Officer gave her votes tally- vindication from the electorate that her age had nothing to do with their decision. She is one of them & they put their faith in one of their own to represent them at WM. What more can any candidate ask for 🙂

  244. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jamie says: 15 May, 2015 at 6:50 pm:

    In your reply to Jenni you say :-

    “It is because I will never ever support government interference in people’s life’s that is a fundamental belief of who I AM. I am a libertarian; as defined by dictionary.com”

    What you are, Jamie, is a, “Numptie”, as defined in the, Scots-English/English-Scots Dictionary: ISBN 0-947782-26-5.

    It owersets, (translates), into English as, “Nitwit”.

    And here is the reason why. Your idiotic statement above draws the, “proverbial line in the sand”, as your personal belief that preventing, “a government interference in anyone’s life”, defines who you are.

    What that actually defines you as is an, “Anarchist”.

    Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of persons or single person which does not recognize authority.

    Fact is that in a democracy it is the main function of government to regulate society and thus to interfere in our lives.

    You are also a numptie if you actually believe that governments should not interfere in what a parent can do in relation to their child. I started to do voluntary work among the poorest, most vulnerable people in our society when aged around 11. I have just chosen not to celebrate my 78th birthday.

    If you believe that every parent loves, nurtures and would lay down their life for an offspring then you prove yourself worthy of the title, “Bloody idiot”. I’m not even talking about people with drug, or other addiction, either and I’m not talking about poverty only.

    I’ve come across cases in every strata of society and there are no barriers to child abusers. I’m sure the professional social work people here will bear that observation out.

    Take off your rose coloured glasses and face the truth. Not all parents love their progeny and some will exploit and/or abuse them. That is enough justification for authorities to step in and protect the abused – but remember they also have a duty to help the abuser but to also prevent them, (the abuser), from their abuse of others – if necessary by locking the abusers up.

  245. fred blogger says:

    Phronesis
    ‘In 2006 the UN revisited this declaration and focused on the particular challenges that apply to very young children because there is a growing body of evidence on the detrimental effects of adverse childhood experiences on a child’s emotional and physical well-being and neurodevelopmental outcomes.’

    ‘A vague ‘bio-genetics’ is wafted about in lieu, for which there has never been a scrap of objective evidence – nor is there likely to be. Psychiatry likes its mental disease hardwired –
    thereby permitting any number of bizarre physical interventions, all immune to scientific evidence.’
    http://www.soteria.freeuk.com/176_16-18.pdf .

    i’m a former victim of prolonged, yrs of CSA/CA, from a very early age.

  246. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @crazycat –

    You’re right, and I must admit to having rewritten an earlier comment to remove the word ‘bigot’ in reference to Donohoe. But there’s no doubt he has used the local press here in Ayrshire to vilify travellers generally.

    As you know, I was at the count in the Citadel, Ayr, as the indy-ref results came in, alongside Jim T and Betty Boop. We were all pretty crestfallen by the time the Glasgow result was due to be announced – I was standing no more than nine, ten feet away from Donohoe, who was perched with his ‘comrades’ at a breakfast-bar style table in a recess of the hospitality area. Most of his comrades were, to coin a phrase, ‘tired and emotional’, and had been loudly hailing the ‘No’ results as they came in.

    The big screen was showing the BBC Scotland coverage. When it was announced that they were just about to get the Glasgow result, I heard Donohoe say (bear in mind he had his back to me and was a few metres away) – ‘Let’s see how the Catholics went.’

    What does it say about anyone, let alone an elected representative, that they feel comfortable making such a statement, loudly, in that kind of atmosphere? I wish I’d had a wee recording device with me. No matter – I know what I heard, and he can go ahead and sue me if he can prove he didn’t say it. (Or, he could send the cops around to have a word with me, as he has did with an SSP member who tweeted a comment he took exception to – turned out that Donohoe had alleged a threat, but hadn’t saved the Tweet. The comrade had saved it – when he showed it to the police, they apologised for bothering him and left.)

    No matter what happens next year, and no matter how effective Phillipa Whitford is or isn’t, the people of Ayrshire have, to put it ever-so politely, ‘unburdened themselves’. He’s ‘delighted’ that he can now tell people to ‘fuck off’? Fair do’s, but always remember, Brian, that we told you first, and in no uncertain terms.

  247. Robert Peffers says:

    @heedtracker says: 15 May, 2015 at 8:38 pm:

    https://archive.is/0R1Il

    ” … with whatever it is Chucka’s done.”

    Exactly my first thought upon hearing he had withdrawn was, “I wonder what other candidate has what on Him?”

  248. Robert Peffers says:

    @Bill says: 15 May, 2015 at 7:34 pm:

    “Teachers arent social workers, they’re barely teachers.”

    Which just highlights exactly why you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

    First of all the Named Person may not be a teacher and most certainly is not expected to by a social worker.

    That is NOT their intended function.

    *faalm*

  249. crazycat says:

    @ Ian

    Yes, he’s quite the charmer, and has been for a long time, from what I hear. I’m sure he won’t starve, so I have zero sympathy. I see Sandra Osborne has taken to the letters pages of the Chronic and the Ayrshire Post to say how right she was to warn “vote SNP get Tory”; they’re like wind-up talking toys with only one slogan.

  250. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Looks like Rev’s got a lumber on Twitter!

    Get in there mister! Ye’re on holiday!

  251. Fred says:

    Saw that Murray from Edinburgh South on tonight’s news, no doubt we’ll be seeing a lot of Mr Murray in future in the name of balance, the guy is an embarrassment, a complete doughball.

  252. Aceldo Atthis says:

    @ Paula

    Funny? Gig? Me?

    Anyway, this GIRFUY stuff is a bit boring IMHO; as I said, happy to leave it to social workers and experts in the field.

    I was expecting some discussion on today’s meeting with Sturgeon and Cameron. It’s a bit like watching a bull fight, starts off slow and sorta respectful, a little jab here and a grunt there. Don’t ask which one is the bull and which is the matador…

    Cameron thinks he is smarter than he actually is. You know, though, politicians and civil servants are extremely lazy in most cases. The biggest reason for them being against FFA is probably down to how much work and energy it would take to get there. The politicians that aren’t lazy are the ones the cause mayhem, carnage, and wars.

  253. Aceldo Atthis says:

    @ Ian Brotherhood

    Is Donohoe the one that was more or less crying at the committee over the plight of Sevco and Mike Ashley’s involvement? If so, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear him talk about Catholics the way you described.

    This country…

  254. heedtracker says:

    Robert Peffers says:
    15 May, 2015 at 10:28 pm
    @heedtracker says: 15 May, 2015 at 8:38 pm:

    https://archive.is/0R1Il

    ” … with whatever it is Chucka’s done.”

    Exactly my first thought upon hearing he had withdrawn was, “I wonder what other candidate has what on Him?”

    He’s probably got some Scottish blood in him, if he’s lucky:D

  255. Robert Peffers says:

    @Fiona says: 15 May, 2015 at 7:44 pm:

    “I am sorry you feel that way. I confess I think this is an important issue and I do not think it inappropriate to discuss on this board. But if yours is the general feeling, then I will certainly take that on board.

    Stick with it girl, it is a matter for political debate but more than that one the commenters here, (probably including myself), could do with learning about.

    The trouble is the absolute crap spouted by Jamie.

    Ignore him and it could be a really informative and interesting debate. The problem is not the subject matter but the totally obnoxious views of Jamie. If I’m reading him correctly his views are that if an addicted decides to abuse, or even just neglect, their offspring they have every right, in Jamie’s eyes, to do so without interference by the authorities.

    I’ve personally seen far too much abuse, and even cold blooded killings, carried out by parents & partners for my liking.

  256. bugsbunny says:

    To Roland Smith@11.27am,

    I thought you were about about to suggest the merging of the three unionist parties to become the Official Loony Party.

    It’s further to the right than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, but not as sensible or fun.

    Stephen Roney.

  257. Fiona says:

    @ Robert Peffers.

    I think it is unfortunate that people have seen the discussion in terms of trying to shut someone up. Despite my ill tempered response to mandandboy, I really had no intention of doing that. I was honestly trying to inform, though I admit that I feel strongly about it, and that may not help.

    I do not, myself, think that jamie is a troll and I think his views are all too common. That is why I thought it worthwhile to engage. I do not think we should assume deliberate intent to disrupt when faced with views we don’t accept. But I think it is just as bad to assume that sincere contributions to the debate on the other side are an attempt to silence someone. I don’t perceive what Aceldo Atthis sees in this thread. But then I seldom agree with that poster so that is no surprise. Nor were the positions monolithic, so far as I can see.

    We cannot expect to all agree on matters like this and while I think that Wings is great for validation when talking about scottish independence, in a largely hostile public domain, I don’t think that is so important on issues like this. Discussion has to be good, it seems to me.

    But quite a few are not interested, clearly. To them I say, football bores me to tears: but it doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed and I dont have to read or to post when it is on the table 😉

  258. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Aceldo Atthis (11.00) –

    Please note the final sentence of this ‘Personal Life’ section of Donohoe’s Wikipedia entry:

    ‘He takes a particular interest in renationalising the British railway system. Donohoe is a serving Special Constable with the British Transport Police. He is also a devoted fan of the television soap opera Coronation Street. Donohoe’s seat of Cunninghame South was abolished, and between 2005 and 2015 he represented the redrawn seat of Ayrshire Central. He is the secretary of Rangers Supporters Club.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Donohoe

  259. Grouse Beater says:

    Aceldo Atthis: Politicians that aren’t lazy are the ones the cause mayhem, carnage, and wars.

    Straining to be an aphorism but falls flat because its fallacious, it conveys no general principle or observation.

    Just sayin’, like.

  260. Burnie Braes says:

    Does anyone know the total for the postal votes in Scotland at the General Election? Be interesting to see how they compare with the Referendum result.

  261. crazycat says:

    @ Ian

    Somewhere, very recently but I can’t remember where unfortunately, I read that it was the Parliamentary Rangers Supporters Club. I had previously thought it was more general, as you have quoted. Such a shame he won’t be eligible any more if it’s the former.

  262. James123 says:

    Cameron said today “I was delighted with the result of the referendum”. All those who voted No in the referendum thus making David Cameron a very happy man and also lumbering us with another 5 years of Tory government please now take a good look at yourself in the mirror and punch yourself fucking hard.

  263. Jenni says:

    I’m all for debate and I’m always interested to try and understand the reasoning behind differing opinions.

    But, when said reasoning is shown to be mininterpretation and/or ignorance of the facts – opinions should change. Often it’s my opinions that change so I know this!

    Fiona spent a great deal of time and went to a lot of effort to explain that not only was she talking from a position of experience and knowledge, she actually examined the ‘evidence’ presented by Jamie and then demonstrated its flawed perspective.

    Jamie chose to ignore all of that and went on to declare that knowledge of the law was designed to exclude the layman and therefore she chose not to pay attention to it.

    I’m a big believer in making informed decisions. I greedily reach for information whenever possible. This is my greatest issue with UKOK – the blatant lies, misinformation and sheer propaganda directed at the population with the full connivance of the media.

    Luckily in Scotland we are seeking our own sources of information and it no longer works. Wherever Jamie is getting her/his (am not sure but syntax is saying ‘she’ to me?) information is one thing. Her unwillingness to accept better sources is quite another.

    I have zero time for wilful ignorance. Lots of time for honest debate. And I too, like Fiona, didn’t see Jamie as a troll. Just misguided.

  264. crazycat says:

    @ Ian

    There’s no date on this: https://archive.is/tJ8HM
    but John Robertson was the Chair and Ian Davidson his deputy; BD is in the picture.

    He’s referred to as Secretary in this from 2012:
    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/order-order/

  265. Fiona says:

    Luckily in Scotland we are seeking our own sources of information and it no longer works.

    Apropos of that: Andreas Whittam Smith had an article in the independent today in which he touched on this neglected part of the analysis of the election. He said something along the lines of: in Scotland people are no longer getting their information from politicians or the media: they are getting it from each other.

    I thought that was quite perceptive

  266. yabadabadoo says:

    James

    Dont be put off by the SNP clones on here. Most only have one directional thinking – SNP GOOD, which is just as dumb as SNP BAD.

    There is growing unease at the way that the one party state of Scotland is ever becoming a testing ground for draconian repressive / regressive measures and is presently been watched keenly from abroad by politicians to see if the Scottish people will actually accept this stasis state.

    First it was the one police force of scotland taking local accountability away. Then it was the predictable, we will do what we want, by police scotland by deploying guns on the streets for routine operations ignoring any oversight, then there is the taking away of the double jeopardy rule so that they can keep taking you to court until they get the result they want, then having the safe guard of corroboration was to be removed and now we have “name person” act.

    This act takes away the rights of the parents to advocate for their child. The name person will have the power to ignore the wishes of the parent. Named person will be influenced by budget holders. For example named persons in education might disagree with a parents request to access support due to financial constraints of their employers. This happened already today but as the parent is recognised as having the authority to advocate for the child and they can push to have the educational support put in or go to court.

    For your information Scottish Local authorities deploy their staff to specifically target, manage and defend the WITHDRAWL of services from the needy. How on earth to the SNP clones think the cuts are implemented? The LA staff are not deployed to help but to justify cuts in the most legally secure method!

    The act has changed the state interference threshold from welfare to welbeing. essentially this means happness. This means authorities can intervene on any pretext.

    The act will also allow agencies to pass info between them. Even defamatory info. If you are a parent trying to advocate for a child there could be a huge risk of an agency undermining the parents by passing defamatory info to other agencies. How can parents defend themselves if they do not know what info is being passed about?

    There has already been one family that has moved out of the Highland region (piloted there) due to disagreements with the “experts” who were actual wrong.

    What the SNP clones dont get is that to get an Independent Country you have to have an Independent people with Independent minds. This is NOT what the SNP cultivate.

    Although the SNP talks independence from Westminster it is busy tightening not only the control infrastructure and gagging constraints on its own MP/ MPS and members but also the scottish people with draconian laws such as “named person” but also by its proposed scottish constitution to keep the people of scotland subjugated to the unelected Brussels bankers.

    campaign for no to Named Person here:

    http://www.no2np.org

  267. Thepnr says:

    @Fiona

    I have long admired your posts and your contributions to this site. Debate is good on a website such as Wings division is not.

    These are two entirely separate matters. If we all agreed then there would be no need for websites like Wings or indeed to have a vote in a GE.

    Disagreement is the norm within a society and is healthy, stirring the porridge for the sake of it is the opposite.

  268. dakk says:

    There is nothing in the debate that has descended into abuse that I have read,all seems very civilized to me.

    Maybe we should get used to eating ourselves a bit until the media maestro returns.

    We’re probably missing the challenge of the GE and Indyref.

    In the meantime anything people feel passionate about is fair game.

  269. bookie from hell says:

    The Sun

    suggesting–chukka–speakers wife

  270. Michael McCabe says:

    During the General Election Campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnLgDqDQ1YE&feature=player_embedded

  271. Michael McCabe says:

    Sorry messed up there. its that clip but it has Subtitles.

  272. Bill Hume says:

    yabadabadoo……………yabadaba don’t.
    Usual pish.

    That said I’m very impressed with this debate on the forum.(Is this a forum or site or blog?) I take heart that Stu can leave wingers to get on with things and they (we) do so in a very controlled and thoughful way.

    Much information to digest, I’m impressed.

  273. Fiona says:

    @ Bill Hume

    “Grown men don’t need leaders”

    Edward Abbey

  274. Natasha says:

    I’m an infant teacher and I’ve worked a 60 hour week this week just doing my job, ie planning and preparing lessons, teaching the children, assessing their progress and then re-planning and preparing my next set of lessons as necessary.

    If anyone thinks I’ve got the either the time or the inclination to start spying on families in order to exercise some kind of power kick, then they need their heads examining.

    There has been a sea change in my profession with regard to child protection – no longer is it acceptable to report concerns to the child protection officer in your school and then wash your hands of the matter. If you see that nothing is being done, you have a duty to follow it up, and if necessary, you sidestep the child protection officer completely and go directly to child protection services.

    Child protection comes first and foremost before any other consideration and we are all very aware of that. The named person is simply another link in the chain designed to provide children with the maximum possible protection.

    As for GIRFEC, I do not have the same depth of knowledge and experience of it as Fiona; all I can say is that so far I have not seen anything which causes me concern, but my training in it has not been extensive.

  275. dakk says:

    Yabbadabbadoo.Here we go.

    How can you get all steamed up about chimerical injustices from SNP when your own Brit Nat Parliamentarians are real life war criminals and paedophile apologists.

    Get back to us with a diatribe about Dolphin Square and Iraq and you may be taken seriously.

  276. heedtracker says:

    yabadabadoo says:
    15 May, 2015 at 11:41 pm
    James

    Dont be put off by the SNP clones on here. Most only have one directional thinking – SNP GOOD, which is just as dumb as SNP BAD.

    If Scotland had voted YES last year and Nic Sturgeon was now Scotland’s Prime Minister, I’d be one happy Scot. As we didn’t, we still have to ask England for their permission but this is NOT going to last for much longer.

    Got that, dickhead.

  277. Robert Peffers says:

    @Fiona says: 15 May, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    “I think it is unfortunate that people have seen the discussion in terms of trying to shut someone up.”

    It wasn’t a case of shutting the guy up because he was a troll, nor even because he held a different view but because, in spite of being shown how daft his views opinions, logic and statements were he remained implacable.

    His attitude, or so it seemed to me, was that democratically elected governments had no right to interfere in people’s lives, and even more damning, that no matter how abusive the parent was, they had God Given right to treat their offspring in any manner they saw fit without intervention.

    No one owns a child – the child though, until adulthood, owns the parents. By that I mean modern parents have the choice whether to become parents but the child has no say in the matter. The parent has a duty to the child but a child no duty to the parent unless the child is loved and nurtured, (and that only means to return love and respect).

    My late wife was a nurse, my step-son had a high profile job as an industrial chemist and gave up to become a senior social worker. My grand daughter had planned to become a surgeon but, after her graduation, couldn’t stomach the blood & guts. She is now training in nursing. We were always a caring family. We all
    have done volunteer work, (even the wee dog is a Therapet).

  278. Robert Peffers says:

    @yabadabadoo says: 15 May, 2015 at 11:41 pm:

    ” … Dont be put off by the SNP clones on here. Most only have one directional thinking – SNP GOOD, which is just as dumb as SNP BAD.

    ” … and a cry of PISH! rang out in the gathering”

  279. K1 says:

    Aype, a long and very informative thread…thanks especially to Fiona, insightful, eloquent, and at times: passionate, (yeah that post to manandboy; I’m prone maself to impassioned outburst 🙂 )I liked that manandboy gracefully accepted the point you were making and reviewed his position whilst expanding on his own context without rancour. I liked that exchange, it had respect and more than a touch of humility was displayed by both of you. Good to see.

  280. Fiona says:

    I am wondering why anyone would choose to hang out with clones. Unless it is a highly developed interest in cutting edge science: but you would think that “Nature” or “Scientific American” would meet that interest better

  281. X_Sticks says:

    @Aceldo Atthis

    I’m more of a trogldytes troglodytes myself. I do however have a bit of aquila chrysaetos in me when required.

    I question people who appear on Wings with what appears to be a smartass name and then tries to live up to it. You will have to be around here for a while to gain any trust or respect from me. Currently I am skeptical about your motives.

    @Jamie

    Having been an anarchist since the late 60’s you won’t find many who are more against any state or government intervention in anyone’s lives than me. I hate bureaucracy or authoratarianism with a vengeance. I am comfortable with the proposals from the Scottish government for GiRFEC. I don’t think there is any sinister intent.

    Your intentions might be good. I remain to be convinced. Dissent will be tolerated on Wings providing it is intelligent. I’ve lost arguments on here, most of us have. Most of us are smart enough to realise when we’ve lost and humble enough to reflect on sound reasoning and alter our views accordingly. Are you adaptable? Then you might become a Winger.

  282. K1 says:

    That was meant to say Ayep. Think I’m still exhausted from last week…gotta chuck ‘New Scientist’ in there too Fiona 😉

  283. X_Sticks says:

    yabadabadoodoo

    There, that’s better.

  284. yabadabadoo says:

    Scottie dog

    Your right.

    Need to get ride of the city of london banker fraud and bring back the creation of credit by the people.

    That is what the american credit system did and it produced the most productive country the world had ever seen.

    look up “bradbury notes” these were the notes printed by the UK government at the start of ww1.

    Why is it the SNP policy to KEEP the bank of england and the city of london banker scam?

    AS and NS, how can you have independence when private people can control your money supply??

    I wont hold my breath for a answer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKMrX97E_M

  285. Robert Peffers says:

    @dakk says: 15 May, 2015 at 11:44 pm:

    ” … In the meantime anything people feel passionate about is fair game”

    There’s all the difference in the World, Dakk, between blind, implacable, unreasoned, bull-headed assertions and intelligent and reasoned and logical debate.

    No one side can ever be convinced by the other in the first but either someone proves their argument in the second instance or both sides compromise if the matter boils down to no one correct conclusion and thus is just a matter of differing opinions.

    I leave it to yourself to decide which category the whole episode above fall into.

  286. Tinto Chiel says:

    Re Chuka Umunna.

    Speculation tonight tabloids were about to reveal devastating exposé:
    1. He had a cache of Proclaimers CDs in his WM office

    2. There was a MacSween’s haggis behind the yoghurts in his fridge.

    3. His partner’s granny’s from Dunoon.

    Nae wunner, eh?

  287. Robert Peffers says:

    @Fiona says: 16 May, 2015 at 12:36 am:

    “I am wondering why anyone would choose to hang out with clones. Unless it is a highly developed interest in cutting edge science: but you would think that “Nature” or “Scientific American” would meet that interest better.

    Ow! Just as well I’d finished my tea and late night toast before reading that, Fiona.

    Usually by this time of a morning my own lightning riposte has gone to sleep before I have. I’m off to bed now still chuckling.

  288. Paula Rose says:

    Can we get back to kittens now?

  289. yabadabadoo says:

    dakk

    I want an independent scotland. However what the SNP clones dont get is that the SNP is an out and out UNIONIST party.That political union is with Brussels.

    Good points you made regarding westminster.

    Why has NS not stated what the 56 mps are going to do about paedophils? What are they going to do? not hear a word….or did i miss that debate?

    I also have not hear a word on foreign policy except the controller Angus Roberson stating that Russian had invaded Ukraine when debating trident. Where on earth does he get his briefs from. Does he not know he is defaming one of the major nuclear power world powers needlessly. It wont have gone unnoticed.
    What exactly is the snp foreign policy on anything ….. not a word in any debate at any time during election but now we have 56 mp in westminster during a potential hot war in ukraine…. whos understanding of foreign policy ends at the tweed.

  290. dakk says:

    Robert

    Agree with what you say,but what I was really trying to say is we’re likely going to have a few quiet news days, so expect more of this,or an awkward silence.

    Maybe I’m just missing the heat of battle a wee bit.

  291. Paula Rose says:

    @ X_Sticky – all these years and I never realised xxx

  292. osakisushi says:

    There have been more than a few comments decrying posters for their beliefs.
    If those making comments stop for a moment and consider where they’ve got their information from (MSM?) perhaps a few tentative apologies are in order.

    Hey, I was thinking tonight – what if I’d used my life savings to move to Northern Ireland and a Referendum was called to unite with The South. How would I vote?

    Did I really want to move to a foreign country…

    I – personally – think the guy Jamie has been poorly influenced by a solid sounding argument but what if he’s right?

  293. Paula Rose says:

    @ Fiona – xxx

  294. Michael McCabe says:

    @ Yabadabadoo Where does Angus Robertson get his Briefs from. Being a Scotsman I don’t think he wears any under his kilt. mind you I don’t know what his clone wears either. I have heard he Sharpens his balls on a Flint Stone

  295. Paula Rose says:

    Actually I would have preferred attitudes about cats – I didn’t pay for polls about sporty stuff.

  296. manandboy says:

    I’m a believer in unity in diversity. So many different people. Such an endless variety of ideas from a great wealth of experience. Some appear to oppose but this is an illusion, for together they form an orchestra of opinion which presents a symphony of hope and aspiration. From this is born the stuff from which nations are created and it flies on Wings over Scotland.

  297. Fiona says:

    That is quite poetic, mandandboy 🙂

  298. Grizzle McPuss says:

    @yabadabadoo 1:01 am

    “Angus Roberson stating that Russian had invaded Ukraine when debating trident. Where on earth does he get his briefs from”

    Geezo, lower the tone why don’t you.

    But if it’s any concern to you, if Angus has any sense then he’ll go to Marks & Spencer’s…you can always trust their elastic

  299. James123 says:

    @osakisushi

    Hey, I was thinking tonight – what if I’d used my life savings to move to Northern Ireland and a Referendum was called to unite with The South. How would I vote?

    Did I really want to move to a foreign country…

    What if you moved to Northern Ireland then everyone living there was ordered to board a giant spaceship and move to Mars. What would you do? Did you really want to live on another planet? My advice would be to go, once you get there first thing you should do is take in a huge gulp of sweet Martian air while planting a Union flag in the name of good old Blighty.

  300. Dumb Unicorn says:

    On the topic of FFA and the meeting at Bute House today.

    At about 07:10 on 19th September I had a terrible moment of epiphany. When I heard David Cameron twist the result to his own political agenda, I realised that if we had won the referendum, the UK Government would have absolutely shafted Scotland.

    In the last fortnight before the referendum it had become undeniable that the ‘establishment’ and its pet media were hell bent on getting the result they wanted. If they had been beaten I have no doubt there would have been hell to pay.

    The spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement would have meant absolutely nothing. I genuinely believe that they would have done their damnedest to make sure that Scotland failed and there would have been very little we could do about it.

    The audits on Scotland’s share of the assets and liabilities of the UK would have been rigged, the currency issue dragged out as long as possible, strings would have been pulled to make sure Scotland became a global pariah. The Scot-bashing in the media would have been relentless (we’ve seen in recent weeks what they can do) and Scottish businesses would have suffered – ‘Buy British’ would have had a whole new meaning.

    So… my thoughts on FFA (or something similar) is that it could be a means for Scotland to do the groundwork for the splitting of assets and liabilities, from within the safety of the UK Government and in the full glare of Westminster, because everyone, across all parties, would have to agree the figures.

    The UK government would be forced to open the books, they would have to quantify and justify exactly how much Scotland needs to contribute to Defence, national projects like HS2, etc., how much revenue Scotland actually brings in (from all sources), how much of the debt we take, what our share of the assets is etc. etc. I know that in theory they already do quantify these things, but much of it is hidden/lumped together in what the public see. To me, bringing it out in the open is a win-win situation.

    If the UK tries to overstate Scotland’s contribution and/or denies us a fair share of the assets then it will become obvious to people in Scotland that we would be better off on our own sooner rather than later.

    If they try to keep Scotland sweet and are more ‘generous’, then people in Scotland would feel more confident that they have the means to go it alone (and the UK would have to continue to honour that generosity in the event of Independence).

    If they divvy things up exactly fairly then I suspect Scotland would still feel better off than they do now (and besides, most people like things to be fair).

    If Independence happens further down the road, we would already know what we can expect to leave the union with, and what we will no longer have to pay for. And it would be based on real figures which the UK government would have to stick to.

    I am certainly no expert in politics, or economics, but my personal view is that despite not having the voting power in Westminster we would like, there are a couple of key things which the 56 SNP MPs can do over the next 5 (or less) years:

    Firstly they can start to lay the foundations of an Independent Scotland by opening up the UK finances to proper scrutiny so that the splitting of assets and liabilities would be a foregone conclusion. They can use FFA (or similar) to ask the awkward questions that Labour would never ask, about where the money comes from and where it goes.

    Secondly, and this may be harder… they need to win over the people in rUK so that the media loses some of its impact. If they can keep their noses clean and be the principled voices of reason amongst the jeering and point scoring of the Tory/Labour yo-yo machine (there’s a handy space left by the Lib Dems – it’s been there since 2010) then rUK people may find the SNP talks sense (look at the impact Nicola Sturgeon made during the debates). It’s then harder for the media to portray them as lunatic fringe ‘nationalists’ (I hate that word!) causing chaos and stirring up trouble. Parliament is all recorded now so they can let their appearances, their questions, their voting records and their expenses claims speak for themselves. The media can and will still twist things to their own ends, but the less ammunition they have the better.

    FFA, and most of the other policies on the SNP agenda, may never come to fruition, but in asking for them, we may get something more useful.

  301. dakk says:

    Yabbadabbadoo

    SNP foreign policy has been expressed,no military action without UN agreement and criticism of ‘impardonable follies’ such as bombing civilian targets in Serbia.In short, no warmongering.

    Regarding the Dolphin Sq scandal I doubt any SNP MPs will be invited onto the establishment Enquiry/Coverup.

    I would discuss more but am working tomorrow so must say goodnight to you and all.

  302. Al-Stuart says:

    Off Topic, but has everyone had a chance to support Jim Murphy by signing the petition to keep him as branch manager of the tribal office in Scotland…

    https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/scots-against-the-resignation-of-jim-murphy

  303. Paula Rose says:

    How can the UK be taken seriously if it does not kill women and children indiscriminately?

  304. call me dave says:

    Guardian: Severin Carrell.

    https://archive.is/vKWC3

  305. Stoker says:

    Dumb Unicorn wrote:
    “On the topic of FFA and the meeting at Bute House today.”

    The “meeting” at Bute House? It lasted no more than 1 hour.
    It would have taken him longer to get here and barely enough
    time for a cuppa never mind a chat.
    They’re extracting the urine, big time.

  306. K1 says:

    Aye Stoker, it’s all pr from Cameron, this is them putin’ on a show, acting reasonable, operative word being ‘acting’. He’s no much good at that either.

    I suspect he’s been ‘directed’ to quell the fires after the result, to appear to be acting in ‘good faith’ and buy some time. Whilst off camera the real negotiations between the upper echelons in the British State are trying to find a way to prevent the true scale of what’s happened becoming too obvious to the dumbed down polity of England.

    As the constitutional ‘expert’ Robert Hazel overtly stated on the 8th May outside Westminster Palace: “The union is hanging in the balance”. Interesting that they aren’t showing this interview looped over and over again since the vote.

    They are attempting to subvert the narrative with these ‘pretendy’ meetings. By doing so they give the likes of Severin Caroll and all the other rags, their daily spin.

    For that is all these ‘journalists’ are really employed to do now.

    Do not believe anything we read about anything they write. I would go so far as suggesting we take ‘vows of abstinence’ on all reporting from the main stream media outlets. But that, I know is impossible. Nevertheless, it’s crucial not to get sucked in to their narrative. They are attempting to ‘sow the seeds of doubt’ and lessen the SNP’s ‘genuine’ powerful hand by altering public ‘perception’, and by so doing, undermining the true scale and truth of the reality of the situation.

    If they respond too quickly the game is up. This ‘show’ is for their own supporters benefit. They have the ‘tricky’ time ahead, not us. We’ll diplomatically allow them to ‘lose face’. I doubt, when England awakens to the stark reality of who it is they have allowed themselves to be represented by, will show them any such mercy.

  307. Clootie says:

    Paula Rose says:
    16 May, 2015 at 2:13 am
    How can the UK be taken seriously if it does not kill women and children indiscriminately?

    Paula – Sadly that is the simple truth with all the frills and bullshit stepped away.

  308. Ken500 says:

    Even if Scotland had vote YES, these discussion would have had to have taken place, with a stronger Scottish position. We are where we are in a good position. Scotland gets what it raises in tax revenues (including it’s geographical share of the Oil revenues). It just doesn’t get the chance to decide how to spend it or the chance to grow more prosperous by changing it’s economic policies. That is what Nicola is discussing. If there is no change in the Westminster position soon, Cameron knows we can go for another Referendum.

    Meanwhile we can keep campaigning to get every Unionist politician out of power in Scotland. Until a new political reality transforms Scotland, There is much to do and Scottish negotiators are in a strong position and trusted by the people. They are well aware with what they are dealing with and the political landscape. They can still act to protect Scotland from policies people in Scotland did not vote and put another Referendum in a manifesto to keep the Unionist politicians on their toes. There is much to do.

    Scotland is in good hands with excellent elected representative for a change. They will do their best for Scotland to make it’s voice heard. All the relevant documents and research will be available for the first time and not swept under the carpet. The Scottish politicians know what they have to do and so do the campaigners. Nicola is as sharp and bright as a button on her immaculate outfits. A smartie. There is still much to do. Forty years of neglect can’t be changed in four years but it’s a start. The resolution is coming. Cameron will scare no one. It is not a good political strategy to lie and scare the elderly, for obvious reasons. There is a new generation born every minute, who will not be cheated of their future. Let’s get to it.

  309. john king says:

    Ian Brotherhood says @8.19pm
    “It’s all getting a bit Norsey-redux in here, eh?”

    You smell it too?
    someone open a window in here,
    it dont alf pen and ink.
    _____________________________________________________________
    The Italian Job says @ 10.09
    “@Ian Brotherhood

    My fab election moment.

    Mhairi Black’s acceptance speech when she told Dougie Alexander she “hopes he will continue in politics when he gets over the shock of me defeating him tonight” (or words to that affect).

    Brill. :)”

    Its got to be said, that was THE most satisfying moment of the night, translation being “get it right up, right roond, and back doon ye”. sweet 🙂
    ________________________________________________________________
    Democracy reborn @10.16
    “The punchline is that Danny Boy is too focussed “battling the SNP in Scotland.”

    He’s probably too busy dodging the bayonets. 🙂
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Op1zjd7KKE
    ______________________________________________________
    Yabadabadont says @11.41
    It would seem I’ve been beaten to it, oh what the hell.

    “Dont be put off by the SNP clones on here. Most only have one directional thinking – SNP GOOD, which is just as dumb as SNP BAD.”

    First try getting the persons name right, second this site is all parties and none, it is not (not ever has been) exclusively SNP !
    ________________________________________________________
    Yabadabadidnt @who cares
    “AS and NS, how can you have independence when private people can control your money supply??

    I wont hold my breath for a answer.”

    Heres your answer
    If Salmond had gone to the country with a suggestion that we’re going to take away the one thing you’ve always had and replace it with something entirely new and untested (no matter the advisability of that course of action, I think we all know that that) how much of the 45% vote we got would we have got following that line of reasoning?
    Its called real politic Yogi (or is it boo boo) , look it up.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Tinto Chiel @12.59
    “Re Chuka Umunna.

    Speculation tonight tabloids were about to reveal devastating exposé:
    1. He had a cache of Proclaimers CDs in his WM office

    2. There was a MacSween’s haggis behind the yoghurts in his fridge.

    3. His partner’s granny’s from Dunoon.

    Nae wunner, eh?”

    Eh…hhmmpphh
    sorry Paula Rose was trying to put duct tape over my gob, now where was I…..Dunoon eh?

  310. Ken500 says:

    The Guardian website is pathetic. It crashes all the time. Bit like Crash Gordon, Darling and their side kick the Scottish correspondent. Disappeared over the horizon, how could they get it so wrong. All for the sake of lining their pockets with blinkers on. No conviction between them. Illegal wars, tax evasion, banking fraud, sanctioning and killing the vulnerable. Most of Westminster should be in jail. They have no shame.

    The Guardian the only paper of any Independence of editorial in the UK. (It’s protected Constitution) Attacked and threatened illegally by Cameron and Clegg’s State stormtroopers for telling the truth about what Westminster were doing illegally. In order to silence the Editor and staff. M15 must have sabotaged and infiltrated their website, it just keeps crashing. The Scottish correspondent who should be investigating is already compromised. Contaminated.

    So much for freedom of the Press in Britain. The MSM is right wing in Britain. Thatcher made sure of that. Giving a 40% share to Murdoch (secretly and illegally) for support. Thatcher denied it at the time but documents proved it was right. Right wing tax evading (foreign) non doms control the UK Press. Murdoch was bribing Public officials and he should be in jail, but just gets away. Without a free and balanced Press there is no democracy.

  311. john king says:

    Oh just realized, the guy who said yabadabadoo was Fred Flintstone, not Yogi Bear, but that makes it even more appropriate, a man living in the stone age. 🙂

  312. Ken500 says:

    The SNP could change their title to be more representative and move with the times. The Scottish Social Democrats or the Scottish Social Democratic Party. It has been considered before but the Scottish National Party title has been retained. Out of loyalty? Commentators always say the ‘Nationalist Party’ instead of ‘National Party’. Sometimes deliberately to smear. Perhaps there should be another vote on it. It could be raised. It could be expensive to change all the livery, but worth it. They could afford it now. A fresh start.

  313. Ken500 says:

    Who wants Douglas Alexander to continue in politics? Very few. People left the Labour Party because of him. The best moment was realising he was gone. There was a new kid in town. Mharie from the block. Along with Alex from the Broch. There were so many great moments. Making history. A change of tide. The tarnished order swept away. The tide went out and there was an unbelievable sea change. A tsunami right enough.

    Seeing the look on the visagesnof Messrs Marr, Dimbeby and Neil as the Scottish results came in, was worth every moment. Trying to hold their noses. Looks like Cameron is coming after them. Privatise, privatise. See how they like it.

  314. Macart says:

    Was off reservation all of yesterday, thank crunchy for the morning John King summary. 😀

    Yeah, Mhairi’s speech was my stand out moment too. Prior to election day I was utterly convinced thirty to forty seats. When Labour’s ‘Portillo moment’ came? All the rules went oot the windae. 🙂

  315. sensibledave says:

    @ Robert Peffers 7.55pm

    You wrote: “The Scottish Government will not be holding another referendum until the sovereign people of Scotland demand it”. Got that?

    I wrote “So until there is another referendum and a Yes vote – this is the reality the rest of us have to work with (all except you in your hole in the ground).

    So if you actually read what I wrote Robert, you wouldn’t keep arriving at a false premise. The sub thread was about Sturgeon and Cameron meeting – what might be achieved, what might be offered and what are Ms Sturgeon’s goals at the moment given the “The Scottish Government will not be holding another referendum…” starting point.

    I originally wrote: “But, within the context of the huge win by the SNP in the GE and the “No” in the referendum – it is incumbent upon Cameron and Sturgeon to try and find a way forward. So shouldn’t both sides be cheering them on?”
    Which part of that do you have a problem with Robert?

    You wrote: Do you understand the meaning of the terms, “Legal”, and, “sovereign”. Perhaps you may care to show the point in history when the sovereign people of Scotland legally gave away their sovereignty under Scottish law?

    Robert, I have conceded a number of times to you that I do not know about the last 300 years history (other than watching the odd film!). More importantly, I don’t think it is particularly relevant to where we are now – or how we move forward.

    If Ms Sturgeon and Mr Cameron agree some new arrangement in the relationship between Scotland and the Union, then, whatever that is, will happen. Again, which part of that do you have a problem with?

  316. gerry parker says:

    @Ken500 .

    Call it “The Northern Alliance” and initially return the border to Hadrians wall?

    Most of them Dan Sath think of that as being the border anyway, and I’m sure a lot of Northumbrians would welcome the chance to have an alternative.

  317. Tinto Chiel says:

    @john king.

    Morning, john.

    Sorry if you’ve been a bit tied up. As regards the duct tape, the low-tack version reduces follicle damage on removal, I believe. Otherwise, plooks can result, causing a spot of bother.

  318. IAB says:

    Jamie

    I am in favour of the named person system.

    I worked in children’s homes in the ’70’s and there were dozens of young children who languished in these places because the parents would not authorise adoption. The children had all been removed for good reason and deserved families. Contact from the parents was fleeting or absent. The situation depressed me to the point I left the profession.

  319. Jamie says:

    If I understand correctly, people support named person but oppose GIRFEC. So should GIRFEC be scrapped?

  320. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ken500 says: 16 May, 2015 at 7:16 am:

    “The Guardian website is pathetic.”

    Don’t know about that, Ken500, but their comments section is pure comedy gold. It explains the paper’s political stance – it is catering for totally uninformed, out and out, loonies and so employs loonies as writers.

    Just back from a wee visit there and the views expressed were so funny.

  321. Ken500 says:

    The Guardian site keeps crashing, especially on a tablet, even with links. They changed the layout. Locked out business. The Technology is rubbish. Along with half the commentators but that is a different subject. A low readership, especially in Scotland, limited influence, no wonder. Comedy Gold right enough. Only good for a laugh. Out of touch and out of mind. Off their heids.

  322. Ken500 says:

    Jamie Ross. Young Tories. What they know. Off their heids. Wee nuisances. Dangerous with it, though.

    Rev Stu should employ a gate keeper. Double lock. To keep the Site safe so it doesn’t become contaminated. It is too precious. It could be crowdfunded.

  323. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ken500 says: 16 May, 2015 at 7:32 am:

    “The SNP could change their title to be more representative and move with the times.”

    Why ever would they want to do that, Ken500?

    It is not good policy to interrupt your enemy when they are making mistakes and just like Cameron’s abuse of the terms, “Britain”, when he means, “The UK”, or “Country”, when he means, “United Kingdom”, it leaves him open to be pulled up and proven to be wrong.

    The simple act of interrupting him to ask, “Which country is that Mr Cameron, there are four of them in the UK”, wrong foots him. If he refers to the Nationalist Party then ask him which one he means, is it the British or English nationalists or perhaps the United Kingdom Nationalists he means.

    National and Nationalist have different dictionary definitions. The misuse of either term is misleading the listener. This is just another form of Unionist propaganda and so common as to have the supporters of independence using the wrong terms themselves – as a read through WoS will prove.

    Our teaching of history is littered with such propaganda. For example there was no Union Of The Crowns in 1603. There could not be a Jacobite rebellion as the deposition of the Monarch of the independent Kingdom of England could not also depose the monarch of the still independent Kingdom of Scotland.

    This propaganda has gone on since ever there was recorded history of the British archipelago.

  324. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ken500 says: 16 May, 2015 at 11:17 am:

    “Jamie Ross. Young Tories. What they know. Off their heids. Wee nuisances. Dangerous with it, though.

    Rev Stu should employ a gate keeper. Double lock. To keep the Site safe so it doesn’t become contaminated. It is too precious. It could be crowdfunded.

    Nah! We are not daft on this forum and most can detect a Troll in less than a paragraph. There is a big difference between a troll, a person with different views and a person coming here to engage in debate who opposes the majority of posters.

    Ignore the Troll, debate with those with different views and give limited room to attackers. If they prove not able to debate ignore them.

  325. wee e says:

    It’s a pity having councils & housing associations lumped toether in right-to buy. Council houses are built with everyone’s taxes, and there’s an argument to be made about recouping some of the money or giving folk a house at a discount where they have actually more than paid for it over many years renting. But housing associations belong to their members: it can’t be right to force them to sell, and especially not sell at a discount. Every housing association should be able to have its own rules made by its own members.

  326. Fiona says:

    @wee e

    Can’t agree.

    Council houses belonged to us all and I can see absolutely no justification for handing them over to individuals as private property. It damages those who buy in so many ways (eg.overcrowding; repairs not done), yet is presented as being of benefit to them. It damages the whole community because it reduces the housing options for the young and those without enough to buy on the open market, and are not sitting tenants. It increases the price of houses, because those sold are not replaced, and indeed cannot be replaced. It means that the private letting sector is subsidised to a greater extent than the council tenant ( if you believe they were subsidised: I don’t). It therefore leads to increased indebtedness for everyone bar the very rich and the landlords.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with renting long term, as is common in Europe. That is not where the problem lies: the problem actually lies in the fact that there is no other source of security for ordinary people: and that is by design. Attitudes to housing are manipulated for the benefit of the rentier class; and this distorts the whole economy.

    What is true for housing associations is exactly the same for councils. I do not accept the distinction you seek to establish

  327. Maureen says:

    Thank you to the folk who kindly explained to me how the figures were calculated away up at the top.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top