The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

A great day for child abusers

Posted on July 28, 2016 by

Well done to everyone concerned. Paedophiles and the Daily Mail will be partying hard tonight. Although as it later transpired, only for a while. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Named Persons legislation needed a small tweak on data-protection grounds which will most likely delay it for a few months, condemning more children to needless suffering, its core aims in fact WERE lawful.

(It remains to be seen how much the restrictions on information-sharing will hamper the successful operation of the scheme.)

This won’t stop the campaign against it, however, so there’s still hope for those who want to batter toddlers to death without interference from the pesky nanny state.

We’d say more, but just read this again.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 28 07 16 10:56

    A great day for child abusers | speymouth

328 to “A great day for child abusers”

  1. Malky says:

    No price too high to put the SNP down.

  2. alba says:

    So does this then mean that the UK supreme court is def the highest legal authority in Scotland ie scots law subservient?

  3. Calgacus says:

    The “Supreme Court” can fuck off and yes that is contempt

  4. Skip_NC says:

    So, let me get this right. Three judges from another country, along with two expats can overrule learned judges who live and work in Scotland? That’s nuts.

  5. Habib Steele says:

    Is not the Sureme Court hearing this case contrary to the Treaty & Act of Union?

    I do not agree with the Named Person scheme. If the various persons who have already some authority in the lives of children (teachers, health visitors, social workers etc.) deal with, or/and report any concerns that they have, to the appropriate authorities, then the Named person Act is unnecessary. A number of items in the Act trouble me, in particular, one person, the NP, having authority concentrated in her/him to decide whether or not to involve the parents should a matter of concern arise.

  6. Hamish100 says:

    Cant quite see who were the Judges.

    Can they be identified?

  7. Vestas says:

    No surprise here that “Christian” organisations were behind this (Christian Institute, Care, Tyme Trust and the Family Education Trust).

    After all their “Church” is responsible (and continues to be responsible) for the vast majority of non-familial child rapes.

    There should be an appeal against the decision to the EU by ScotGov ASAP.

  8. Norman Ross says:

    Though my understanding of it, is that it’s been blocked on technical grounds (how it’s been implemented – too much irrelevant data sharing) – they didn’t strike it down on basis of principle though. So the religous fundamentalist and anti-vaxxer nutjobs might yet find it a rather bitter sweet victory.

  9. Willie John says:

    Sod the Supreme Court, lets take this to the ECHR. (Never could understand how a Scottish court, administrating Scottish law, could be overruled by what is to all intents and purposes an English court.)

  10. One_Scot says:

    England ‘take back control’ from Europe so that they can have more control over Scotland.

    Don’t you just love being part of this ‘special’ union. Better Together, I don’t think so.

  11. Bill says:

    Another material change.

  12. Philip Dixon says:

    I think I’d need a flowchart and three coloured highlighters to follow that judgement properly, but as far as I can tell it just needs a tweak to the data protection elements. I’m not convinced this is as bad as you think.

  13. mike cassidy says:


    setting aside the irony of the Tories agreeing with the European Court Of Human Rights

    what aspects of information sharing in the proposed legislation are not devolved?

  14. Another Union Dividend says:

    The Supreme Court decision is yet another reason for Independence.

    Its ruling stated the aim of the Act is “unquestionably legitimate and benign”, but said specific proposals about information-sharing “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

    So much for the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

  15. Davy says:

    Nice ! to see the Scottish governments forward thinking being put in its place by another country’s law-makers.

    get us to fuck out of this union.

  16. louis.b.argyll says:

    The hypocrisy of paranoia from the right of our political sphere is a joke.

    Surely the right not to be abused or murdered by one’s own family, trumps the right of a dodgy family to it’s privacy.

  17. heedtracker says:

    Habib Steele says:
    28 July, 2016 at 10:17 am
    Is not the Sureme Court hearing this case contrary to the Treaty & Act of Union?

    I do not agree with the Named Person scheme. If the various persons who have already some authority in the lives of children (teachers, health visitors, social workers etc.) deal with, or/and report any concerns that they have, to the appropriate authorities, then the Named person Act is unnecessary. A number of items in the Act trouble me, in particular, one person, the NP, having authority concentrated in her/him to decide whether or not to involve the parents should a matter of concern arise.”

    Social workers in particular appear to make decisions that do not involve parents, all the time. This authority concentration in stuff is bullshit.

    Also, outfits like the Daily Heil makes money looking at little girls in their underpants. UKOK life doesn’t get much creepier than in their media.

  18. Capella says:

    Reposting this here. Here are the biographies of the Supreme court judges. There are two who are Scottish apparently.

    Also, in the FAQ section it asks if the Supreme court can over rule the UK Parliament and the Devolved Parliaments. I would say that they have acted outwith their powers here.

    Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament?

    No. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is the Court’s role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy.

    Can the UKSC overrule Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in other parts of the UK?

    The UKSC can hear ‘devolution issues’, which include questions about whether a Bill or Act of Parliament, or any provision of a Bill or Act of Parliament, is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, a question whether an Order in Council, Assembly Measure, Act of the Assembly or Bill is within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly can also be referred to the UKSC.

  19. Duncan Lundie says:

    The BBC’s report is a load of guff. The Supreme Court decided that the information-sharing provisions of the legislation were in breach of EU law, and have given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify ONLY THAT PART of the legislation. The rest is sensationalist nonsense.

  20. Scott Borthwick says:

    When the dust settles, it will be noted that the Supreme Court has not torpedoed the legislation, the aims of which it described in its judgment as “unquestionably legitimate and benign”. I suspect it will be less effective with the information sharing provisions being watered down or removed. However, I believe that the institutions behind the legal challenge have questionable motives and have used questionable methods to secure this judgment, including misrepresenting the intent and likely application of the legislation.

    It is somewhat ironic that the Scottish Government is bound by the decision of an institution applying the principles of the ECHR when England is going hell for leather trying to wriggle out of human rights obligations to its subjects.

  21. From now on if child suffers or dies from abuse.

    Then all of those including Tory Liz Smith who are against
    the named person act must be publicly held to account for opposing legislation which may have helped prevent a child from being abused in the first place.

  22. bill says:

    Unbelievable, blocked due to EU Human Rights for data sharing by a country that voted to leave EU.
    Howeverthe. judges deemed it lawful and benign. SG to find a more secure way of data sharing.

  23. heedtracker says:

    Straight in with the great and exciting Guardian Scotland section news. How hard are the teamGB media going to work this

    “But the supreme court challenge was brought by the NO2NP campaign, a coalition which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education) and the Family Education Trust.”

    More details soon …

  24. Ellie Mack says:

    I think everyone needs to calm down.

    Leaving aside whether we agree with the “Supreme” Courts right to hear the case – and as it happens I don’t think it has that right but we all already know the only solution for that – then looking at what they appear to have said they have not actually thrown out Named Person at all, they have reflected what a lot of us already feel, that the legislation as it stands is simply not good enough and they have given the Scottish government an opportunity to amend the legislation to make it completely compliant with Human Rights Legislation.

    I have only skimmed the Judgement but a couple of phrases stood out, firstly the judgement affirms that Named Person is a legitimate and benign process HOWEVER the problems are not with the principle of the act but the structure of the legislation itself.

    John Swinney has confirmed they will improve the legislation and bring it forward as soon as possible so we are talking a delay, not abandonment.

    I have had issues with Named Person all along, not with the principle but because the legislation to me seemed poorly defined and open to abuse so while I don’t believe the judges had the right to make the judgement I don’t disagree with their conclusion.

    Legislation is NOT a magic spell, it has to be precise, it has to be unimpeachable. It must be fair, clear and above all workable, having read the previous legislation I can’t say that I thought it was any of that, however well intentioned it is.

    This is a chance to get the legislation RIGHT, which in this case is far more important than anything else. John Swinney is by far the best person to take this forward and I hope the new improved legislation will provide the best protection to children and families, which I hope is the primary concern of everyone.

  25. mike cassidy says:

    Info on supreme court here.

    This is the opening part of the PDF file about the right of the Supreme Court to hear Scottish Appeals.

    “The purpose of this document is to set out the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (‘the Supreme Court’) to hear appeals in Scottish cases, with a particular focus on two aspects of that jurisdiction: ? The Supreme Court’s power to hear civil and criminal cases in which human rights issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) arise. The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal in such matters (the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will only consider such cases when applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies in their own state). The changes to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, first, in Scottish criminal cases as a result of the Scotland Act 2012 (‘the 2012 Act’ which ensured that the High Court of Justiciary retained the power ultimately to resolve cases once the Supreme Court has determined the legal question at issue and, second, by the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 which introduced a requirement to obtain permission to appeal in civil cases”

    Ironically, the Holyrood government could appeal to the ECHR on this!

  26. galamcennalath says:

    Peter McCulloch says:

    “including Tory Liz Smith who are against
    the named person act must be publicly held to account for opposing legislation”

    I thought the Tories abstained and didn’t vote against it when it went through parliament.

    Speaking against AFTER allowing it to pass without any votes against, is just opportunist politicking. And, on a subject which should be beyond playing cheap political games.

  27. Ghillie says:

    John Swinney’s response, calm, measured, dignified and willing to accept guidance to improve the Named Person legislation was a delight to read.

    That is real statemanship.

    No matter how the BUM try to twist this.

  28. McHaggis69 says:

    Ok, here are a few points for those that really don’t understand –
    The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the UK for certain legal matters. It is NOT an English Court. Lord Hodge who sat is Scottish. Many judges who sit in the Supreme Court are Scottish. In some instances, Scots law usurps what has previously been applied in England (lookup woolway v Mazar for proof).
    Jeez, sometimes our own anti english chip gets the better of us. Its not an English Court over-ruling scots law.

  29. heedtracker says:

    Scott Borthwick says:
    28 July, 2016 at 10:36 am
    When the dust settles, it will be noted that the Supreme Court has not torpedoed the legislation,

    Its a huge political triumph over SNP, especially for the BBC Pacific Quay crew. It wouldn’t matter what the issue was, as long they can defeat SNP government. Such is Scottish democracy.

    Usual BBC attack propaganda, who or what exactly is the Christian Institute and why do the liggers think any info about them is irrelevant? Ruth Davidson will be getting ready for a whole day of BBC live cam stuff.

  30. Pentland Firth says:

    John Swinney doesn’t seem to be that bothered by the court’s verdict, so why should we?

    Amending legislation to comply with the Court’s ruling can be introduced and passed by the Scottish parliament within 42 days.

    The Tories and their friends in the media, however, will never be satisfied. We can be certain that their disgraceful fear mongering campaign will continue.

  31. liz says:

    I agree with the above, surely this is against the Treaty of Union.

    Scots law was always independent as part of the agreement to ToU

  32. Fireproofjim says:

    Apart from being a breach of the Treaty of Union, where all law is retained in Scotland, I note that the petitioners were an organisation called Christian Action Research and Education.
    Such an named organisation must immediately raise doubts, as a long history of child abuse can be laid at the door of Christian organisations such as the Christian Brothers, the Abbey School at Fort Augustus, and a host of individuals and religious institutions.
    Religion should have special place in the protection of children. They forfeited that right long ago.

  33. heedtracker says:

    McHaggis69 says:
    28 July, 2016 at 10:52 am
    Ok, here are a few points for those that really don’t understand –
    The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the UK for certain legal matters. It is NOT an English Court.

    Is that like how the Queen, the Commons and the Lords have total control over all the big stuff in their Scotland region but it is NOT the English Westminster?

  34. I think folk ought to calm down.

    The headline over the article on this site is very poor fare indeed. The independence movement has got to be more mature, and more considered, than some of the contributions here.

    I saw the head of Barnardos in Scotland on the BBC this morning, and he was less than convincing in his support for the legislation. It is no bad thing that the implications of this legislation are looked at again.

  35. Scott Borthwick says:

    Mike Cassidy. You are right, the Scottish Government could technically appeal to ECHR in Strasbourg. I doubt they will, though. The legislation has not been struck down, despite hysterical headlines suggesting just that.

    John Swinney’s response speaks volumes. I wonder if, by quietly complying with the Court’s judgment, he will effectively out maneuver the NO2NP shower. They are currently shouting to the heavens about their great victory. Should the SG come up with new provisions in the legislation that satisfy the court, NO2NP will have great difficulty in appealing a decision they ‘won’.

    I agree with Peter McCulloch. Liz Smith and her ilk should be considered responsible for every day that this legislation is delayed.

  36. Ali says:

    I’m an SNP member and I don’t like this law. Is that OK or is going against the party forbidden? If we believed that social services were always good, always right, always to be trusted maybe. But they aren’t – they are as arrogant as they are incompetent. Orkney abuse scandal Mk II anybody?

  37. ClanDonald says:

    So, wait, the Supreme Court can hear devolved issues but not UK Parliament issues? So it can decide on anything related to laws on health, education, policing etc in Scotland but not anything related to laws on health, education and policing in England as these are UK Parliament issues under EVEL?

    Did I get this right?

    Discrimination or what? So much for a union of equals.

  38. heedtracker says:

    Andrew Brophy says:
    28 July, 2016 at 11:05 am
    I think folk ought to calm down.

    Which folk do you mean though? Any reaction from YESers is irrelevant. Its all about yoon triumphalist stuff BBC style and UKOK muscle flexing. And who are the Christian Institute exactly?

    Victory! for Jesus.

  39. bill says:

    Andrew, the legislation is fine. It’s the data sharing protection that has to be tweaked.

  40. One_Scot says:

    Lol. ‘Jeez, sometimes our own anti english chip gets the better of us’

    Speak for yourself.

    ‘Jeez, sometimes my anti scotish chip gets the better of me’

    There fixed that for you.

  41. heedtracker says:

    Jesus Christ.


    In one devastating line from the judgment, the Supreme Court justices observed:

    “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.”

    The Christian Institute co-ordinated the successful legal action.

    Institute Director, Colin Hart, said the ruling was a “vindication” of what the Institute and others had been saying for years.


    Mr Hart said: “This is a devastating blow for the Scottish Government which sought to brush off all criticism of its Named Person scheme as ‘scaremongering’”.

    The Court stated that “within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way

  42. Bob Mack says:

    The ruling of the Supreme Court is what concerns me should we leave the EU. Remember who will be the last arbiter of Scottish sovereignty in the event that question is queried. The Supreme Court.

    The protestors have won their point,but not their case,in that they utilised EU Human Rights legislation Re data protection. Should the UK decide to leave the EU and suspend EU human rights law, then Scotland could not use this route in a Sovereignty dispute.

    Ultimately the Named Person WILL be applied and that is what really matters.

  43. Bill says:

    The NP would give a single point of contact for multi agency involvement. Currently each agency may not know of each others involvement unless a parent volunteered that information. It’s how many victims fall through the net.

  44. Bob Mack says:


    Scottish historical abuse scandal Mk2 anybody ? Remember? The one they have just appointed a new judge to lead. Sheesh.

  45. heedtracker says:

    Mr Hart very triumphant today but quick google and Mr Hart warns that EU debate could be “very damaging to religious liberty.” It’s nice having an invisible friend up in the sky.

  46. Bill says:

    Fuck Jesus! How’s that for calming down?

  47. Molly says:

    Curious , is the Christian action research and education the same one on wiki that states some of its people work for MPs ( in particular the Conservatives) and talks about far right groups?

    Ali like you don’t always agree with SNP policies (altho no objection to this one) but I do object to religious groups having over due influence on what effects my kids

    Especially when they are involved with political parties or have a large lobbying contingent.

    If this is the correct group mentioned, why is our media not informing the public who they are?

  48. ScottishPsyche says:

    By addressing these issues now the SG can hopefully be confident that after the implementation of the amended Act, procedures can go ahead without these groups bringing court cases at every juncture.

    Perhaps it is for the best. Had the Act gone ahead, many of these groups would have brought up spurious cases to bog down the courts for months.

    Hopefully the information sharing can be clarified to be at the very least that which is helpful to the child in question.

    The aim remains the same – to avoid the breakdowns in communication so often seen in multi-agency cases and to provide a contact point for children in need.

    Of course parents rights should be taken into account. However when the child cannot count on the parent(s)to do the right thing they must have an alternative route.

  49. Dan Huil says:

    England’s supreme court overrules Scotland.

  50. Elaine says:


    You are way off the mark here. I’m not anti SNP, I’ve campaigned for indy. I am absolutely against the NP scheme. You need to be aware what it means for families, not vulnerable at risk ones – they get lost as now they’re needles in the haystack – but any family. That’s the thing.

    It’s a nightmare – like arguing against an automated telephone system. Reality and sense is absolutely missing. The suspicion you can’t defend against because of the jargon and bullshit. If you try it ‘proves’ that you are deficient. It’s a nightmare. Being outnumbered by ‘titles’ and forced to meetings that disrupt your life and stress out the whole family – bad for the kids and ruins happy childhood years (that you can never get back). You’ve no power over your own family. They have it, and there’s nothing you can do.

    The scheme does that, that’s what it does. It does not help save kids in any way. I’m a parent of 4 – did you know that’s a risk factor? Never mind what else we have going for us, ‘form says no’. The more people ‘knowledge’ is passed between (mandatory), a false premise like that becomes ‘fact’. It’s so wrong. It biases every way they deal with you. Even if you disprove it every time you communicate, the checkbox is ticked to be read again by someone else. You’re trapped. It’s a nightmare.

    Possessing clarity of vision against insanity, if you experience it I think you’d immediately realise.

    It’s parents who are against it no matter their party preference. SNP activists are just reacting, using anger and derision as if those against NP are all motivated by ‘SNP bad’ or are raving ‘yoons’. Some are, obviously. But that’s a red herring. Truly, it’s a mistake. Their conclusion that anyone against the scheme is a callous child welfare opponent is sick. Ordinary parents – behind the political opportunism, that’s who is steadfastly against the scheme – do not think like that.

    It doesn’t happen often but on this one you aren’t right.

  51. David says:

    McHaggis69 said “Jeez, sometimes our own anti english chip gets the better of us.”

    McHaggis, we expect to be called “chippy Scots”, “sweaty socks”, “jocks”, “scroungers”, etc etc ad nauseam by our enemies.
    These phrases are purposefully demeaning, intended to be insulting, and to “other” us.

    There is no reason for you to do the work of the enemies of Scotland.

    I am not chippy. I am not anti-English. Apologise to me now.

    You may also wish to apologise to the rest of the population of Scotland. Your comment was not welcome.

  52. Martin Richmond says:

    I know it doesn’t suit the narrative of this site or its acolytes, but the reason this worthy legislation will be delayed, and that additional children may be harmed, is quite simple. It is due to poorly constructed legislation and the fault for that can lie nowhere but the Scottish Parliament and its Civil Servants.

  53. The Supreme Court ruled that the legislation be delayed for six weeks to allow modifications to information-sharing.
    Swinney is onto this already. The Court said that the legislation was”unquestionably legitimate and benign”.
    You will find none of this in the Herald who have even closed comments on the article.

  54. jimnarlene says:

    @ Martin Richmond,

    Your point is valid, but delivered dickishly.

  55. Bill says:

    Em, NP mass hysteria?

    NP will protect children who already have agency involvement. Please stop the hysteria that the state are going to spy on you.

  56. Breeks says:

    So war criminal Tony Blair’s Supreme Court, which by its own admission (AXA vs Lord Advocate 12th October 2011) cannot overrule the popular sovereignty of Scotland’s population, is now doing precisely that, by citing a shortcoming under European Human Rights Legislation, to undermine the parliament of Scotland’s democratically elected government, thus using European legislation, which the UK has population has elected to abandon by exiting Europe anyway, but who’s parliament has arbitrarily decided to postpone indefinitely?

    Somebody tell me again that the UK isn’t taking the piss.

    And while you’re there, tell me again, SNP has a plan, trust me, trust me, everything is under control, Nicola’s great isn’t she? Europe just loves us to bits. I haven’t heard it for a few hours, and people might be prone to wonder if anything has changed if we don’t have these constant and powerful reminders.

    I assume that the SNP will be declaring this decision void on the grounds that the Supreme Court is not competent to usurp the authority of Scotland’s democratically elected government? Or would that be considered by the SNP as just causing too much fuss and giving the press yet another field day?

    I wonder whether these pressmen are accomplished at a-shootin’ and a-fishin’ yet, like real country gents with all the field days they’ve been having lately.

    I’m getting angry now. Not with Unionists for being unionists, shitting on Scotland is their whole raison d’être, but wondering whether Brexit was our “turn back at Derby” watershed. We now have our Indyref 2 apparently conditional upon the triggering of Article 50, which cunning old Westminster is never going to trigger, which rather implies that down the line, we will need something bigger and more momentous than Brexit to happen, just to prompt Indyref 2. Hmmm. We might be in trouble. Off the top of my head, I’m not exactly sure what might constitute something bigger and badder than Brexit, and what kind of timescale such events crop up at all.

    I’ve now realised. Watching the SNP is like watching Andy Irvine playing rugby. Flourishes of brilliance interspersed with booming great drop kicks covering over half the pitch for length, and delivering the games initiative to the opposition. 51 caps and not one single conversion attempt that you would break from prayer to watch.

    So, back to the same old chestnut.,. Why do we need a parliament full of politicians to take back our Independence when it seems all we need, and have actually ever needed, is a half decent constitutional lawyer?

  57. @galamcennalath
    28 July, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Sorry galamcennalath, I was just checking I was being factually correct in what I said
    sorry I don’t have the links to the article

    Child named person plan “monstrous invasion”
    Scotsman Saturday 07 June 2014

    OPPONENTS of controversial plans to introduce a “state guardian” for every child in Scotland will step up their campaign with a major conference next week.

    MSPs, academics, social work experts and medics will gather in Edinburgh prior to a £30,000 court battle aimed at derailing the Scottish Government proposals.

    The conference speakers include journalist and author Allan Massie, Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, a GP and author, Tory MSP Liz Smith, Maggie Mellon, an independent social services consultant, as well as community paediatrician
    Dr Jennifer Cunningham

  58. bjsalba says:

    I agree that Social Services are good, but they are overworked and in these austere times, funding is a problem and will be for some time.

    The areas where the procedures were trialled experienced a reduction in the number of cases going to Social Services – because problems were caught early and action to remedy them taken.

    Surely that is to the good?

  59. Richard says:

    I am glad someone said it. I am pro-eu, pro-indy and would support most of The SNPs agenda. But not NP. Why does every child have to have a named person? Children at risk do clearly and they need all the resources focussed on them not diluted by having to monitor every single child. If you are worried about some slipping through the net, work on improving the identification process. As a teacher I am aware of my responsibility and the procedures for passing on care and welfare issues correctly. I am also aware that mistakes can be made by those outside the family which cause strain and stress to already struggling parents. Not something I am keen on to put it mildly.
    I can’t wait till we get independence so we can debate these issues properly without the water being muddied by whether judges are English or not.

  60. Legerwood says:

    It is the UK Supreme Court not the English Supreme Court.

    Secondly Scottish judges sit on it so that any cases coming before the Court from Scotland can be heard by judges with knowledge of Scot’s Law.

    None of that in this case it any other is particularly contentious. The real issue, and one highlighted by Mr Salmond a few years ago, is that cases heard in Scotland by the Highest Court in Scotland can be appealed to the Supreme court. That is not the case with cases heard in Nglish Appeal courts. Mr Salmond wanted the process changed so that Scittish Appeal courts were treated the same as England’s appeal courts. You can imagine the response he got.

    As to the groups involved in this there has been a very noticeable absence in the media of any information on their background. Some of the individuals involved seem to be involved in home schooling organisations.

    The verdict has by and large supported the legislation but pointed out minor changes that need to be made and that is in hand.

    Using emotive language and criticism of the Court in anti- terms merely hands the opposition ammunition and deflects attention from what is fundamentally an endorsement of the legislation.

  61. Bill says:

    I’m planning to protest the Edinburgh meeting, who’s joining me?

  62. Bill McLean says:

    If it is correct that the UK Supreme Court can interfere with Scot’s, Irish and Welsh law then, in our case, it is a breach of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland! How many more times are they going to ignore the Treaty before we say “Enough! We are off!”. Sometime soon please!

  63. Scott Borthwick says:


    The line about totalitarian regimes in the judgment was not made in reference to the Scottish Government, or indeed the intent of the legislation. Look upon this as an object example of the dishonesty of the press.

  64. gordoz says:

    Its way beyond SNPBad, its more like GTF Scotland from the Zoomer Yoon crack troops.

    Mon the Jockos

  65. Jamie says:

    Not right my comment was not posted, it was just as immature as your headline so should have been posted. But maybe that is just the totalitarian way????

  66. Jamie says:

    Elaine – I agree with you 100%.

  67. gordoz says:


    Think Mr Colliers assertions are coming apart somewhat.

    (See FM comment on twitter about P & J today)

    No media bias reporting ??

  68. Artyhetty says:

    Did we not get the measure of this legislation some time back? It is not the intrusive, nanny state ploy that it is being made out to be. We must protect vulnerable children and adults, far too many cases where people are not protected where they absolutely should be, in institutions, in the home sometimes etc.

    The NP can also be a way of ensuring that children are properly catered for in school should they have Special educational needs, too often there is a huge struggle to access the right support.

    I am sensing a new tactic among those who visit WoS with their pretendy touchy feely stance on independence, but but but you are all anti english attitude. Stop the patronising, belittling tactic whoever you are, commenters on here are very astute, know their stuff and have the measure of just exactly how the Westminster unionists and their branches in Scotland operate.

  69. BBC reporting that the Supreme Court BLOCKED it. Trust the BBC.

  70. Sinky says:

    At Elaine says:

    The Named Persons scheme is voluntary and parents are not forced to get involved but once there are serious problems with a child then other existing legislation takes effect and information can be shared ad nauseam.

    Also it should be remembered that Labour voted for the Named Persons Act and only starting opposing it when Kezia read the Daily Mail and Daily Express headlines in the run up to the Scottish Elections in May.

  71. heedtracker says:

    Sorry, wrong thread.

    heedtracker says:
    28 July, 2016 at 12:44 pm
    So much for centre left England and all its gory glory. Rancid The Graun btl aint what it used to be

    ID17071882 2h ago

    Ha haaa!

    Infidel007 2h ago

    SNPs “Big Brother” scheme hit for six, Justice prevails. This would have been the start of even more namby pampy Government.

    dourscot 2h ago

    The Scottish people 1, Big Brother 0

    beyondparody 2h ago

    Thank goodness for a bit of common sense. It would start as a benign project but would soon take on Orwellian Big Brother facets resulting in total State control. Surely the SNP would be better concentrating on improving the lot of children caught in abusive relationships and abject poverty.

    ID081276 2h ago

    Every child will now be assigned a specialist SNP activist.

    Elaine Nibloe 2h ago

    Herself will not be pleased.

    ID17071882 2h ago

    Thank goodness the courts have blocked these sinister plans from the SNP.

    gjjwatson 2h ago

    Well done. This was another attempt to dump an impossible responsibility on to public servants.
    Ministers in recent years have gotten into the habit of offloading responsibilities to others. There was once a time when ministers accepted responsibility for stuff that happened on their watch. With the growth of Media witch hunts however they pass the hot potato to those beneath them.

    tjhvaliants 2h ago

    I’m glad. It assumed parents were not capable and turned professionals into Gestapo figured who would have created a lot of antagonism within families.

    Trumbledon 2h ago

    I can’t believe the nerve of the SNP, how dare they pass illegal legislation in contravention of their human rights obligations? 🙁

    I H Pearson 2h ago

    Another ridiculous idea from the SNP.
    They range from the introduction of Gaelic road signs ( a mere £24 million) to Polis Scotland – a complete shambles at untold cost. Meanwhile child poverty in our cities is unchanged.

    missymooabu 2h ago

    I expect the most rabid separatists will see this as Westminster bullying us poor oppressed Scots – but surely this is another example of sturgeon’s ineptitude at governance.

    I accept that the snp are easily the most popular political party and won on a landslide – so no point in calling for another election – but sturgeon’s position must be looking shaky! After standing side by side with the tories on europe (which she emphatically denied she would ever do) to losing this case after endless advice, she has to accept she’s personally not up to the job.

    Hypatia01 2h ago

    Given that amateurs occupy the Regional Assembly, one is not really surprised that Commend Centre at Holyrood have tried to over extend themselves.

    Just a few cut n paste from Guardian comment section. Why Scots votes NO 2014 to be reigned over by our chums in the south etc…

    Its not just that there are so many centre left Guardian tory nutters, like the one calling for another Scottish election, its that they’re not any different from the whole BBC led UKOK hackdom in Scotland.

  72. Tam Jardine says:

    I presume everyone against NP is also against health visitors making checks on newborn babies- they come round to visit and have a cup of tea, checking the child is being looked after and is healthy.

    This is the same ‘state interference’ no2NP or whatever it is called is against.

    All this shite amazes me- as if they think guidance teachers and headteachers have the time or inclination to interfere in family life when all is well.

    The whole argument is a load of crap. Do they think the responsibility for keeping children safe is purely a responsibility for parents? Do they think before NP there was no state involvement or supervision? What are guidance teachers for? What are headteachers and social workers for? What are GPs for?

    If children’s charities are for it, teachers are for it and the Scottish government is for it I am happy with that. Ridiculous- media driven hysteria against sensible tweaks to current system.

    BBC reporting the scheme has been ‘dismissed’… wishful thinking.

  73. Dinnatouch says:

    Why do a pair of ‘Christian’ groups so strongly oppose protecting children?

  74. Ian Brotherhood says:

    When the hysteria has passed it’ll be interesting to hear Kezia Dugdale defend her shameful (and very well documented) role in sowing fear and confusion over this issue.

  75. G says:

    Ironic that the yoons want out of the ECHR.

  76. Takeour blueback says:

    @Elaine – The are some of us that see the NP exactly as it is intended, to provide a support network for Parents & Children and ensure that where possible children DO NOT escape through the net that is currently plaguing the Social Work processes (see previous numerous documented cases).

    With the introduction of NP, the same people and probably process failures will still be there, this does not help that part of the process. What it does is to give human beings somewhere to turn to if they need assistance, or to highlight concerns (by the NP), for any factors that could negatively impact the wellbeing of a child.

    I honestly couldnt care less about the Media articles that have turned this into an argument about SNPBad, I’m more interested in how the experts view this & to a (wo)man, they support the introduction of it. That’s good enough for me, if they reckon that a child’s voice will be heard and a process put in place to ensure some kind of action happens in the event of hearing these voices, then that’s a good thing.

    As a parent of 4 also, I don’t have anything to worry about, I do get a grave feeling for hundreds (if not thousands) of kids in Scotland that fall through the protective net of the country!

    In general, the BBC’s headline is a half-story an untruth and is Bias against the Scottish Government’s efforts to improve this country – let Andrew Collier review his STV article!

  77. Dr Jim says:

    The legislation will proceed not much later than planned without any problem once the amendments are made

    This was never about a bad law by the opponents, this was purely and simply a headline grabbing political stunt which was initiated by people who originally voted for it and then saw a way of yet another SNP Baad story making headline to demonstrate the “Supremecy” of the UK which was always doomed to failure legally because the Scottish Government were prepared for it and that’s why John Swinney is completely relaxed about it

    The only thing the opponents have succeeded in is prolonging the division they seek amongst that part of the population who either didn’t understand the Bill or who didn’t want to understand it in any shape or form on a simply ideological basis, so the argument can keep going not because the Tories have suddenly become child friendly humans or amid the ranks of Kezia’s members worries really were expressed over it and let’s face it the Lib Dems will jump in any direction if they think it’s a winner

    In the next month this NOTHING ruling will be enough to get the desired column inches and a few telly slots to keep irellevant interested opponents relevant

  78. skintybroko says:

    So, religious organisations manage to get the legislation postponed for the time being, isn’t it religious organisations that are in the dock for failing youngsters in the first place and allowing their members to abuse children?

    Am not fully aware of the overall NP Scheme but surely the idea of protection of children is a good thing? My kids are now adults so it doesn’t affect me directly so can only comment as an outsider.

    Has it been completely blown out of proportion by the NO2NP and the media? Parents I have spoken to don’t see any issue with it, in direct contradiction to what Elaine says above – for any idea there those of the yes, no and maybe persuasions.

    Unfortunately the Nos in this case don’t appear to have any alternative other than to scrap the idea and let the perverts have free reign until they are caught – that could be decades as previous experience tells us during which time many children will be scarred for life.

  79. Lenny Hartley says:

    Just send this to Manx Radio they broadcast the same snp bad mince as the yoon stations

    I listen to Manx Radio on my internet Radio for at least 12 hours most days, I do not listen to BBC Radio or watch TV due to the misreporting of news regarding Scotland.
    It pains me to say that Manx Radio is now broadcasting the same lies that we are subject to from the Mainstream Media in Scotland I don’t want to have to stop listening to Manx Radio as I really like the station .
    However ,if their is any repeat of the downright lies broadcast by Manx Radio on the News Buletin at 1300 hrs on Thursday 26th July I will find another station to listen too. I always try to support your advertisers on my frequent visits to your island Nation. Obviously if I don’t listen to your station then these advertisers will miss out.
    The News Item regarded the UK Supreme Court’s judgement on the Scottish Governments Named Policy Scheme where it was said that the Scheme was deemed illegal. The Fact is the Supreme Court ruled that the scheme was “unquestionably legitimate and benign”
    They did say that some parts of the legislation were outwith the competence of the Scottish Government , these issues will be easily addressed. Your news item was misleading and a correction should be made in the next news broadcast.

  80. Capella says:

    So are Guidance Councils in schools to be suspended? They routinely share information about young people and their families amongst a range of people; teachers, social workers, youth workers, children’s reporter etc. Do those people objecting to NP not know that their information is widely shared now? What does the “Supreme Court” think about that?

  81. Breeks says:


    Doesn’t matter if it’s UK Supreme Court, it’s the presumption it makes about where sovereignty lies and where it’s power comes from.

    UK sovereignty is the coming together of two sovereign nations, but the sovereignty of one is not compatible with the sovereignty of the other. The two are fundamentally incompatible. English Sovereignty comes from God, through a monarch, into the monarch’s parliament, and through that parliament to ruling the people as subjects. That doesn’t work with Scotland. Scottish sovereignty does not come from God, but is popular sovereignty held by the people. Our Parliament serves us because we are sovereign. We are citizens, not subjects. Any “top down” sovereignty which treats us as subjects, whether that comes from English powers or legislation, Britsh powers or legislation, or even European powers or Legislation does not carry sovereign authority over Scots unless or until we Scots accept it.

    Westminster is a fudge that largely ignores these irreconcileable differences in national sovereignty, and for practical expediency adopts the top down English method of Sovereignty, and has done so for 300 years. That is why we have HM’s government, HM’s Armed Forces, HMRC etc. That is fine for English Sovereignty, but it doesn’t however make it lawful under Scottish Sovereignty. Westminster is a complete fudge, and being a product of Westminster so is Holyrood being bestowed with powers from Westminster, and the U.K. Supreme Court having jurisdiction over Scottish sovereign people. All are similar “fudges” trying to affect a workable compromise around a thoroughly inflexible truth in order the “United Kingdom” to function.

    The U.K. cannot function unless Scottish sovereign interests are buried behind lies, misrepresentations, and hidden under various carpets while English sovereignty is given the run of the place and recognised as dominant. Now that oath, which every Holyrood government swears to Her Maj, suddenly feels a Wee bit sinister doesn’t it? Terrible smell of fudge in the air.

    For Scotland to consider itself a sovereign independent Nation, we do not need to change or rescind any Acts or Legal ordinances, we need only wise up, start to observe the older, prescient dominance of Scots law, which enshrines Scottish sovereignty with the Scottish people in perpetuity. Our 700 year old Delaration of Arbroath makes Scotland a republic, perhaps the first ever proper republic where sovereignty is popular and held by the people for all time.

    It is not a prescriptive definition open to interpretation or limited consequence. We, the people of Scotland are either sovereign as defined by Scots Law, or non-sovereign as described by English Law which recognises sovereignty coming from God. We cannot be both, however hard Westminster and indeed Holyrood pretend that we can. We are one or the other, and no compromise can properly exist.

  82. Tinto Chiel says:

    Tam Jardine, Takeour blueback, Dr Jim: three excellent posts which summarise my thoughts pretty much, only better.

    Heard Honest John Swinney on Pravdasound4 after the usual BBC hatchet job and I thought he was calm, rational and relaxed. He knows legislation will only be delayed for a short time and may be better for it.

    I am uneasy about religious groups who seem to want to weaken child protection.

  83. call me dave says:

    I was angry when I heard on radio shortbread that the ‘Named Persons Bill’ had failed. Only two days consideration when some assault cases are taking months to be resolved eg: Rimmer.

    But never fear, an hour later in the car I was assured by Reeval Alderson, well known stammerer for the said Auntie’s radio shortbread that the Bill had passed two of the three litmus tests and that Mr Swinney was going to tweak that third one asap! 🙂

    John Beattie took the news well when Reeval told us and Swinney was on to confirm it. I am happier now, merely a detail it seems should be all in place eventually, but a year late. Aye right!

  84. Grouse Beater says:

    I enjoyed the hypocrisy of England’s ‘supreme court’ usurping Scottish Law that was meant to be sacrosanct, and doing it by invoking EU Human Rights legislation after England had unceremoniously dumped the EU.

    I did not enjoy two English accented voices screaming to empty silence it is all a great victory for democracy.

  85. Capella says:

    @ Breeks – well said. The setting up of a “Supreme Court” by Blair deserves further scrutiny. How can it overrule the judgement of the Scottish Court of Session? If the SC is only there to judge whether the laws passed by the Scottish Government are within its competence, why is it adjudicating on this issue which is unquestionably within its competence.

    Surely the SC should be struck down, if anything should.

  86. Robert Peffers says:

    @Habib Steele says: 28 July, 2016 at 10:17 am:

    “Is not the Sureme Court hearing this case contrary to the Treaty & Act of Union?”


    ” … I do not agree with the Named Person scheme. If the various persons who have already some authority in the lives of children (teachers, health visitors, social workers etc.) deal with, or/and report any concerns that they have, to the appropriate authorities, then the Named person Act is unnecessary.

    Tell that to wee Liam Fee, Habib – Oh! Wait! You can’t do that because the poor wee mite is dead. Not only did his child minder report the matter to, “The Appropriate Authorities”, but so did the staff at a local nursery and a totally independent member of the public. The, “Appropriate Authorities”, were fobbed off and they let Liam down by sheer inaction.

    Those, “Appropriate Authorities”, did NOT take appropriate, immediate and proper action and a child died.

    In any case the point when a Named Person would have acted passed when the matter came to the attention of the, “Appropriate Authorities”. That is the whole point of the act – to provide a ready path to the Appropriate Authorities, if these do not take Appropriate actions then it is the Appropriate Authorities that have failed – not the Named Person’s Act.

  87. HandandShrimp says:

    Reading the reaction from the Calvert chap I can see why the Court of Sessions talked about hyperbole. I fear he is going to be disappointed when the data sharing protocols are amended and the act comes into force.

    The Greens and, albeit in a backhanded way, Labour will still support the act so it is going to go through. Roooth the Mooth is still banging her weird drum but, frankly, who cares?

    I don’t understand Tavish’s call for Parliament to be recalled. He seems to think that the protocols will be tweaked by the minister and the act enforced in August as planned. I am not sure that it is the intent. If it is the intent, step away from Calvert as his head will likely explode with pent up hyperbole spraying up all over the place.

  88. Almannysbunnet says:

    From the SNP site;

    Today the UK Supreme Court ruled on a failed bid to scrap the Named Person service.

    Here’s what you need to know:

    The Supreme Court states the aim of the legislation, in promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and young people, is “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.

    The judgment ruled that the principle of providing a named person for every child does not breach human rights and is compatible with EU law.

    The ruling requires greater clarity about the basis on which professionals supporting families – like health visitors and teachers – share and receive information in their named person role. The Scottish Government will start work on this immediately.

    The Scottish Government pledged to continue to work with public services and children’s charities to ensure the roll out of the scheme.

    The P&J, which now rivals the Express for zoomery, said something a bit different.

  89. Robert Peffers says:

    @Another Union Dividend says: 28 July, 2016 at 10:30 am:

    “The Supreme Court decision is yet another reason for Independence.”

    Amen to that.

    The Supreme Court is totally and illegally breaching the terms of the Treaty of Union and thus is contrary to both the Kingdom of England’s Act of Union and the Kingdom of Scotland’s Act of Union.

    Reason enough for ending the Treaty of Union.

    Come on the Government of Scotland at Holyrood – time to assert yourselves as representatives of the Sovereign People of Scotland.

    It is also time for those elected to represent the Sovereign People of Scotland in the bipartite Government of the United Kingdom they must uphold the terms of the Treaty of Union or that Treaty must end NOW.

    Scottish Law is independent and the Supreme Court is thus an illegal Court.

  90. Another Union Dividend says:

    BBC Radio Shortbread 2pm headlines yet again distorting the Supreme Court ruling.

    Named Persons is just one more example where the SNP has not been pro active enough in letting members know what is going on. Is the scheme voluntary or not?

    The SNP web site should be regularly updated with simple facts on how well the Scottish Health Service is performing in comparison with RuK also with education and other policy areas that are regularly attacked by Yoon letter writers.

    Good point made above regarding Cases heard in Scotland by the Highest Court in Scotland can be appealed to the Supreme Court but that is not the case with cases heard in English Appeal courts. WHY?

    I am always suspicious of the activities of right wing fundamentalist religious groupings.

  91. Phil Robertson says:

    So does this then mean that the UK supreme court is def the highest legal authority in Scotland ie scots law subservient?

    Three judges from another country, along with two expats can overrule learned judges who live and work in Scotland?

    The Supreme Court is, in law, is the highest civil court of appeal for Scotland. So Scots Law is neither “subservient” to it nor is it in “another country”. It is part of the Scottish legal system.

    However its decision requires a tweaking of the legislation to make the act compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, observance of which is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights which is in another country and, for the time being, part of our European umbrella.

    The Scotland Act requires Scottish legisalation to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. IMHO that is not a bad thing.

  92. Jack Murphy says:

    The Tories in Scotland seem delighted with the UK Supreme Court throwing this Scheme out.

    “Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.

    She added: “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children.

    “We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality.”

    The Hooray Henry Tories know best.
    A disgrace.

  93. Jack Murphy says:

    Sorry—in my haste I omitted the source of the Hooray Henry Tory quotes.They are from the BBC Scotland on-line.

  94. MJack says:

    I think the named person act is a good thing, both my children have a named person and people without children of school age will find it hard to understand how beneficial it can be for some children and parents. I believe its mainly aimed at primary age children as a way of early intervention before a social worker needs to be involved sometime later and I trust the teachers at our school, if I didnt I wouldnt be sending my children every day.

    Social workers only get involved when there is a crisis in a family, named person is there for help and advice way before a crisis builds up in a childs life. Along with GIRFEC, and SHANARRI schools are moving into a more holistic and modern way of educating our children and NP is a way of helping avoid situations getting worse or ignored.

  95. Stoker says:

    Case Law Archives
    Named Person scheme incompatible with Article 8 ECHR

  96. Effijy says:

    gordoz says:

    28 July, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Think Mr Colliers assertions are coming apart somewhat.

    (See FM comment on twitter about P & J today)

    No media bias reporting ??

    Thanks Gordoz,

    Isn’t it strange that the BBC are losing license payers right, left, and centre in Scotland, and how they cannot answer complaints from Scots within the agreed time table, and why there is a petition against BBC Bias that is just about to have 90,000 signatures on it???

    Good old millionaire owned Tory STV backing up their BUM chums.

    UK Media has no credibility in Scotland, so just keep wasting your time,until you go bust and we go Independent.

    Please sing your name to this petition!

  97. Golfnut says:

    Quite a few comments on Facebook quoting a part of the ruling, saying something about totalitarian states. This is being inferred as reference to the Scottish government.

    Has this actually been said and in what context.

  98. Camz says:

    Anti-SNP media setting up a “SNP to steam roll NP legislation despite Supreme Court ruling” article.

    They draw a line that will be crossed, so they can report that the SNP have crossed a line.

  99. chossy says:

    NP gives children a contact they can speak to. That is all.

  100. ScottishPsyche says:

    In all the hyperbole and histrionic headlines it seems clear the principle of the Act is not in question. As well as the ECHR questions it appears also to be an argument between what is devolved and reserved legislation. Clearly the Committee stages at Holyrood did not pick this up, nor did the civil servants.

    Is this an argument for a neutral second chamber or body to examine Holyrood legislation? There may be more of these challenges as there is so much new legislation to cover.

    The Tories and various religious groups appear to believe they have won a victory on the principles which is not the case. Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser’s reactions in particular have been appalling.

    The breaking news reactions across the press and 24 Hour news channels were shocking but the Reporting Scotland bulletin was surprisingly sensible.

    It will be interesting (!)to see tomorrows headlines.

  101. Ronald says:

    The NP scheme is not down and out by any means. The judgement only says a few amendments are needed to bring it in line with Article 8 of the ECHR. I have no doubt the SG. will do that and it will be implemented ASAP.

  102. galamcennalath says:

    “The Scottish Greens will continue to back the Named Person Scheme after a Supreme Court ruling found the aim of the legislation to be ‘unquestionably legitimate’, albeit with required changes to information-sharing aspects.”

    So, a majority in parliament. A quick mod and everything carries on.

    The right wing nutters can piss off back under the slim covered rock they crawled out from. Leave decent people to enact decent legislation.

  103. Bill says:

    When you think about it, this may set a dangerous precedent. What if any group with a reasonable sum of cash challenged every Act of Law in any parliament?

    Just 250k to 500k and no more than 6 people?

    This isn’t democracy.

  104. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Capella.

    As far as I’m aware, prior to the creation of the UK Supreme Court, The House of Lords was the final court of appeal for Scottish civil cases.

  105. Iain More says:

    You took the words right out of mouth Rev.

    The second I heard of this appalling decision by the Brit Nat Supreme Court the first thing that came into my head was the every kiddy fiddler in UKOK would be dancing in glee at it.

    I can well imagine the headlines in the pro kiddy fiddling Brit Nat Press tomorrow. Tonight if not this afternoon they will be popping the champagne corks in the Brit Establishment at this ruling.

    Screw the English Supreme Court. It will now be the case that every bit of legislation passed by Holyrood will now be dragged before the English Supreme Court! No doubt funded by dirty money?

    Who funds the Christian Institute? Does anybody here know?

  106. K1 says:

    ‘The Tories in Scotland seem delighted with the UK Supreme Court throwing this Scheme out.’

    They didn’t throw ‘this Scheme’ out Jack. So Ruth Davidson is either thick or stupid…or both if this is her response to the delayed implementation of the NP act because of some amendments that need to strengthen the act.

    It’s not a ‘victory’ for anyone involved in attempting to stop the NP going ahead. Why are they ‘acting’ as if it is? It’s beyond pathetic this sneering and sniping, their hatred of the SNP is at the core of all of this, it has nothing to do with the protection of children, it’s verging on hysteria and it’s certainly ‘projection’ when it comes to the ‘sinister’ labelling of this policy by this disparate bunch of paranoid time wasters.

    As far as I can see this blatantly anti SNP group have formed a one issue arrow and it turns oot it wis jist a wee sparkler. The UK supreme court said: Aye a tweak here and there in line with EU laws but it’s essentially good policy.

    The ‘victory’ will be common sense returning to our politics when we are independent.

  107. Fred says:

    This court was set up by Blair to replace appeals against the Court of Session going to the House of Lords. We have no shortage of judges versed in Scots law to judge appeals at home should this be deemed necessary. Traipsing down to London to consort with English judges is a piece of nonsense & jobs for the boys. A great pity our judges don’t just tell this kangaroo court to fuck-off!

  108. Inkall says:

    I just want to be sure I am 100% here.

    All the named person law does is specifically name one of the myriad of people a kid has contact with (healthcare, teaching, etc.) and introduce them to the kid (and family) as someone they can talk to about problems they are having.

    Other than that it is no different from if a kid went up to any random teacher or whatever and asked them for help, with the adult having to decide what to do with the information.

  109. mike cassidy says:

    Phil Robertson 2.16

    The Scotland Act requires Scottish legislation to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. IMHO that is not a bad thing.


    And that’s what the judgement is about.

    The Scottish Government is clearly happy to comply –
    and when they do, the legislation will be passed.

    And then all the godbotherers and the spanners can…

  110. Proud Cybernat says:

    “Why do a pair of ‘Christian’ groups so strongly oppose protecting children?”

    Because they want to brainwash kids with their own indoctrination. A true story. I took my young kids to visit a distant relative, a religious nut. My daughter found a kids book to read (about dinosaurs and stuff – she loved it at the time). The religious nut had only gone and scored through things like “Dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic Period 200 million years ago” with “God made the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago so this is a lie.”

    I kid you not. Oh, and this holier than thou arse-piece is very vocal online with NO2NP. He’s a total religous nutcase. He even told me once that Scotland doesn’t need any immigrants, we should just ban abortions. My chin hit the fucking floor when he said that. These are the effing rockets that are holding this country back.

  111. Proud Cybernat says:

    Oh, and my kids haven’t been back since. Effing nutters.

  112. Mike d says:

    “Specific proposals about information sharing are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament ” in other words, not genetically programmed to make political decisions. Tell me something nawbags, how much more denigration can you take?.

  113. Bob Mack says:

    Today in Scotland there are over 17,000 children who are involved with Social Services for a number of reasons. They are only the ones have been discovered to require intervention. I would suggest that there is an equal number who have no intervention because they have not been identified as yet

    That is the purpose of this legislation.To try and help identify those children at potential risk. I noted with incredulity one woman contributor on another forum talking about helping Syrian refugee children becoming exploited for abuse,whilst vehemently berating the Scottish government for that same aim in this country.

  114. alba says:

    Phil Robertson says:
    The Supreme Court is, in law, is the highest civil court of appeal for Scotland. So Scots Law is neither “subservient” to it nor is it in “another country”. It is part of the Scottish legal system.

    But does it not judge its cases using English law? If so, then is it not the case (pun not intended) that hundreds of years of legislation and traditions defined under Scots law can now be challenged and potentially over-ruled by a court using English Traditions?

    Under Scots law, a scottish government cannot refuse the will of the scots people; referenda would be binding. Under English law, referenda could only ever be advisory – the difference being where sovereignty is legally seen to reside (people or parliament).

  115. Legerwood says:


    This case does not set a precedent. The Scottish Government has already had some of the Acts it has passed challenged in Court. An insurance company challenged one of their Acts, can’t remember which one, and the company lost. The whisky and drinks industry has challenged the SG’s minimum pricing legislation.

    Acts by the UK gov have also been challenged. Fir example, the detention of people in their own homes when they have not been charged with anything or have served their sentence and been released and immediately put under house arrest. Mainly involved terrorists ir suspected ones. The UK Gov lost that one.

    So it is not just the Scottish Gov that is taken to court.

  116. Dr Jim says:

    I’m not having a go at anybody’s beliefs here but, am I correct in understanding that one of these so called “Christian groups” ( I’m already suspicious of the terminology) who are part of the refuseniks to NP scheme are the same people who refuse blood transfusion as a life saving treatment or other medical interventions except when it suits them and if so, since when did the Media in any of it’s incarnations give any credence whatsoever to what fundimundilly mentalists think

    I’d really hate to think this was even close to being the case, but if this is correct and between the political bias and media bias towards this scheme, if these are the people who have been used to form the basis of this case then this must be exposed as a horror story of epic proportions and an attempt by the opponents of the government to mislead Scottish parents as to the validity of this whole debacle by the Tories (But not them really)
    because when folk talk about Christian groups their understanding is that
    most Christian organisations fall between the accepted parameters of normal religious belief

    Some don’t, and I’m wondering if the fear of not being PC is distorting the view of opinion here so nobody wants to sound like they’re demonising a religion, and that includes me
    Just because I have no religion doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for those who do believe in something but if it’s these folk then, no

    Maybe somebody has knowledge of the identity of the belief structure of the complainants and can expand because it doesn’t seem to be the RC Church or Church of Scotland or even any Muslim group and they’re the main representatives of religion in the country

    So who are these “Christian groups”??

  117. galamcennalath says:

    Christian fundamentalists always seem entwined with ultra conservatives.

    They worship their version of the past and somehow wish society were now like they believe it was. A mythical Dreamtime where morality was dictated by rules, hypocrisy, and dogma rather than simply caring for those around them. It was time of no gays and no marriages between people of different coloured skin. In spotlight, it was a time where wives could be beaten and children abused behind closed doors. The authorities would not intervene. Worse, in so many cases, it was those in positions of authority whom others were conditioned to respect, who were often perpetrators. Family values meant keeping women at home, pregnant and baking cookies all day.

    Good old Deity Fearing days? My arse.

  118. call me dave says:

    In another court case:

    Labour leadership: Corbyn ballot challenge rejected

  119. Cherry says:

    This from the same “Christian Institute” these people are dangerous to a normal thinking human society. I can’t say any more as my blood pressure has gone thru the roof. Just have a wee read about their thoughts on gay adoption…..

  120. Lenny Hartley says:

    Another program on Manx Radio (woman’s hour sorta thing) taking the yoon spin that it has been scuppered, send them the link to the Wos aeticle “the football under the carpet” they read out my email and obviously had read the Wos aeticle coz they said obviously the people complaining about the NP act have not done their research – result.

  121. K1 says:

    Aye Proud Cybernat, I have one in my family too…too much bible rhetoric and a pathological hatred of everything SNP. It’s terrifying their outlook and their ‘god given’ belief that they are ‘right’ about everything. Jesus wept, I think they want armageddon tae happen as it will confirm their worldview of ‘the sinners aw hae it comin’ tae them’…nothing worse than a ‘born again’ know it all wi inordinate amounts of hatred in their hearts. They certainly don’t dae irony or even see the inherent contradiction in their own hateful outlook wi the very beliefs they proclaim themselves the sole arbiters of. Love thy neighbour…aye right ‘as long as they’re no SNP’.

    Sigh…some really screwed up mentalities at the core of this group of haters.

  122. Proud Cybernat says:

    Mike D: Tell me something nawbags, how much more denigration can you take?

    Nawbag: Whit’s denigration? Ah jist read the Daily Recurd.

  123. heedtracker says:

    Bit more law info from rancid olde Graun. That crew and their ever more hideous comments section are really loving this. Must be the thrill of watching a British court display its power over the Scotland region they think they own.

    So from

    “The court ruled that information-sharing provisions do not meet the Article 8 criterion of being “in accordance with the law”, and are therefore not within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament and cannot be brought into force as they stand.”


    “Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the court of session in Edinburgh, which said named persons did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”.

    Its an extraordinarily different decision between Edinburgh and London.

  124. Legerwood says:

    Breeks and Capella

    If you read my post again you will see that I said Nr Salmond had protested about the position the Scottish Courts found themselves in with regards to the UK Supreme Court.

    He wanted the Scottish Courts to be in the same position as the English Courts vis a vis the Supreme Court.

    There was a lot of publicity at the time but little support for Mr Salmond’s request. Probably happened about the time the Scotland bill was going through Parliament around 2009/10 or thereabouts.

    I am sure the Treaty of Union was mentioned then but to little effect.

  125. Les Wilson says:

    The English Guy interviewed about this morning on Ukok BBCS, said
    ” people across Scotland will be so happy about this outcome today” ( they always find someone do they not ?)

    Aye right.

  126. Les Wilson says:

    Having read what the judge said according the Christian whatsit,
    there appears to be several comments that are anti SNP.
    No names of directors or any names at all apart from one.

    I would like to really know who these people are, their names and backgrounds, and their affiliations if any. Just to do a bit digging. It does not smell right somehow.

  127. Grant says:

    The legislative competence question has nothing to do with the Supreme Court overruling the Scottish Parliament. What’s been said, is that the Scottish Parliament dies not have the authority to pass a law that overrules EU data protection laws, which demand that sensitive information, like health information, cannot be shared without the consent of that person.

    Named Person meant that the data would be automatically shared. Not only the information about the child, but also the health information of the parents and other family members.

  128. K1 says:

    Yeah Cherry…this group is the ‘sinister’ manipulative organisation ‘projecting’ all their bile onto the SG. The insidious implication in that article is never explicitly stated, that’s the ‘way’ they maintain a ‘respectable’ front.

    They don’t write: we are terrified these evil LGBTI people are converting our heterosexual children by being near them in a conventional family situation and we want to stop this happening cause they are evil dirty and corrupt people. Jesus is the one saviour and all these sinners are polluting our society.

    Naw, they just insinuate that entire outlook by stating they were against the legislation that opened adoption up to gay couples.

    They daren’t state out in public for all to see just how utterly authoritarian and dictatorial they are…they merely accuse others of what they deny within themselves…they are in direct competition with diversity, inclusiveness, social cohesion and kindness. Ergo hate the SG.

    They need widely exposed for what they truly represent…as long as they have that word ‘Christian’ pinned above their house they think they are the ‘moral’ arbiters of good and bad in society. Actually they are no more than a front for those with some deeply disturbed notions and attitudes with regard how people live their life’s…all based on a book cobbled together by some of the most repressive epoch’s humanity has lived through. They want a return to a time that never was…in their fevered imaginations they think they are the conduits of Jesus’s word.

    They are mostly frightened and deal with that fear by pointing the finger of blame at anyone or thing that reminds them they are not in control. They think if ‘they’ can control others then everything will be less ‘fearful’. Yes, exactly as it was when the churches burned people at the stake for having a dream, or hung drew and quartered them for being good at fighting against them.

    Thankfully we no longer live in those times. The more exposure this group gets…the better informed people become about what groups like this truly represent.

    It’s not love…that’s for sure.

  129. clan rossy says:

    hi guys

    just watched the ending of an interview with one
    of those christian group objectors on bbc .
    my god he was making out as if s/gvt or scotland lived in
    a nazi/fascist state and the presenters where loving it .

    my god what a world we live in when they are giving nutters like them full scale attack on the tv against the scottish gvt .
    and no one to challenge him on any of the claims he
    was making .

    jesus christ we need to get out of this union fast
    the whole lot of the msm and british media make
    me sick to the pits of my stomach

  130. stewartb says:

    heedtracker @ 4.12pm:

    “Its an extraordinarily different decision between Edinburgh and London.”

    I’m no lawyer but out of interest I’ve also gone back to re-read the summary of the earlier judgement on the NP case by the Court of Session in Scotland. I agree. On the face of it, the contrast in the findings could not be more stark.

    Any lawyers out there who could explain what’s going on here? Why did the senior court in Scotland take such a different view – and get this so wrong? Or did it?

  131. Cherry says:

    I have never in my life disrespected anyone’s beliefs….and I’m not going to start now…I will just leave this here…I will leave the link at the end.

    “Governments exist to restrain evil

    Governments are vital for civilisation. The rule of law is the basis of order and civilisation. Authorities are instituted by God for the good of everyone to restrain evil. The Bible teaches that governments are ordained by God to punish the wrongdoer and to commend those who do right (Romans 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:14).
    The Bible plainly teaches that it is the duty of every Christian to submit to authority. This includes the payment of taxes: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established… This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” (Romans 13:1,6). “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14).
    It is the duty of those in authority to punish those who do wrong. The punishment envisaged in the Bible clearly includes physical force. The Apostle Paul notes that a ruler “does not bear the sword for nothing. He is an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

    Hopefully I’m not alone in my “inner thoughts” on this load of bullshit!

  132. liz says:

    The Daily Express has a headline stating ‘a kick in the teeth for Nicola Sturgeon’ re NP.

    The comments on twitter below that are extremely disturbing, saying she needs 3 kicks etc.

    For an actual newspaper to put that up is surely inciting violence.

    Since Brexit the BritNat yoons are unbelievably hostile.

    We must escape from this

  133. Phil Robertson says:

    “But does it not judge its cases using English law? If so, then is it not the case (pun not intended) that hundreds of years of legislation and traditions defined under Scots law can now be challenged and potentially over-ruled by a court using English Traditions?”

    In a word, no. It is the last court of appeal within the Scottish system for civil cases but not for criminal ones. It has a role in deciding issues related to the devolution acts and in ensuring that adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights is maintained.

    “Under Scots law, a scottish government cannot refuse the will of the scots people; referenda would be binding. Under English law, referenda could only ever be advisory – the difference being where sovereignty is legally seen to reside (people or parliament).”

    Political power is with the parliament. Scotland is what is known as a representative democracy, where every voter is involved in the election of representatives but it is those representatives who make the law.

  134. Smallaxe says:

    I wonder if Ruthless and and. Kezia are aware that this”Victory for the campaigners” are the same people who want the age of consent for homosexual people raised and are against gay marriage and gay people adopting children.

    The Christian Institute has brought many ludicrous cases to court the vast majority of them failing!

    Children need strong roots to help them grow Wings.Peace & Love to all of you and our Children & Grandchildren.

  135. heedtracker says:

    “Any lawyers out there who could explain what’s going on here? Why did the senior court in Scotland take such a different view – and get this so wrong? Or did it?”

    Its got that stench the Carmicheal Embro High Court decision reeked of. Law’s about interpretation at legislative levels like this.

  136. CamenoB Brodie says:

    “Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.

    I don’t know how contempt of court works but…

    The Supreme Court states the aim of the legislation, in promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and young people, is “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.

  137. heedtracker says:

    Phil Robertson says:
    28 July, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    As you’re laying down the law today Phil, can you answer this?

    “Any lawyers out there who could explain what’s going on here? Why did the senior court in Scotland take such a different view – and get this so wrong? Or did it?”

  138. Proud Cybernat says:

    These are the religious zealots behind NO2NP.

    ‘The Christian Institute’:

    Transsexuals are people who are biologically normal, but who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex they say they are ‘trapped in the wrong body’. And so a male-to-female transsexual will assume the identity of a woman. Often transsexuals undergo a ‘sex change’ operation. The Gender Recognition Bill provides many legal rights for transsexuals. Three fundamental premises lie behind the Bill: one, human psychological states rather than human bodily nature can determine a person ’s gender; two, it is right for a surgeon to deform a healthy body in the interests of a psychological disorder; and, three, the State should validate psychosocial confusions having precedence over unambiguous biological sex. Christians say these premises are wrong from biblical teaching, and also church tradition
    and common sense reason. First, the Bible teaches that a human person is a mind-body whole. So the body determines personhood, not just the mind.

    The first Christian heresy was to deny that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” ((1 John 4.2). Genesis 1:27 records: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
    Biblical Christians hold that ‘sex change ’ surgery desecrates a body made in the image of God. And the Bible teaches
    that the State should validate what is right and not what is wrong (Romans 13.3).

    Secondly, the Church of England’s 2003 discussion document also equated transsexualism with the ancient heresy of Gnosticism.

    Both see the body as unimportant and the mind as all important. Gnosticism was strongly condemned by early Christian theologians such as Irenaeus (c 130 -200 AD) and Tertullian (c 155 -220 AD).

    Thirdly, the philosopher, Sir Peter Strawson, also holds that a person must have “both states of consciousness
    and corporeal characteristics… [so] the orthodox have wisely insisted on the resurrection of the body ”.

    It is therefore wrong to determine a person ’s gender because their mind cannot accept their body. As the Bishop of Winchester has stated: “When the bill passes into law, for me the words woman and man will no longer mean what they have always meant and the government will have introduced marriage between two people of the same sex.”

    Churches try to care for transsexuals and to speak to them about the Gospel. The Christian response to a transsexual, as with any other person, should be prayer, care and counsel as for any with psychological difficulties and where
    necessary repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).”


    Aye, prayer’ll fix it. Just like Jim fixed it.

  139. gordoz says:


    I see a certain Mr Kevin Hague is now writing ‘graphically’ for the Daily Reword.

    Can someone clarify info relating to this self proclaimed ‘economic expert’s professional expertise / CV etc / proven track record in macro economics, since this news paper appears to be ‘passing him off’ as some level of proven economist.

    Anybody happy to vouch for his disparaging commentary re Scottish Government and FM ?

    Just details of his background / track record.

    (No think tank info please the real deal of academic record / employment history etc) ??

    Its not that I dont trust the MSM you know 🙂 Just asking like.

  140. galamcennalath says:

    Cherry says:

    “Authorities are instituted by God”, “there is no authority except that which God has established”, “the authorities are God’s servants”

    … and of course it is THEIR God they refer to. That is an extremely dangerous philosophy by which they justify THEIR exceptionalism and THEIR right to dictate to the rest of us.

    “load of bullshit”, you are so right, but very nasty smelling stuff it is.

    I am so glad I was brought up to think for myself. I know good and evil when I see it!

  141. shiregirl says:

    Apologies all – very O/T here, but just read that Anne Begg has been appointed to the NHS Grampian Board.

  142. Macbeda says:

    If prayer is so powerful how come we are still in this fecking Union.

    Get on yer knees and pray FFS

  143. @liz

    a lot of the comments are from the hacks at the rags,

    they will say anything to get a response to their 500 word excrement,

    nothing is as it seems in the media world,

    they need to show/lie to their advertisers that people are actually reading their drivel.

    This explains some of the practises,

  144. Cherry says:

    Someone correct me…I may not have this right as I’m not genetically programmed for all this stuff that my higher level masters who sit in a place far, far away.

    This Christian Institute (a registered English charity) is saying that…all laws come down from GOD and as such we have all to be good little subjects and respect these laws…how does that work in Scotland as we don’t do “Devine Right of Kings” doesn’t my Sovereignty come into play here?

  145. Smallaxe says:

    @ Dr Jim,

    As far as I know this group defines themselves as non denominational,this could mean anything from the Closed Brethren to Appalachian serpent handling Pastors! Peace.

  146. Proud Cybernat says:

    “Get on yer knees …”

    And be like Fanny Alexander and Flipper? Nae chance. I’d much rather stand on my own two feet – so long as the big chief disnae strike me doon for a’ ma blaspheeming, o’course!

  147. gordoz says:


    On Mr Hague .. Daily Reword

    Ohhh right; no actual track record on economic subject, related expertise or history just a man in the street opinion.

    Recent 10yr background, mainly ‘garden furniture sales’ & ‘petfood’ online ????? WTF

    Pretty sure the Reword didn’t mention any of that. Have since heard the BBC use this guy as well.

    ‘nough said.

  148. galamcennalath says:

    Peter McCulloch

    “The conference speakers include journalist and author Allan Massie, Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, a GP and author, Tory MSP Liz Smith, Maggie Mellon, an independent social services consultant, as well as community paediatrician”

    From the BBC …

    “Holyrood voted to approve the named persons system by 103 votes to nil in 2014, as part of the Children and Young People Act.”

    … she didn’t oppose it in the correct place and at the correct time. So opposition afterward is just political opportunism, unless that 2014 Act was short of later detail. Wouldn’t think that’s how it works.

  149. Capella says:

    @ Legerwood – I saw your comment and am interested in what the reasons were for Alex Salmond objecting to the Supreme Court.
    @ Brian Doonthetoon – I am so deeply cynical about anything Mr Blair did that it all goes in the same category as the Iraq War and stealing the 6000 mls of Scottish seas.

    The House of Lords is a disgrace anyway being stuffed with English bishops and Lords. No democracy there. But you might argue that the Law Lords are there to judge on Scottish Parliament issues in the Supreme Court. Why then do they not judge on English Parliament (Westminster) issues?

    Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament?

    No. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is the Court’s role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy.

    Can the UKSC overrule Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in other parts of the UK?

    The UKSC can hear ‘devolution issues’, which include questions about whether a Bill or Act of Parliament, or any provision of a Bill or Act of Parliament, is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, a question whether an Order in Council, Assembly Measure, Act of the Assembly or Bill is within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly can also be referred to the UKSC.

  150. Smallaxe says:

    @ Cherry,

    The Christian Institute is a Charity registered in Scotland

  151. Jacksg says:


    Newsreader on Stv just said Scottish government,s controversial NP legislation has been ruled ‘unlawful’ WTF is going on with our media.

  152. Cherry says:

    Wow just look at what the Christian Institute belief about bringing up children.

    What we believe

    Parents have a God-given authority over their children

    In the Bible it is parents who have the responsibility for raising children. Parents have a God-given authority over their children.
    The fifth commandment requires a child to honour its father and mother (Exodus 20:12). This was quoted by Jesus and by the Apostle Paul.
    Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking. Discipline must not be harsh. Fathers are told to instruct children according to what is good and not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4). That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (eg Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents.
    Christians ought particularly to be concerned by any proposals which weaken the moral protections for children. Jesus gave a serious warning of judgment against those who cause children to sin (Matthew 18:6). This is an apt warning in these days when children have their innocence stolen from them.

  153. Grouse Beater says:

    Smallaxe: “I wonder if Ruthless and Kezia are aware that this”Victory for the campaigners” are the same people who want the age of consent for homosexual people raised and are against gay marriage and gay people adopting children.”

    You’ll never get a BBC news bulletin to explain the character of their source material.

    It’s headline stuff, two quick interviews, and one ‘expert’ correspondent repeating what was said in the opening headlines, but with lots of hand gestures.

  154. mike cassidy says:

    Scot Finlayson 5.16

    Astroturfing on the Daily Express.

    How ironic from the paper that thinks everything causes cancer.

    Cant wait to see the spanners’ reaction when this legislation is passed.

    Spanners exploding like scanners! (film joke)

  155. Valerie says:

    @Elaine 11.29

    What a load of hysterical shit you have posted. How dare you tell the sites owner he has it wrong? Did you read the link he supplied to Donna Babbingtons article? Someone willing to share their own story?

    It’s only your view of NP that’s right, eh? In the face of widespread support for it.

    A family of 4 is not a risk factor, the only criteria is a risk to the child, or a child asking for help.

    Yes, there is form filling, and that’s because it can be used as part of the judicial process. Nothing to stop you taking your own notes, witness or lawyer.

    That’s what everyone forgets in the frothing – everyone has recourse to the law if they think they have been targeted by a social worker.

    Why would anyone invoke NP processes unless there is concern for the child.

    If you are in the process, then there is some concern for a child’s welfare. Why do we constantly hear this monumental arrogance that parents know the best? No they fucking dont!

    The vast majority of sexual assault on children is from within the family network, and plenty ignore and cover it up.

    Oh, but don’t interfere with these ‘families’

    Children that present no concern will never be in discussion, or have interaction with their NP.

  156. Cherry says:

    Sorry Smallaxe using my tablet and had only scrolled as far as the English charity number 🙂

  157. Valerie says:


    Well, quelle surprise, extreme God botherers, who believe in corporal punishment for children, leading the charge against NP.

    And folk like Elaine on here, are aligning with them?

    Good luck with that, when a child who has been beaten speaks out, and the God botherers are standing in the dock quoting scripture as their defence.

    I feel physically sick that these religious nutters would expose children in this way. Thankfully the Scottish gov’t will stand up to these bullies.

  158. Smallaxe says:

    @ Cherry,

    No apology necessary Cherry,we are all here to keep each other

    @ Grouse Beater, I know what hand gestures I would give Them
    my poetic friend.Peace

  159. carjamtic says:

    The UKOK Red/Blue Tory wannabe First Ministers of Scotland (and their cronies).

    Despite their own, exaggerated, self confidence and the media’s, utterly bewildering, over-estimation of their abilities, it never ceases to amaze me, how far they can still slide.

    The London Heidi’s (milking Scotland dry),the so called leaders of their Scottish parties (?), have NOT now, or ever, had Scotland or Scotland’s people, best interest at heart, they’re only in opposition to repeat the SNP Bad mantra, come hell or high water…whatever.

    In their small minded, narrow attitude, towards the Scottish Parliament, to the people of Scotland and even despite their own ‘absolute superiority’ over us….the view held (mainly) by the MSM/BBC ‘gentleman hacks’….they are, in Scotland,(IMHO)….a critically endangered species.

    Yes you could call in the WWF (not wrestling) to come to assist them, but no point, they would just get all horny again and start mounting other critically endangered species, straddling the Black Rhino’s for example ….before demonstrating, the 100%, deadly accuracy of their latest Tank’s, high velocity shells,before gouging out the horns, to use as leverage, in some corrupt, dodgy as fukc, behind closed doors, ‘trade deal’ and all in name of UKOK.

    On the other hand, let’s distribute our pearls of wisdom to Washington, they desperately need some, politically speaking, the answers to some of their problems, maybe, still ‘blowin in the wind ’it is most definitely is not from a just visiting,‘ fool on the hill, they are simply, not that desperate.

    “Thank god, you cannot bribe (?)Or twist (?), the honest yoon journalist and seeing what they will do for free (?), there is no occasion to”

    BBC/MSM Yoons how low can you go?

    Promoting incompetent politicians, as Bucking Bronco Riders or as Controllers of Large Smoking Guns, just proves that although personal engagement with animals or with weapons of mass destruction may ‘turn on’ the Red/Blue Tory cnuts in Westminster.…in Scotland it is likely to get you, buried in an avalanche of your own shit….to then, use vulnerable, innocent children in an attempt to score political points, only encourages us, to look the other way, as you then drown in it….to ignore your cries for help and we will.

    Sadly, some ‘critically endangered’ species are just not worth the bother of saving….

    Tick Tock

  160. Juan P says:

    Will need to take some time to read through the full judgement but it looks as though the court are content with the purpose of the legislation and just require some refinement around data sharing.

    This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Public servants who want to share information in order to protect a child are often frustrated by a narrow and risk averse interpretation of current data protection legislation.

    A ruling from the uksc on refined Scottish Government policy, once submitted, might in fact embolden civil servants to more readily share information for child protection purposes than they would have had changes not been sought by the uksc.

  161. stewartb says:

    Cherry @5.44pm

    I’ve just been reading the same info on the Christian Institute: the bit about parental discipline of children that can be painful but that’s OK because it is clearly accepted in scripture, I find very telling in the NP context!

    And there is much more information on what the Institute believes and the causes it supports in its 2015 Annual Review which is also a rich source on how its run, the funding it gets, who’s involved etc.( )

    “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14).”

    On ‘harm reduction’ in public policy:

    “….. harm reduction approaches have been extended to cover the whole population of young people rather than just those who are addicts. From a Christian perspective, harm reduction greases the tracks of sin. Instead of telling young people that actions inevitably have consequences, harm reduction presents as a paradise what is inherently dangerous.”

    “Greases the tracks of sin” is quite a phrase! And:

    “Harm reduction undermines the rule of law and parental authority. It leads young people into wrongdoing. It sends out the message that taking drugs or engaging in underage sex is acceptable. Increasing use of the harm reduction philosophy is leading to increasing failure. The only answer that the gurus of harm reduction can give to this is to say that there must be more use of harm reduction at ever younger ages.”

    On homeschooling and against government regulation:

    “In June 2014 we informed supporters in Northern Ireland that their local education boards were consulting on intrusive plans to regulate parents who educate their children at home. Under the proposals, parents who choose to remove their child from school would face detailed questioning and delays before being allowed to homeschool. Government officials would visit families to monitor their home education.”

    On “emotional abuse” and against the apparently draconian House of Lords:

    “In January 2014, the House of Lords considered a sweeping new law which could have criminalised parents for raising children according to their Christian beliefs.

    The so-called ‘Cinderella law’ would have carried a maximum prison sentence of ten years for anyone who deliberately harmed a child’s “physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”.”

    Can’t have parents being held to account for abuse! I had never heard of this Cinderella law nor whether it has ever been enacted in England and Wales, but for context and in contrast, in a BBC News article on the same subject dated 14 March 2014 ( ), one finds the following:

    “The government said child cruelty was an abhorrent crime which should be punished. Social workers have a definition of child cruelty that they work on but because it is not written into law, this makes it difficult for the police to gather evidence. Currently social workers operate guidance in civil law that does recognise emotional abuse of children but police are limited because criminal law only recognises physical harm. Action for Children’s chief executive, Sir Tony Hawkhead, said the change would be a “monumental step forward for thousands of children”.”

  162. heedtracker says:

    Life goes on teanGB style. Wonder what all the farmers that had giant NO Thanks billboards on the roadside fields 2014 are up to these days. One even ploughed a giant NO into his fields on the dual carriage just before Dundee. Take back control but No doubt they’ll be all howling at SNP Scots gov. Trawlermen next.

    Scottish farmers face losing hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy after Brexit unless the UK government increases funding for Holyrood, a Scottish parliament committee has been told.

  163. sinky says:

    To be fair STVs coverage of Supreme Court was much worse than the BBCs

  164. Truth says:

    I’m ambivalent about named persons, principally because I haven’t researched it much at all.

    What I’m not ambivalent about is the supposed Supreme Court. I said at the time it was set up that I did not recognise it with regard to Scots Law.

    It has no right to interfere and consequently if I were the Scottish Government and judiciary, I would simply ignore their ruling. It does not apply in Scotland.

  165. Legerwood says:

    Capella @ 5.30 pm

    Mr Salmond’s objections seemed to have arisen because of two criminal cases – Fraser’s appeal and the Cadder case both were appealed to the UK Supreme Court based on ECHR legislation which of course is incorporated into the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.

    There was quite a stooshie in the papers about it at the time.

    Details in this Guardian story which does include some useful information if you persevere with it. Sorry cannot archive

  166. Tackety Beets says:

    Apologies , not read all posts

    Elaine @ 11.29

    I wonder , are you in the Highland area ? & have you shared your concerns with Bill Alexander @ THC as they have been operating it for years.
    I recall a few months back, Bill has been very reassuring EVEN GMS that the NP concept is excellent and can save a lot of Public money going forward.

  167. Valerie says:


    £580 million per year in CAP payments to Scottish farmers.

    Do you think the UK will.find that?

  168. Valerie says:

    The BBC have been a bloody disgrace, and tbh, they would probably keep.going with the same lies, were it not for social media hitting back.

    They started with Armageddon headlines, and downgraded it, as the day went on, until tonight, it’s almost correct on the North British slot.

    It’s more of a blip now.

    The screaming rush to.condemn, crow and misrepresent is something to behold.

    Ruth has started a petition, bloody disgrace.

  169. ronnie anderson says:

    You,s lot better get this room cleared up before Paula Rose arrives, the mess is terrible wie aw that hot cross bun throwing, an no even ah cup of tea in sight.Thank cod we dont hiv they religious meeting any mair,a whore n ah half of singing + sermon fur ah cup of tea an ah bun lol.

  170. Capella says:

    @ Legerwood – thanks for link will read with interest. I have always thought that the Treaty of Union specifically exempted the Scottish Legal system for all time. So I wonder how it was possible for Tony Blair to change that without breaking the terms of the treaty?

    Here’s that link archived:

  171. Iain says:

    What a state Scotland is in, we have the court of a foreign country that doesn’t even consider themselves European to rule over our laws.
    We need to take the big decisions ourselves like normal countries do.
    Scotland needs to grow a set, we are tired of yoon rule.
    A referendum can’t come soon enough, we need to be free from this terrible union.

  172. heedtracker says:

    Valerie says:
    28 July, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    £580 million per year in CAP payments to Scottish farmers.

    Do you think the UK will.find that?

    No. They may have to though. Every farmer that voted NO is going to have a very hard time staying in business, even the loaded gentleman farmers like the Tayside multimillionaire that ploughed in that giant NO.

    “Scotland’s population is about 8% of the UK total, but Scottish farmers receive 18% of the UK’s overall common agricultural policy (CAP) funding under the EU system, including 85% of less-favoured area payments. The industry has slumped in the last few years due to falling prices, increasing its heavy reliance on subsidies.”

    Severin Carrell, for it is he and who’s organ gave Scotland this

  173. heedtracker says:

    Its not even two years yet, so from

    “Scotland: yes campaign struggles to win over farming communities
    Support for independence mainly seen in urban centres, but the yes campaign needs rural votes if it is to tip the balance”


    “Scottish farmers face losing hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy after Brexit”

    Should interesting watching tory BBC led media gimps spin this in to usual SNP bad stuff. not happening right now:-(

  174. Finlay says:

    @Elaine 11:29

    Let us assume all that you said about the inconvenience of a Named Persons system on regular non-abusive families to be true.

    Are any of the these possible drawbacks of the Named Persons legislation on non-abusive families, in your opinion, too high a price for society to pay in return for the potential help a child could benefit from through the Named Persons legislation?

  175. Croompenstein says:

    @Valerie I think Ruth has got other things on her mind!!!!

    I can hardly fucking wait…..

  176. Dr Jim says:

    If these “Christian Institute” people insist there’s no law above Gods law why did they go to court if they don’t recognise the Law which isn’t subject to God except by the lip service part of telling the truth which isn’t a requirement either,(affirmation)

    The whole thing stinks of a Ruthie Tory plot using people who were happy to be used to further their own cause but in doing so if they’re exposed as the Nutters folk are saying they are they may well rue the day they agreed to have their organisation put under the microscope, which at some time will surely follow, plus the fact the spokesman for one of the “families” lives in Bonnybridge and that’s a small place to be outed as a zoomer if that’s what turns out to be the case

    The Scottish government will win and all will be well but this will leave a bad taste in everybody’s mouth for a whole bunch of reasons, not least the jurisdiction of the “Supreme court” just for being supreme

    Are our courts not equal enough (sigh) seems they were fine and dandy to deal with and take the blame for Lockerbie when the UK backed off at a million miles an hour telling the world Scots law takes precedence over English or any other law, but after Scotland daring to attempt asserting itself as a Nation, not up to the job of protecting our own kids apparrently, or indeed putting a price on cheap Booze

    It says a lot about the Yoon assertions that we have the most powerful parliament in the known universe to infinity and beyond

    I wonder what we’ll NOT be competent to undertake next, and when Ruthie gets annoyed does she once again run and tell her Big Brarr or her Ma-May oan us tae get us telt

    Is that how a competent politician operates or just the greetin faced Milk Monitor

    Most of us will be feeling a “how very dare you moment” about that and I’ll be agreeing with most of us

  177. Grouse Beater says:

    The right-wing Christian interferers in the democratic process take no cognicence some parents are incompetent.

    And on a similar theme of English law usurping Scottish Law, I’ve just been asked by the BBC to approve copyright images I own seen in a reality show shot in Scotland.

    The contract that takes away my rights is clear, “Subject to English Law and English Courts.”

  178. Croompenstein says:

    Independence Live from East Kilbride on now…

  179. Cherry says:

    @Valerie and Stewartb

    Agree 100% with everything you’ve both written.

    IMO it’s a Witch hunt and the only way to fight that is with turning it back at them. This “religious” group is looking more like a religious sect than any force of good. I’m downloading all there info just in case they decide to deny their own words.

    Found it difficult to read most of the crap as it just became mind numbing mumbo jumbo. I can’t believe their are folks walking among us with these views! The media harp on daily about people being indoctrinated into DAESH…they really need to look closer to home for people peddling distorted,swivel eyed religious fanaticism!

    We have to continue sifting thru the crap these guys are spouting, coz somewhere in one of their articles is a little gem of a quote that will expose their grubby”holy” existence.

  180. Marcia says:

    If this legislation helps at least one child I’m for it. The scheme in the Highlands seems to be working.

  181. Legerwood says:

    Capella @ 7.05 pm

    From a very swift reading of the piece in the Guardian it seems to be that cases are referred to the UK Supreme Court because the ECHR has been incorporated into Scots law. The cases that go to the Supreme Court seem to be putting forward arguments in support of their case saying that the decision of the Scottish Courts breaches ECHR legislation in some way.

    But it is a bit of a minefield and from the article it would appear that the legal profession was split on the issue as well with some supporting Mr Salmond and others not.

  182. Graeme says:

    If it was established beyond any doubt that the BBC was biased against the SNP/Scottish Government or the independence movement in general could The Scottish government proclaim a non prosecution rule for non payment of the licence fee kinda like they did with the bedroom tax


  183. CameronB Brodie says:

    I had quite a long relationship with the daughter of Baptist missionaries. No, honest. Stop laughing. She was a rebel. Nudge, nudge. 😉

    I also briefly shared a flat with a young Baptist, who was of the 6,000 year old earth variety. I naturally felt compelled to show him that morality is not the unique possession of the religious and that moral absolutism is rarely ethical.

    He was mature enough to thank me for encouraging him to re-think his values and informed me he now felt much stronger in his faith as a result.

    What can you say, except people of his outlook should have no place in shaping public policy.

    Re. Respect. Fuck that. I’ll tolerate shit but I won’t respect that which I believe to be in error. Don’t tell me we need another Reformation?

  184. Breeks says:

    I hear you Legerwood @4:15 pm, and I’m not disputing a thing, but the point I am making is that Scots Law takes precedence, and even if you ignore Scots Law, it doesn’t change the fact it is THE law, and it trumps all subsequent laws. It doesn’t go away. That is why the Declaration of Arbroath is celebrated as an UNESCO World Memory after 700 years because what it says is so utterly profound for Scotland, and it remains a document of truly global significance.

    It isn’t an argument you can win or lose, there is no argument to make, there is no room for any fudge or compromise. Sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland in perpetuity, and neither Westminster, not their Supreme Court has any jurisdiction to interfere with a sovereign people and their elected representatives.

    Supposing our Scottish Government caved in, and our Scottish judges caved in, and our Historians and Constitutional experts caved in and all swore allegiance and fealty to Westminster, it would not, it could not, un-write the Declaration of Arbroath which created Scotland’s popular sovereignty in perpetuity. 14th Century Scotland “nationalised” sovereignty, and it’s been ours ever since.

    If Westminster, and even Holyrood refuses to acknowledge the ascendency of Scottish Law as it defines our sovereignty, then we should be taking our case to Europe or more probably the UN and having their constitutional lawyers clarify the situation. This will, I promise you, affirm Scotland’s popular sovereignty, as it is defined in Scots law. Confirmed in no small part other than because the UK Supreme Court has already acknowledged that very thing in the 2011 AXA case. Be aware too, that the UN ruling will not confer our sovereignty upon us. It is not theirs to confer. The point of the exercise is to have the UN recognise our legal sovereignty; not to make it legal, but to have it recognised as such. We don’t even need a UDI.

    We have the law, Scots law, firmly on our side. What we seem to lack are lawyers with sufficient vertibrae to hold their ground and defend our interests, and a Scottish Government which demands that they do.

    It changes everything. It would have / should have changed everything back in 2014. The referendum would not have been couched as a referendum to end the UK, but a legally independent Sovereign Scotland holding a referendum to create a political Union with England.

    This whole reverberating cathedral of a debate boils down to one defining factor; whether the 1707 Act of Union is/was competent, and did, as the English and Unionist Scots would maintain, extinguish both Kingdoms of Scotland and England, or, as we Independentists maintain, it never was a competent article because Scottish Sovereignty was not, and could not be, removed from Scotland’s sovereign people to be bargained away in the manner it ostensibly was.

    It isn’t a matter of interpretation. Those Scots who signed up to the Act of Union were signing away something which wasn’t theirs to sign away. They were not competent signatories. The contract is void.

    It is a thoroughly well established concept. Minors are not competent to sign a contract. Lunatics are not competent to sign a contract. Bankrupts, prisoners, people under duress are all not competent to enter into a contract, and if they try and even succeed, the contract is void – no argument about it. In 1707 the Scottish Lords signed the Act of Union to remove sovereignty from Scotland and place that sovereignty at the disposal of the United Kingdom parliament. They were not competent to do so, because Scotland’s sovereignty was never theirs to dispose of. The Act of Union should properly be considered as void.

    That isn’t the end of the matter, because we know this, and have known it for some time. Because we know the Act is void, but continue to conduct our affairs as if it wasn’t void, then by doing so we may be compromising our position and damages suffered during this period of injustice. In effect we contribute to our own injury by continuing to engage with something which we know injures us.

    Our Scottish Government should stand firm and defend Scottish Law and the sovereign independence of Scotland’s people as defined by that law. If our Unionist majority doesn’t like it, then let them organise their own referendum to form a political Union with England, only this time I might suggest a somewhat less binding Act of Union which is NOT based upon a rudimentary error of competence in the signatories, and which doesn’t touch issues of sovereignty with a barge pole.

    All this talk of democracy and referenda is academic waffle. Legally, Scotland is an independent sovereign country. Constitutionally, Scotland is an independent sovereign country. Our monumental struggle to win our Independence from Westminster is no great battle or tumultuous struggle against an oppressor. It is a rather unimpressive matter, and frankly a potentially embarrassing matter of reading the small print, – but the consequences are well and truly immense. The 1707 Act of Union isn’t worth the paper or parchment it’s written on.

    By all means, let’s have a thoroughly democratic referendum, wave our YES flags and raise the country’s constitutional awareness, but let’s not kid ourselves it is anything other than a public relations exercise, because win, lose, or draw, our sovereignty has been right here with us all along.

  185. jimnarlene says:

    Apologies if this has been posted previously, but NP legislation can proceed…

  186. Capella says:

    @ Legerwood – from the FAQ section of the Supreme Court website they say they do not hear appeals from the Scottish Criminal Justice system. So it looks as though Alex Salmond won his case over that.

    Nevertheless, why should it be necessary to have a court overruling the Court of Session? Do they think Scottish judges are incompetent to apply ECHR law?

    Looks like undue interference in the Scottish legal system to me.

  187. CameronB Brodie says:

    Ruth has started a petition, bloody disgrace.

    How does contempt of court work?

  188. Ian Brotherhood says:

    O/T – please come to off-topic if you’re planning to attend Glasgow rally on Saturday and haven’t been with the WOS crowd before.

    (We want to nail a time to get a family snap done…)

  189. Fred says:

    Fred’s never met a Christian but he has met a lot who thought they were!

  190. Effijy says:

    galamcennalath says:
    28 July, 2016 at 7:12 pm
    OT Superb appraisal of the BBC by WGD

    Thanks! Great Article on the BBC.

    Please sign the petition below against Blatant BBC Bias:-
    89,775 Scots have already signed. 90,000, here we come!

  191. Kennedy says:

    Is the Orange Order a Christian group?

  192. Paula Rose says:

    ronnie anderson please control this – you’re in charge tonight.

  193. stewartb says:

    My last post on this subject, at least for now, but the subject may be of wider interest to some already in or contemplating marriage.

    See this on the Christian Institute’s in principle opposition to same sex marriage (Source: 2011 Briefing Paper on “Plans to legalise homosexual marriage in Scotland” – )

    “The definition of marriage, as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life, is not arbitrary. It didn’t just appear out of thin air. Nor is it a recent development or a definition peculiar to our own society. It is a definition which can be seen across all manner of human cultures. It is a definition which stretches back in time through all of human history. It is a definition which accords with nature, with the complementary characteristics of men and women and with the safe and secure rearing of children. This is what Christians believe.”

    The Institute also states:

    “No matter what the law says, true marriage will always be between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life. Law cannot change reality, and law cannot change true marriage.”

  194. Ian Brotherhood says:

    It’s not often a subject arises which is difficult to comment on, but this whole thing is just sickening.

    If we’ve to counter such faux outrage and histrionics over something so basic, what lies ahead?

    Crash Test Dummies, ‘Mmm mmm mmm mmm’ –

  195. Valerie says:

    Here’s Ruth and her petition, just in case anyone doubts she would use this issue in such a barrel scraping way, or exploit child protection issues.

    Sickening and stomach churning. I feel absolute disgust for her.

    Bear in mind, two courts have already considered this NP legislation, it’s been in pilot for years, with reported benefits, and many large and respected charities support this.

  196. Ian Brotherhood says:

    What is this chat of a Davidson petition?

  197. Fran says:

    Oh the irony, ruling on EU law when we are getting taken out of the EU

  198. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Valerie –

    Our comments overlapped there…

    Will have a look at it now, cheers.


  199. Clydebuilt says:

    They are trying to resurrect SLAB over at….. “Like them or loath them Scotland Needs Labour for now” …… Would be good for some wingers to pop over and contribute to the debate…..

  200. Kennedy says:

    Does Steven Crabb DWP and PM wannabe have anything to do with this Christian group?

  201. RogueCoder says:

    Sorry for the off-topic folks, but thought you’d want to have a look at this.

    You wanted a new Scottish media? Here it is.

  202. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Valerie –

    I clicked link, but couldn’t find page showing how many have signed.

    She’s taking serious flak via Twitter anyway, so here’s hoping the whole thing falls flat on its arse.

  203. Phronesis says:

    The Scottish legislation was approved by 103 votes to nil by MSPs when it formed part of the Children and Young People Act in 2014. This was after extensive consultation with many child welfare organisations, statutory services- faith groups included. This legislation is supporting a plethora of policies where achieving maximum levels of child well-being is a SG priority for all children in Scotland- presumably that is why all 103 MSPs supported it.

    The Supreme Court will surely have a similar view of current thinking in England which uncannily echoes the NP in various child welfare concerns but has not as yet legislated for this.

    ‘The Teachers’ Standards 2012 state that teachers, including head teachers, should safeguard children’s wellbeing and maintain public trust in the teaching profession as part of their professional duties
    Each school and college should have a designated safeguarding lead who will provide support to staff members to carry out their safeguarding duties and who will liaise closely with other services such as children’s social care’

    A cross party group at WM thinks that this is a good idea;

    ‘We also want to see a ‘nominated person’- a sort of guardian who will take an interest in them – to be appointed for children who go missing from home and who may not be on the children’s services radar…

    Children who go missing from home should have a ‘nominated person’ appointed to ensure that they are properly safeguarded’ .

    The UK government recently commissioned the Wood Report on the function of Local Safeguarding Children Boards and found that there needs to be fundamental reform of this system (which applies to England. England and Scotland have always legislated separately in child welfare matters e.g the Children’s Panel is a Scottish entity, GIRFEC is a devolved policy)

    ‘The agencies are those relating to health, the police and local government. We need to ensure that at national and local level these three areas are at one in agreeing how to hold to account one another and the services they deliver individually and collectively. Some have pointed to the broad Corporate Parenting duty on a local authority as the type of model to apply to the three key agencies in respect of their role in protecting children’

    Children themselves have also voiced their own concerns about lack of clarity in knowing who will help them

    ‘Many children complain to my office about poor co-ordination between agencies – especially when things have gone wrong… being unclear as to whom to talk to or report. This may also mean being unclear who will be the most responsive to their needs (children have often reported good and bad responses from various agencies suggesting that a coherent response has not been embedded across agencies themselves)’

    The WM government response to the Wood Report;

    ‘We will introduce a stronger but more flexible statutory framework that will support local partners to work together more effectively to protect and safeguard children and young people, embedding improved multi-agency behaviours and practices. This framework will set out clear requirements for the key local partners, while allowing them freedom to determine how they organise themselves to meet those requirements and improve outcomes for children locally…

    Place a new requirement on three key partners, namely local authorities, the police and the health service, to make arrangements for working together in a local area. This would not change the existing statutory functions or duties on any of the agencies individually, but it will require more robust and much clearer arrangements to promote effective joint working, in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’

    And of course we should consider why knowing what information should be shared and with whom is a pivotal factor in protecting very vulnerable children (and is a responsibility of the state)

    ‘Effective sharing of information between professionals and local agencies is essential for effective identification, assessment and service provision…

    Early sharing of information is the key to providing effective early help where there are emerging problems. At the other end of the continuum, sharing information can be essential to put in place effective child protection services. Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) have shown how poor information sharing has contributed to the deaths or serious injuries of children…

    Local agencies should have in place effective ways to identify emerging problems and potential unmet needs for individual children and families. This requires all professionals, including those in universal services and those providing services to adults with children, to understand their role in identifying emerging problems and to share information with other professionals to support early identification and assessment’

  204. Meindevon says:


    Is that Ruth Davidson tweet for real? Can you imagine what the Tories and Labour would have said about NS making some Carry On type comment about a man ‘fingering a whisky glass’? Except she wouldn’t, would she? She has much too much decorum to do something so trashy. That might come back to bite Ms Davidson if she ever gets to put herself forward for a high heid yin position.

    Also not sure what these right of centre Christian folk at the Supreme Court would make of it?

    And as someone pointed out above, they aren’t too keen on gay marriage or gay anything. So that comment no doubt made one or two of them feel quite faint!

  205. Graeme Doig says:

    I see a lot of folk getting hot under the collar about some Christian beliefs.

    I would hope an independent Scotland would have the same tolerance of Christians as they would of Muslims who have very similar beliefs on homosexuality and abortion.

  206. Robert Peffers says:

    @Another Union Dividend says: 28 July, 2016 at 2:13 pm:

    “BBC Radio Shortbread 2pm headlines yet again distorting the Supreme Court ruling.

    Yes! You are correct.

    ” … Named Persons is just one more example where the SNP has not been pro active enough in letting members know what is going on. Is the scheme voluntary or not?

    Arrgh! And just how do you propose the SG should be more proactive? They drew-up and got the act passed by an overwhelming majority of the MSPs. They published the facts on the Holyrood Parliament website and on the SNP’s website.

    The Westminster Establishment then went into full overdrive, the unionist parties sent out their orders to their branch offices in Scotland that they were, in spite of NOT opposing the act at Holyrood, (only the Tories abstained while the rest voted for the act), then the unionist propaganda wing, led of course by the BBC, have brayed, “SNP BAAD!”, ever since while several, deeply suspect, so called, “Christian”, organisations banded together to oppose the act.

    Now I’m not an anti-Christian, per se, but I note the majority of child abuse scandals throughout my entire lifetime have usually involved nominally, “Christian”, organisations. Be they schools, children’s homes or priests, ministers, Padres or leaders of such as schools, The Boy Scouts, Boy’s Brigade, Cadet Corps, Orphanages or whatever.

    Now do not attempt to make me out to be blaming Christianity. That is not my point. The point is these religious organs have, through the years, been the very obvious organisations that paedophiles and abusers will join in order to gain access to vulnerable children.

    Many of these children, for example orphaned children, have no parents or other family to support them. Who then are these vulnerable ones to turn to when those who are supposedly stand-ins for parents are the abusers?

    ” … The SNP web site should be regularly updated with simple facts on how well the Scottish Health Service is performing in comparison with RuK also with education and other policy areas that are regularly attacked by Yoon letter writers.”

    It is but who, except for their own membership, reads the SNP website? For that matter who reads the Scottish Government website?

    ” … Good point made above regarding Cases heard in Scotland by the Highest Court in Scotland can be appealed to the Supreme Court but that is not the case with cases heard in English Appeal courts. WHY?”

    Do you actually really need to ask? This so called United Kingdom is legally a bi-partite union of two equally sovereign KINGDOMS but Westminster commissioned and published a paper by what they claimed to be leading experts that claims otherwise.

    This was made very, very obvious when David Mundell, (then the Secretary of State for Scotland), announced to the World, in front of TV cameras, “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as The United Kingdom”.

    Does that sound like Westminster regards itself as a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms to you? Add to that this illegal Supreme Court and the Westminster adoption of the EVEL legislation and any person in Scotland who still supports the Union is without doubt, by their own acceptance of the above facts, no longer a Scot in any real sense of the term.

    They are, to all intents and purposes, just what the then Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, described they are Unionists and that, according to the present Westminster Government, members of the union they claim was the Kingdom of England renamed by the Treaty of Union as The United Kingdom after Scotland was extinguished.

    I am always suspicious of the activities of right wing fundamentalist religious groupings.

  207. galamcennalath says:

    Valerie says:

    “Here’s Ruth and her petition”

    Aye, contrast that to Nicola’s petition about Trident.

    Clearly, morality is in the eye of the beholder. I know who I stand behind.

  208. yesindyref2 says:

    Ah, thanks to the article and comments about “42 days” etc, it’s all a lot clearer – MSM lies again.

  209. HandandShrimp says:

    I see the BBC site headline is

    Named person ‘will still be introduced’

    I think the initial buzz on the data protection thing is already losing its sparkle for the SNPbad types. It isn’t that big a deal for the legislators to rewrite and enact. John Swinney is still talking about it being introduced in the Autumn session.

  210. Phydaux says:

    Another Named Person stooshie and lots of heartfelt comments and views.I have never understood the need for every child to have a NP.Most parents do not harm or abuse their children.The court ruling concerned itself with a family’s right to privacy and that parents have no say in whether or not to have a NP. The legislation on data protection and human rights states that, unless a child is deemed to be in need of protection, information can’t be shared between agencies without the staff running the risk of contravening this legislation.

    This has 2 consequences.Either it deters information sharing or it artificially increases concerns.The Government must address this, as confirmed by John Swinney.

    Previous Child Abuse Inquiries have shown that child victims of abuse were all known to some or other parts of the systems in place.The greatest failures lay with managers and senior members of local councils.Inept and ineffective management are persistent themes, as well as underfunding, inadequate staffing levels and poorly led.Front line workers, usually social workers, are faced with a tough and challenging job…dealing with adults who behave in deviant and menacing ways.They require professional skills and personal qualities, not least of which are persistence and courage.

    The answer lies in doing relatively straightforward things well, to quote Lord Laming, Chairman of the Victoria Climbie Inquiry.

    Child abuse victims of almost unimaginable cruelty is difficult for everybody to deal with.Those who work in child protection deserve our understanding and support.Those who play political football with complex and difficult issues around child protection and who have nothing constructive to contribute are named and shamed.

    Always thought that ” Named Person ” was an ill-thought out and somewhat stigmatising choice of words.Keyworker was commonly used previously and seems more neutral and apt.

  211. call me dave says:


    Hinkley Point in doubt! Costs questioned.

  212. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Personally, I think this is one area where the usual politicking (whether conventional or pro/anti-indy) should take a respectful back seat. This is about the well-being of our kids, and should not become a political football. For anyone, for any reason.

    There was already some legitimate concern about some aspects of the legislation, so the fact that the jurists of the SC have identified one specific issue of concern should surely be positive, no?

    John Swinney has already indicated a willingness to look and learn, so all credit to him. If improved child protection legislation that commands more widespread public support is the result, is that not to be welcomed? (At least by everyone who doesn’t have some axe of their own to grind.)

    This is for our kids, FGS. Let’s get it as right as we possibly can and move on.

  213. Proud Cybernat says:

    @ Graham Doig

    “I would hope an independent Scotland would have the same tolerance of Christians as they would of Muslims who have very similar beliefs on homosexuality and abortion.”

    They’re entitled to their beliefs. No one denies that. What they are NOT entitled to, however, is to foist their beliefs on the majority. There’s a process for that – it’s called the ballot box. The Christian Party got stuffed at every election they have participated in. Democracy in action. Th problem is that when they get stuffed by the people, they extole a higher power onto their side. Well, as far as I’m aware, unless god appears in person, s/he doesn’t get a vote.

  214. yesindyref2 says:

    To clear up a misconception, the UK does NOT exit the ECHR with Brexit, it exits from the ECJ – The European Court of Justice which is purely an EU thing.

    The European Court of Human Rights is the court set up under the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed up to by 47 European countries including the UK which signed up in 1950. I repeat – 1950. Way before the UK joined the EU. When the UK exits the EU it will still be a signatory to the Convention (ECHR) and therefore still subject to the Court (ECHR), unless it specifically withdraws from the ECHR – which it is unlikely to do. It’s the ECJ and the EU Human Rights including the EU four freedoms which the UK has problems with.

    I read the legislation itself and it does not make it clear that it’s voluntary, so you’re not the only one with concerns. Unfortunately this has been turned into a silly issue – if you express any doubts about NP then you obviously hate the SNP and are a serial child abuser. There seems to be no room for sensible discussion. Ah well.

  215. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Is Ruth Davidson’s ‘petition’ a stunt to get folk clicking the Scottish Tories’ website?

    Where is the page accepting signatures?

  216. yesindyref2 says:

    Add to above, the UK has problems with workers rights protected under the EU – they’re not part of the ECHR as far as I know.

  217. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jack Murphy says: 28 July, 2016 at 2:22 pm:

    “The Tories in Scotland seem delighted with the UK Supreme Court throwing this Scheme out.”

    In the first place the Supreme Court is totally illegal as the Treaty of Union, states that Scots law will be independent forever. As the Treaty of Union is a bi-partite union that means the Treaty of Union is broken.

    In the second place the Supreme Court of England did NOT throw the act out. They said that it needed adjustment to comply with EU laws.

    “Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.”

    No doubt Davidson did say that but that doesn’t make it the truth. Davidson is well known for spouting loads of utter lies.

    “She added: “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children.

    “We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality.”

    Indeed the Tories have argued about almost everything the Scottish Government has ever done but that doesn’t make them right. Davidson needs to come down to Earth and get it through her thick head that the sovereign people of Scotland do indeed know best – which is why the SNP are the Scottish Government and the Tories are the opposition and that they do not exactly have a mandate to do anything whatsoever with the strength of their representation at Westminster.

    “The Hooray Henry Tories know best.
    A disgrace.”

    Nah! They just think they know best but the voters in Scotland obviously know better and reject them at as the government of Scotland and it was only by dirty tactics that one lone Tory was elected to Westminster .

  218. Proud Cybernat says:

    As far as I’m aware–and I’ve known to be wrong on more than one occasion–the Supreme Court is actually just a fancy name given to a bunch of House of Lords Law Lords who are simply doing what they have always done but under a new name ‘The Supreme Court’ (because the EU apparently didn’t like the House of Lords being too close to the judiciary) or something along those lines. And, as far as I’m aware, the Scot, Lord Hope, is presently the head-honcho of the SC. I think the whole SC usurping Scots Law is a bit of a red herring. But I could be wrong. Again.

  219. Still Positive. says:

    I posted on the last thread re named Person.

    All teachers act in ‘loco parentis’ – in the place of parents and it is incumbent to all of them to flag up any concerns about a pupil.

    However, in my experience as a teacher in Glasgow, most concerns were about a family illness or bereavement where pupils were worried.

    These things happen to most families from time to time.

    When my mother-in-law died I went to my son’s secondary school to pick him up as I didn’t want him to find out from distant relations who were also pupils. While waiting at the office for him his Guidance Teacher came by and asked if everything was OK. I explained what had happened and she said she would ‘keep an eye on him’. I also mentioned his cousin who was not at school that day.

    In the event my son coped well but as a mum I was reassured that the school would ‘make allowances’ if needed.

    That, in essence, is what most of the NP legislation is about.

  220. Graeme Doig says:

    Proud Cybernat

    No argument from me on that count but as a Christian I notice the rhetoric is always ramped up against Christianity as a whole on occasions like this in a way that doesn’t happen with Islam.

    Is it fear of being non PC that seems to inhibit criticism of Islam in a way that doesn’t seem to affect Christianity?


    I have absolutely nothing against NP.

  221. Capella says:

    Bad news Phydaux, UK subjects have no right to privacy and never have had. That is why the spooks can hapily capture all your online activity, rake through your bins and listen to your phone calls with abandon.

    The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution that enshrines a right to privacy for individuals and there is no common law that provides for a general right to privacy.

    Only the ECHR protects our privacy.

  222. Proud Cybernat says:

    “…as a Christian I notice the rhetoric is always ramped up against Christianity as a whole on occasions like this in a way that doesn’t happen with Islam.”

    Are you kidding me? Do you even watch/read the news?

    What I see — Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Seikh, Jedi or whatever is that it is the extremists, the fundamentalists who cause all the problems.

    There is no reasoning with a zealot of any faith for they will all tell you the same thing – they are right because they have god on their side.

    Are they all right? Go figure.

  223. CamernB Brodie says:

    Graeme Doig
    Sorry if I offended, that wasn’t my intention.

    Anyway, I knew a Graeme Doig when I was a kid. Grew up near Claypots, Dundee. Would that be yourself?

  224. Grouse Beater says:

    Phydaux: “Previous Child Abuse Inquiries have shown that child victims of abuse were all known to some or other parts of the systems in place”

    By which point it’s too late to protect the child.

  225. CameronB Brodie says:

    Just a thought, how many Mullah have a seat on the HoL benefits gravy-train.

    Our lives in Britain are shaped by Christian values, like it or not.

    Remember also, the British Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England. This is s dire conflict of interests, IMHO, though the Church of Scotland does not appear to recognise it as such and already appears to have bent the knee.

    Praise be!

  226. Graeme Doig says:

    Cameron B Brodie

    Not me Cameron but cheers for your comment.

    I wasn’t offended by anything anyone said I just find it interesting that the belief system of Christians is called into question with comments like “God botherer”, “a load of bullshit”, “aye a prayer will fix it just like Jim’ll fix it”.

    Would put a few quid on fact that none of these comments would appear in relation to Islam.

  227. yesindyref2 says:

    Read a couple of summaries of what the ruling was about, and then found this from LPW:

    I read the thing (Act) way back and it was just too vague. It even referred to guides which didn’t exist yet. As LPW says both sides can claim victory, and the end esult should be an Act fit for purpose. But for me there is a lesson which needs to be learnt, especially with Independence on its way soon, and full powers – though I doubt the lesson will be learnt.

    There needs to be some form of proper review of Legislation, and for me, the heart of the problem is there’s no separate Executive and Legislature in Scotland, just a Committee system which gets a lot of criticism – including from the ex Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick – and a Committee system where a unanimous committee report can be totally ignored by a majority Government. This is a democratic deficit in Scotland which needs to be tackled, as well as the big one within the UK!

  228. ronnie anderson says:


    Sat 30/7 Freedom Square.

    Petethecamera has enough badges in stock for us ,we have 2×3 Saltire/Lion Rampart.
    Provan Indyref2 will be sharing our stall.

    Donations will be going to Tayside Kidney Patients Association.

    Pete is still in hospital ,lets wish him a speedy recovery

  229. heedtracker says:

    Would put a few quid on fact that none of these comments would appear in relation to Islam.

    That’s probably what the Reformation was all about Graeme Doig. Christians have long lost their ability to use violence on the evil blasphemers etc. If only eh Graeme. Having an invisible friend up in the sky, all powerful with a big beard and nice toga must nice though.

    On balance, I have never heard any Muslim tell me what to do either. Funny that.

  230. Vambomarbeleye says:

    You should see the comments on the. Daily hail. I don’t know if they sit there rubbing their thighs waiting for a article on Scotland. Or it’s something much more sinister coming from a government department.
    It’s vile and mostly ill informed. So are the just thick as shit or trying to mislead.

  231. Graeme Doig says:

    “Having an invisible friend up in the sky, all powerful with a big beard and nice toga”

    Does for me Heedtracker. 😉

    Have never told anyone what to do myself. I’ve been a bit of a radge my whole life so no right to. Doesn’t stop me believing in Christ and what that means for me.

    I could post some ridicule about your beliefs but where would that get us.

  232. Tam Jardine says:

    The extract from the Christians against NP mission statement is telling. What we are seeing here is a a little loving discipline by the parent parliament. A firm smack to mend Scotland’s errant ways.

    A firm but fair wee tap just to keep us in line. They administer them fairly, firmly and often out of love and their god given right as our supreme, benevolent overlords.

    “A crack on the head is what they get for not asking… and a cracking on the head is what they get for asking”. Trouble is we are all grown up and ready to leave the nest and move in with our mates- every little smack is just making us more resolute.

    As for the press and TV gangs, their gleeful zeal is instructive. If it is a choice between supporting a measure aimed at reducing child neglect, child abuse and simply helping parents when they are struggling- a choice between getting behind this policy and having a go at the SNP that is no choice at all.

    Had slab rolled this out how different the reaction would have been.

    The irony is- fast forward a few years and England will implement this on the back of a successful implementation in Scotland. And all this stushie will be long forgotten.

    But for now, a wee love tap from the abusive authority figure and in a couple of years the plan is to move the family lock stock and barrel out to the sticks of Europe where the abuse can continue behind closed doors and the blows can fall wherever the tories deem appropriate.

    Wait till I get you home? How about wait till we leave the EU. It won’t matter if you can see the bruises then.

    Time to move out. Time to move on.

  233. Swami Backverandah says:

    The cover-up’s by the Church and Church-loving Establishment will tell you all you need to know about why there is so much resistance to the exposure of child abusers.

    Is everyone Keeping Up With The Kardinals?

    Cardinal George Pell ‘exposed himself to boys in 1980s’

  234. Tam Jardine says:

    Graeme Doig

    The guy in the toga up there is a bit of a radge Himsel so you are in guid company:;

  235. Grouse Beater says:

    Yesindiref2:“The European Court of Human Rights is the court set up under the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed up to by 47 European countries including the UK which signed up in 1950.”

    Correct. However, that’s less than half the story…

    “Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights”, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government.

    She went on (and on) “The ECHR binds the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.

    So there you have it – Westminster racism sees no distinction between the EU, EC, or the ECHR – they’re all Johnny Foreigner. Brexit really means Brexit.

  236. heedtracker says:

    I could post some ridicule about your beliefs but where would that get us.

    Ridicule as much as you like Graeme. The difference is that I don’t think your ridicule sends you to hell. BBC r4 10pm news gave the triumphant Christian group’s leader the full headline works tonight and it was really hellish. But from the Queen down, the English Establishment are or is, Jesus Christ’s reps on Earth, so what do I know.

  237. CameronB Brodie says:

    Graeme Doig @ 11:54pm
    I’m almost certain you have something there.

    I think* the source of many of our grievances in general, is due to the friction caused between our own individual interpretations of reality and the subsequent expectations this produces, contrasted with our actual experience of Being. These don’t always correspond. That can be frustrating.

    As Britain is historically Christian in cultural values, it is reasonable for the Christian faith to take most of the stick for thing being a bit crap. Not saying it should, just putting forward a possible reason why it might.

    * I actually know someone else thunk this before me.

  238. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Let’s not get distracted by irrelevancies here, everybody.

    Some people have had concerns about the potential impact of this legislation on family life, and that’s fair enough. At least a little of their concern may even be justified. I reckon yesindyref2 has a point: maybe if Holyrood had a more effective legislative review mechanism, this situation could have been entirely avoided.

    There’s only one party though that’s shabbily attempting to exploit this issue for their own selfish ends (isn’t there Ruthie?), with the willing help of their utterly despicable camp followers in The Daily Heil and the even more contemptible Daily Slug.

  239. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi yesindyref2.

    Re: “proper review of Legislation”.

    I’ve always felt that the 59 Scottish MPs, who would be redundant after independence, could become the ELECTED occupants of a Scottish “upper house”.

  240. Dr Jim says:

    Nobody’s putting the Tories through the Supreme court for creating starving children in poverty but damn those Scots to hell for trying to help them, jolly well can’t have that kind of thing going on

    That’s the trouble with Scots, too many of em and damned uppity, slap em down and quick about it


  241. CameronB Brodie says:

    As Britain is historically Christian in cultural values, it is reasonable for the Christian faith to take most of the stick for thing being a bit crap. Not saying it should, just putting forward a possible reason why it might.

    As Britain is historically Christian in cultural values and though church observance and the Fear of God might not be what they used to be, Christianity is still the predominant faith-group in the UK. Normal people don’t tend to openly attack minorities with ease but feel less encumbered by ‘niceness’ when it comes to the attacking the majority.

    Suck it up Christians, you’ve had two millennia to get a hud of your nutters and extremists, yet here we are in the 21st century and Christian fundamentalists are being used to attack the SNP, who I had already been lead to believe were Godless Stalinist anyway.

    The mind boggles.

  242. CameronB Brodie says:

    Let’s not get distracted by irrelevancies here, everybody.

    Sorry. Guilty this time.

  243. Informed people are against this legislation as it is clearly not in the best interests of families. It is clearly a means to collect information on children and parents to ensure that they remain good little proles.

    We don’t have the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4 if the SNP says it could offend some group or other or put people in ‘danger’ or contribute to the Climate Change Monster.

    Anyway, GIRFEC and the Named Person is about *wellbeing*. Rather than spending very limited resources on children known to be in problem families, the net will cover every person under 18 and will make sure that they are allowed to watch their favourite TV shows and have their rooms decorated to their tastes, etc.

    How will this prevent abuse?

    This grand diversion will likely increase child abuse and also lead to gross miscarriages of justice due to misunderstandings and malicious behaviour.

    However the government rehashes this insidious piece of legislation, it will still be awful, and pave the way for even more state intrusion.

    You might feel so insecure and pathetically weak that you need the government to dictate how you should live your life and what you should believe, but some of us want freedom and will fight the namby-pamby fakes who are ruling this potentially great country.

    It might seem a ‘Pyhrric victory’ but it’s better to try than to submit yourself to the government as a domesticated pet, staying indoors, handing in your airgun (all good totalitarian regimes disarm the people), letting some government agent check your domestic appliances and be the ‘head gardener’ of your children because you have a prior commitment to being a brainwashed fool who believes that the government is like the tooth fairy and rewards proles for their good behaviour.

    Except that the more you comply with their insane control freakery, the tighter they will turn the screws.

  244. P.S. What kind of ‘Rev’ are you who expects parents to give up their God-given right to raise their own children?

    – For the hard of thinking, I am not for a second saying they have the right to abuse their children. OK; Got that?

    And are you not atuned enough to the Almighty to see through this charade – this anti-Christian, anti-freedom, anti-child piece of major state intrusion?

    Do you also support under 16s getting abortions and contraception without their parents’ knowledge or consent?

    Is the SNP the ‘god’ in yoru life?

  245. P.P.S. As for suggesting that people opposed to the Named Person are pro-child abuse: deep, deep shame on you.

  246. Bill says:

    Sorry but I’ve never heard so much crap about NP.

    I don’t know where to begin with Stewart.

    Let’s start with the current framework, if a family is already using agency A, the parent et al doesn’t have to tell agency B of the existence of the first agency. And so on, where there is multi agency involvement unless where courts, police etc have been involved and even then information sharing is patchy at best.

    It’s this information sharing that is vital in saving a child’s life. Innocuous information placed in the right hands becomes valuable sign posts for those involved in child care and protection.

    Unless a parent volunteers the information to say a Head Teacher that she is involved with a Contact Centre due to a difficult divorce the School would never know.

    That child is having contact with a father who is deemed unfit to have unsupervised access to their own child.

    As for the rest of us, like me with no agency involved in our children’s lives apart from School, GP and youth sports we have nothing to fear.

  247. Bill says:

    Stewart calm down.

    Let’s debate this.

  248. T.roz says:

    I am going to become a dad in 9 weeks time and I will be reassured for the sake of my child that there will be a Named Person, probably a teacher, given the confidence to contact someone if they are concerned about my child’s well being.
    This kind of thing is almost in existence already in small communities, where people kind of know how everybody is getting on. It is quite often described wrongly as noseyness, it is people doing what we are designed to do and that is look after each other. It will work and it will be a real assurance, especially when I don’t believe in God.

  249. Bill says:


    Case after case of child abuse, murder etc has a causation line as long as an aircraft crash investigation. The same theme in all cases is information sharing, missing sign posts and not listening to a concerned teacher, health worker, GP, Doctor, nursery teacher, sports instructor, neighbour, friend….. You get the idea. All of us, the community in which these innocent small victims lived.

    Many agencies may be involved where a child is already at risk but each agency may not know of each other’s involvement unless the parent has volunteered that information.

    How can we solve that?

    What if we had a person who could pass relevant information to all the agencies and vis-a-vis agencies could feed information the other way. A conduit.

    They aren’t going to chose my daughters bedroom decorations! Unless she wants pictures of a rock band known for its suicidal tendencies and she’s on anti-depressants.


  250. Bill says:


    Thanks and congratulations. You’re going to love parenthood. Mine are 18 & 10. It’s a privilege and an honour being a Dad.

    You have nothing to worry about NP, the Head Teacher or Health Visitor as a conduit to other agencies will be a benefit to a new Dad.

    For those children already growing up in extremely challenging circumstances with multi agency involvement then the NP can only help them.

    Stewart misses the point, it’s not about helping the drug addicted drunk violent parent who is abusing their children it’s about protecting children.

    Maybe we need a NP for some adults!

  251. scotspine says:

    I reckon the Yoon strategy this time round will concentrate massively on simply trying to make the SNP look inefficient and inept. They are already ramping up attacks on NHS and Police and now insinuating poor legislation. I also reckon the Totalitarian claim will be emphasised.

    Its all they have, because all their lies (EU, Pensions etc) have come home to roost.

    Wait though. Re the Clyde shipyards, seeing as the type 26 has been kicked into touch because of cost, they need escorts for the aircraftless non carriers. They have mooted type 31 ( a simpler design as a general purpose frigate and so less expensive) as an interrim and I have no doubt they will buy an off the shelf oven ready design from abroad (i.e not designed by bae)and pull that out the hat to be built under license on the Clyde.

    A kind of “beads, blankets and firewater to the natives”

  252. Kennedy says:

    Does Article 8 of ECHR say anything regarding the Snoopers Charter?

  253. call me dave says:

    “Where did it all go wrong” asks Bill on radio shortbread as an expert Andrew Collier follows on with “a humiliation for the SG”

    But within a few seconds the NP legislation is suddenly a good thing,working well in parts of Scotland as Collier and Cairney all agree it should go ahead.

    It was all to do with poor drafting and not getting the message across to the public, perhaps the title NP was too strong. SNP bad!

    VIP tent at Hinkley point built yesterday for the signing of contacts left empty as Tories rethink situation and the Chinese delegation slip back to China.

    Expert on radio 5 last night says nowhere to store waste, special rock formation required, 500m deep shatf with drift galleries backfilled with concrete and sealed for hundreds of years!

    Where? Well looks like we can’t use that North Britain region as they’ve become a bit uppity, so best not do it.


    Morning all

  254. Dorothy Devine says:

    Ronnie , if I can make it I will be there , where will you and Wings be?

  255. Bill says:

    I know many examples from care workers including voluntary sector with jaw dropping examples of abuse that will go on and on. Yes before you panic they never gave names, only the story.

    Here’s a typical scenario: (Stewart has probably never heard of a Respite Crèche), a “mum” drops its 9 month old baby into the Respite Crèche for her allotted few hours one morning. The baby obviously screaming and filthy needs changing. The person changing the baby, a mother herself, realises that the kid hasn’t been changed for 3 days!

    Once cleaned up and bleeding sores dressed, she tells the Mothers Union organiser who is afraid to call social work due to risk of violence. They refuse to call GP, Social Work aren’t informed and the volunteer mum is put in her place.

    This is a daily struggle for agencies Stewart, that sign-post went missed. It’s the bottom of the pyramid, having a NP for that baby would at least feed that information into the system where it can be compared with the other services that person is using.

  256. Golfnut says:

    Sorry Stewart, churches and religion are the past masters of control freakery, they have used torture, hanging, burning, war and terror to hold power and control individuals and nations. Not least the threat of excommunication and eternal examination for those who do not conform.
    The legislation for NP is considered benign by the law lords, by almost every charity and child agency in Scotland and thankfully will be enacted sooner rather than later.

  257. Stoker says:

    Stewart Cowan wrote (@ 6:49am):
    “Is the SNP the ‘god’ in yoru life?”

    Deary deary me! Stewart, if you knew anything at all you would know that Campbell has absolutely nothing to do with the SNP. Living and registered to vote in England he can’t even vote for them.

    He may have beliefs which approve of some of their policies, independence for Scotland being the major one, but his blog, this site, WOS, is first and foremost a media monitoring site.

    As for “yoru” – i suspect he has no idea who “yoru” is so he wouldn’t be able to say which god “yoru” follows. BTW, do you have a brother named Tam by any chance? 🙂

  258. Smallaxe says:

    @ Stewart Cowan,

    “Namby pamby fakes who are ruling this potentially great country”

    What are the odds.WOS.

    11/3/2016.”Namby pamby fake charities who want to ban and control everything and everyone”???

  259. Ken500 says:

    The Tory/Unionists have just renewed Trident at a cost of £200Bilion. A threat to every child on the planet, especially in Scotland. The Trade Unions should be ashamed ofhemselves advocating these jobs. When the money could be spent on renewables. Or money to build frigates to patrol Scotland’s shore to stop drugs destroying communities and society. Or enforce the 100 kilometre? exclusive EU fishing zone for each home port. Or ferries, supply boats or liners to travel the world.
    Norway builds 100 vessels a year.

    Yet people are arguing about the NP. Data is shared with all different agencies already. The NP is just the person to go to in an emergency or crisis. To aviod confusion or missing details because public services are working separately. That is when vulnerable children fall through the net or necessary details are not followed up. The Churches have child agencies and should be supporting the measure. Presumably they shared details with others. In the past children were not protected. In the past children/adults were not supplied with their details to trace their relatives. Secrecy destroyed people’s lives.

  260. Bill says:

    Rev Stu Campbell is spot on with this post. Yes it’s a bit direct and strong but then we need to be as the bottom line is that abusers are getting away with it and rely on the fact that information is disparate, patchy and not shared well.

  261. galamcennalath says:

    Valerie says:
    at 9:26 pm

    “Bear in mind, two courts have already considered this NP legislation, it’s been in pilot for years, with reported benefits, and many large and respected charities support this.”

    … and health professionals, teachers, social workers, etc etc.

    The only objections seems to revolve around state interference in the supposed Deity given right to exercise total and absolute control by parents over their children.

    I just don’t see it as ‘interference’, it’s an exercise in communication. Breakdown in communication between agencies etc has caused historical problems. NP should help in this.

    My conclusion. Two groups have allied – fundimentalist Christians and right wing political elements on their usual SNPBad trip. I’m not a fan of Davidson, but she should have accepted the Supreme Court ruling. Her behaviour absolutely stinks.

  262. Ken500 says:

    How many under 16 year olds have abortions – very few. The number of Teenager pregnancies have fallen. Children who are abused, often within families suffer from low self esteem, low self worth and confusion, even with counselling. People had parents who endured the war and brutalities who were told not to share. Even today ex service men have poor support. The Chilcot Verdict has gone very quiet with no reporting of the finding. Westminster Unionists have been abusing children and people in the Middle East for years and taking their resources. The Gaza is still a vertical prison camp with atrocities committed every day. Shameful.

    The Press has even tried to use the Syrian refugees plight on Bute to cause controversy. The Tories are determined to ruin the world economy. A UN report has stated the UK Gov is contributing to increased poverty in children/vulnerable people because of the benefits/welfare cuts which hit women and children disproportionately the hardest. The Churches seem to be relatively quiet about publicising that.

  263. scotspine says:

    “Is there God in your life”?

    Clearly he isnt in the lives of abused children, because they still get abused and murdered.

    Maybe God has just temporarily ran out of bolts of lightening to strike down wrongdoers with.

    Perhaps what we need is Odin instead, after all, he promised to rid the world of ice giants and I dont see any of them walking arounf.

  264. Truth says:


    Sorry to be a pedant, but can people please refer to the law in Scotland as Scots Law, and not Scottish Law.

    Every time you use “Scottish Law” you are subtly helping the unionists as this denigrates the sovereignty of the people.

    It is called Scots Law as it is the law if the people, NOT the law of the land.

    Have you ever noticed Mr Salmond always referring to our parliament as the Scots Parliament?

  265. Bill says:

    It was the same during indyref1, attacks on SNP for the wrong things. I have a list of things that Yoons could have a field day with yet they’ve missed them totally.

    I’m not even going to mention them but there’s a few crackers. Unless you want me to? In the interest of fairness?

  266. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Dorothy Devine

    Wings stall will be under Walter Scott statue in centre of the square. I hope you can make it xx.

  267. Bill says:

    They are more than just numbers but here he go,

    And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

  268. Graeme says:

    Stewart Cowan says:
    29 July, 2016 at 6:53 am

    P.P.S. As for suggesting that people opposed to the Named Person are pro-child abuse: deep, deep shame on you.

    As I read it he didn’t say ALL persons opposed to NP are child abusers, he said all child abusers are opposed to NP and will see this as a good day

    it’s quite a different thing


  269. Sinky says:

    The religious fundamentalists and right wing zealots who continue to misrepresent the Named Person legislation and Supreme Court findings should listen to the spokesperson for Highland Council who explained matters clearly on Radio Scotland at 8.10 am this morning.

    Someone more techie than me could post a link.

    Morning Call phone in discussing this at 9 am
    Call 0500 92 95 00. Text 80295.

  270. Ken500 says:

    There should also be kinship payments to carers – grandparents etc. So children can stay within families. It is more secure and cost effective. The SNP has ensured children can stay in (foster) care longer until they are older.

  271. Fred says:

    For Davidson there’s no such a thing as bad publicity, whether its tank-straddling, riding buffaloes or making common cause with fundamentalist Christians who would have her stoned if the Supreme Court allowed it! Some day she will fall on her arse big time! Bring it on!

  272. Scooter says:

    I’m sure that as the judge said, the intentions behind this law are well meaning but from where I sit, it looks like an unnecessary erosion of the family and is a disaster waiting to happen. It is this kind of legislation which puts the SNP firmly in the authoritarian left corner of the political compass whereas, I imagine, that much of the SNP’s support comes from people who feel more libertarian left.

    But the SNP are full of contradictions and half a dozen post-referendum meetings were more than enough for me to realise that they are a top down organisation and that disagreements, even on verifiable facts, were not tolerated from the hoi polloi.

    I think it is disgraceful that this has been framed as some kind of victory for child abusers. Failures in the system need to be addressed but this is not the answer and I am grateful that I no longer work in care because as well as the shadow of the state looming over family life, I anticipate a backlash within education and social care with scapegoats in abundance.

  273. Andrew McLean says:

    Stuart says “Informed people are against this legislation” didn’t read anything else, that attitude, that if you don’t agree with me you are not informed, is not constructive to debate and is the sign of a closed mind.

  274. Macart says:

    ‘Informed people are against…’


  275. Valerie says:

    Off topic. Well worth reading. A walk through the key steps to Brexit.

    You can begin to see why Cameron resigned, although I still think he is a coward. There is no way our Tory masters of limited intellect will manage this.

  276. Robert Peffers says:

    @Graeme Doig says: 28 July, 2016 at 11:01 pm:

    “No argument from me on that count but as a Christian I notice the rhetoric is always ramped up against Christianity as a whole on occasions like this in a way that doesn’t happen with Islam.”

    As I have already pointed out, Graham, the rhetoric is not actually against Christians, per se, but against those who are attracted to Christian organisations in order to carry out very un-Christian acts.

    For example there can be no more un-Christian behaviour than the openly Christian sectarianism exhibited by the Loyal Orange Order. It cannot be as Christ taught,”Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself”.

    Same goes for those paedophiles who join such Christian organisations as orphanages, Private Schools, or other children’s organisation in order to not only contact vulnerable children but to be in the position of having official control over them.

    In other words these people are NOT in any way Christians in any shape or form. As to why the Rhetoric differs in relation to Islam is because the United Kingdom countries are Christian Countries. In England, Wales & Northern Ireland’s case the Christian Church of England is legally part of the official UK Establishment.

    In Scotland’s case the Treaty of Union states that under independent Scottish law there can be no legal established church.

    If, for example, Islam were the official Established Church in the Kingdom of England’s legal system then the rhetoric would be exactly the same as it now is for Christianity.

  277. Ghillie says:

    Graeme Doig, calm and astute comments. Thank you.

    Still Positive, helpful nice comment. Very useful contribution.

    Heedtracter (and in fairness you are not alone in this), me thinks thou dost protest too much (apologies for shabby quoting) . What alot of vitriol cast very wide. You ok?

    I’ll pray for you pet. Try not to bust a gut, too late, it’s done and on going = ) Hope you notice the peace and love and all understanding soon (probably when you least expect it!)

    People of faith, whatever faith, fall within the full spectrum of love and understanding through to full blown bigotry and fear. No one is perfect. I have never heard of the particular group that took unction at the Scottish Governement’s attempts to help children. I can only think that at best,their misgivings are based in fear (familiar theme), and rotten political machinations at worst. Either way, on a personal note, their stance does not represent me or my faith. I have a feeling you don’t really mean to denigrate all folk who believe in God.

    Smallaxe, hope you are doing well = ) Love to you and the love of your life. You have a lovely way with words, spreading peace and love as you go. What a beautiful way to move through this world x

    And in any event, it would appear our truly gifted Scottish Government are not bovered by the Uk Supreme Court. Courteous and heedful. But not bovered.

    How cool is that = )

  278. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Does anyone know how many signatures Ruth Davidson’s stinky cynical ‘petition’ has gathered?

    Followed link last night but didn’t want to inadvertently sign the thing…

    Without getting into the rammies about the ‘religious’ element in all this, there is no way anyone can feel satisfaction over the inability of a government – any government – to get its act together when it comes to protection of our society’s most vulnerable. Any talk of ‘victory’ is ludicrous. On that basis alone, Davidson and Dugdale have shamed themselves and all those they claim to represent.

  279. Valerie says:

    @Scooter. 8.58

    That right, aye?

    You anticipate a backlash? How come its been in pilot in Highlands for YEARS, and these disasters have not come to pass? How come they show demonstrable benefits from staff and families? How come parents say they want one contact person?

    This is what I’m talking about in terms of the imaginary hysteria that folk like you encourage.

    This is nothing to do with party politics for supporters of NP, but everything to do with being sick of seeing children failed, or killed.

    Scotland is the only country in the world to have a children’s panel system, so embedded now, it’s taken for granted. I’m sure lots object to being made to attend those Hearings, but that’s just too bad, they have recourse to law.

    The reason I think the Christian aspect of the petitioners is relevant, is because they obviously believe it is their God given Right to treat their child as they see fit, as evidenced by their site, and beating.

    Why does an adult of religious views beat their child? It’s ok because they are the parent?

    It’s disgusting and evil, and that child needs the protection of the law.

  280. Effijy says:

    Guy! It is healthy that we have a mix of religions, opinions, and
    thoughts on the Named Person.

    Let everyone have faith in their faith and their opinion.

    No need for bickering, and it is a turn off for any new visitors here, such as soft No’s taking a first look at us and what we are about.

    IMO We cannot continue to see these innocent children mistreated, maimed, and killed by reckless parents.

    I can’t even bear to read about some of these events, toddlers being locked in rooms alone for days without food, drink, or heat, or a story about a little one’s only source of nourishment
    coming out of the well cared for dog’s bowl. Horrific.

    Thank God that Nicola is trying to do something different that might change the lives, or save the lives of these children.

    I don’t want Big Brother either, and I don’t believe this is what this intended be, but we do need something urgently.

    The trials are encouraging, and if thing turned, I am confident that SNP would amend things again.

    I do believe that SNP, and Greens are the only parties in the UK
    who actually do care about people before profit.

    I also believe that the Tories would kill their Granny for £1,
    never mind lie to you to trick you out of your cash.

  281. Phydaux says:

    Capella 11:01pm

    I was referring to Article 8 contained in the ECHR which forms part of UK law.Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life.This includes respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing and sharing of such information.Apologies for not making this clear in my post.

    Grouse Beater 11:28pm

    The tragic death of Liam Fee was not prevented, even though he was known to be at risk and concerns were reported to Fife Social Work Department.Named Persons will appropriately refer their concerns to the Social Work Department which in the case of Fife Council, failed to carry out their statutory responsibilities.

  282. Breeks says:

    My tuppence on NP is that it seems to be an attempt at progressive legislation which has promising results, but also has a vocal minority opposition, which I consider to be no bad thing if it means ongoing dialogue between advocates of NP and the regulating effect of those who find it an irksome intervention.

    I’m not moved by when the body politic says this is great legislation. That’s like your local Chamber of Commerce saying the future looks bright when you can see for yourself all the empty shops in your High Street.

    Frankly, the argument seems disjointed. Some people say NP is just a communication line for kids to talk freely about stuff they can’t talk to their parents about, and yet I read a comment yesterday about a woman in some “process” which identified having four kids as evidence they were at a level of risk above the norm.

    I think in this country we really aught to remember that our local authorities have more than their fair share of over officious busy bodies who simply live to administer that little bit of power they enjoy. They are very well protected by the state, dug in like ticks, and if they decide you deserve misery, then rest assured misery is what you will be given, and a misery which will quietly start to spread to other Council departments too.

    When reasonable articulate people are protesting about reasonable legible and well meant legislation, then my immediate instinct is to look at the interface between them, and that is how the Council is implementing the legislation.

    And when I say look, I mean LOOK. Don’t put your faith in a complaint that has been “considered” but rejected, absolutely do not take an ombudsman’s word for anything, and don’t assume your Council allows its conduct to be steered by morality or ethics. In my experience, Councils are never more articulate or super officious than when worming out of responsibility or hiding inefficiency, corruption or sophistry. They hide a great deal behind an impenetrable force field of robust and well rehearsed bullshit.

    My overriding impression of NP legislation is a controversial and difficult subject drawing no advantage whatsoever from being used as a political football where difficult issues are agitated and inflamed for political capital. If this climate delivers a less than perfect piece of legislation, then let’s do our best for now, and make a note to re-visit the whole subject when we are an Independent country which no longer has to suffer the tiresome intervention of unionist sponsored disruption.

    My second overriding impression is why this innocuous legislation is prime time cinema for our media agenda. Here we are, and not for the first time, envenerating ourselves to discuss a difficult and divisive subject for the primary reason that our media in residence has set it on the agenda that we should.

    Mahatma Ghandi turned an impotent “do nothing” passive strategy into a dynamic protest that shook a global empire. I have yet to see the SNP’s tolerant policy towards the media propaganda deliver us any purchase whatsoever. It doesn’t look like clever and sophisticated sage wisdom. It just looks insipid and weak.

    I read a very perceptive comment a few days ago, which stated that the rise of independence hasn’t been a rise at all, but instead it is the collapse of unionism and pillars tumbling inside the British establishment which has shaken the ties of union but left Scotland largely untouched. Scotland is closer now to independence than it has been for centuries, but by some celestial alignment of chance events rather than any deliberate campaign. We are not so much winning independence so much as observing a union withering on the vine by some divine ordination which, so far, is sparing Scotland from calamity.

    Yes, I suppose that’s what we all want, let it happen. It is what matters at the end of the day, but damn you SNP, you make the journey so unfulfilling and devoid of sparkling initiative.

    We have Independence held in abayance with a positive and energetic referendum campaign left idling at the starting blocks, and compelling and ancient legal precedents which appear watertight but are inexplicably ignored. In the media battle, it is social media, the man in the street, which has picked up the cudgels to defend the SNP. To coin the phrase, if we’re still not independent, we’re just not doing it right.

  283. @galamcennalath
    28 July, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    I totally agree with you, if she was opposed to the named person legislation, why didn’t she vote against it 2014.

    What we are seeing from the Tories is nothing more than political opportunism on their part.

  284. Meindevon says:

    The Wright stuff on channel 5 is discussing NP now.

  285. Valerie says:

    Phydaux. 9.30

    The difference with NP and the Liam Fee case would be the strength of the law behind the NP for the child they raise concerns about.

    In Liams case, the NP might have been the nursery worker, who I believe did raise concerns. Social work ‘lost’ sight of Liam, for whatever reason. The NP acting with the law behind them, would have the strength to kick the case higher, and create ructions, they can’t do that just now.

  286. Meindevon says:

    Re the Wright Stuff discussing the NP. All three on the panel think the NP is a ‘loony’ idea. Wright trying to be positive to no avail.

  287. Andrew McLean says:

    The Scots Parliament is under attack from the unionist media regarding this “benign” (Defined as such by the Court of Session and the Supreme Court) legislation, You would think this is the first time it ever happened?
    From December 2014, 29 courts have ruled on uk legislation and ruled it “illegal” , of which
    8 have been struck down on appeal , 1 is pending appeal, 16 have been remedied through the ordinary legislative process (including amendment or repeal of the offending legislation). 3 have been addressed through remedial orders has not been remedied.
    The one case not to have been remedied, is Smith v. Scott, concerning the right of serving prisoners to vote in the UK. so even though it has been ruled illegal no prisoner has been give the right to vote, Westminster just ignores the ruling.
    Not that you will read this in your morning paper.

  288. Fred says:

    Valerie, ye’re a sensible wummin so ye are! 🙂

  289. Macnakamura says:

    Listening to phone ins are required chore. Only then do you hear what you are up against. Tompkins, Dr Scot etc we know but there are ordinary people out there just like Joseph on call Kaye at around 925. No black or blue book will influence him.

  290. ronnie anderson says:

    @ RogueCoder Postman deliver’s. Thank’s to both You & the Rev.

    And aw you,s nosy Vile Cybernat’s wul hiv to wait tae Sat tae find oot whit am oan aboot at Freedom square.

  291. North chiel says:

    “Valerie @ 0912” , thanks for this link. Very interesting read.
    The only conclusion is that “Scotland needs Independence in Europe ASAP”.

  292. Valerie says:


    I have seen this subject from the POV as victim, professional, and Children’s Hearings. So my view is pretty rounded on this.

    I resent people that oppose this, are fast and loose with facts. I like facts and evidence. I’m an independent thinker, and its got me into trouble when I won’t go with the herd.

    One Director said to me, just shut up and sign this report. I said, Gee thanks for listening to my POV, and proven concerns. Sign it yourself.

  293. A2 says:

    Can I just sum up the ruling in some simple words.

    “That’s a good idea but this bit needs a bit of adjustment”

    Seems to be a bit of extra scrutiny on the finer points. In advance and with that adjustment the legislation will be stronger and clearer. That’s only to be welcomed surely.

    It’s only the slant the media put on the ruling that’s the problem, not the ruling itself.

  294. Stoker says:

    Macnakamura (@ 10:13am)

    Thanks for that! I normally look for IanB’ confirmation updates but he’s been slacking recently, probably too focused on preparing for Saturday.

    All this political opportunism and twisting of the NP findings by the Ruthless Mayhem mob and their flatulent BUM mouthpiece is nothing short of rancid gas!

    I lifted this picture from the WOS Twitter feed. Take a look at the column on the right-hand side as you look at it. What did all the Westminster paedophiles (sorry, politicians) do to help protect the victims of that vile b@$t@rd? Apart from join in?
    I will not even bother linking to a list of various Unionist politicians and councillors found guilty of paedophilia.

  295. Dan Huil says:

    britnat glee is a sign of desperation.

  296. Smallaxe says:

    @ Ghillie,

    Thank you so much,I am getting stronger by the day.Thank you
    also for your very kind remarks on my outlook on life,you have
    me blushing but I really do think that Love for our fellow inhabitants of our beautiful planet is the first step towards
    bringing Peace to us all.Peace,Love and Happiness to you and yours.x

    Ps. I put one of my poems on here some time ago,I will put it on O/Topic,please consider it dedicated to your good self in particular and all other Wingers in general.

  297. Andrew McLean says:

    I listened to the news report and the discussion on radio Scotland, there was a woman talking on behalf of those who brought this appeal, she said ” this judgment mentions Dictatorships, there is a reason they mention dictatorships, the Scottish Government should be worried” (this is not a verbatim translation), this she claimed was a fundamental flaw and that the court thought the Scottish Government was a Dictatorship, at no time was she challenged on this assertion.
    So as we are pedantic on this forum, this is what was said regarding dictatorships.
    “Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 23(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state”. There is an inextricable link between the protection of the family and the protection of fundamental freedoms in liberal democracies. The noble concept in article 1 of the Universal Declaration, that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” is premised on difference. If we were all the same, we would not need to guarantee that individual differences should be respected. Justice Barak of the Supreme Court of Israel has put it like this (in El-Al Israeli Airlines Ltd v Danielowitz [1992-4] IsrLR 478, para 14): “The factual premise is that people are different from one another, ‘no person is completely identical to another’ … Every person is a world in himself. Society is based on people who are different from one another. Only the worst dictatorships try to eradicate these differences.””
    after looking at this in extremis the court said
    “Individual differences are the product of the interplay between the individual person and his upbringing and environment. Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
    In weighing up the act against that criteria the court stated “The aim of the Act, which is unquestionably legitimate and benign”
    This ruling on article 8 is fundamental to a understanding of the heart of the legislation, any attempt to portray this as a victory to those opposing the act is so idiotic as to question the sanity of anyone making that assertion. Now Kezia and Ruth are lawyers they know fine well what the court ruled, any stupid statements will be used against them.
    Another misstatement is that the Scottish Government have 42 days to amend the legislation, no they don’t, they have 42 day to lodge an appeal, they probable wont.
    In all likelihood they will strengthen the act to bring it into alignment with the Data Protection Act. then return to the Court of Session, that having already ruled that it was legal will rule it legal again. the opponents of the act will require to find another tactic or just go back to disbelieving the world is round or we are descended from apes or the sun is at the centre of the universe, beliefs that any rejection of would have you tortured and burned not that long ago, so we should be grateful the Christians are using courts now.

    In any case, pardon the pun, read it yourself.

  298. bjsalba says:

    Just to cheer folks up.
    Just been to the local co-op and there was only one National left. There were big piles of both the Mail and Express.

    I wonder what their print circulation is these days.

  299. DerekM says:

    This is an example of why it is important the press tell the facts of the story and not make up an angle to attack politically,this strangulation of any kind of social forward step has to stop.

    How can you find out if something will work or fail if you dont ever try and set default mode to fail,setting legislation in stone is never the answer neither is the status quo laws must evolve in line with practicality and be flexible to grow with a society,that is all that is happening here an already existing law has evolved through parliament.

    This political skull duggery of a probably good group of people into believing something is wrong without explaining that this already happens and is just the government trying to organise it a little better is disgusting,though through it we learned just how low they will sink.

    Which we all kind of expected its all or nothing time for yoonland and the Britnats and its about all they have is to try to block anything good the SNP try to do.

    The funny thing is they still think the SNP are running the show lol

  300. Inverclyder says:

    Macnakamura @ 10:13 am
    No black or blue book will influence him.

    Perhaps some tactics need to be deployed with a Red White and Blue WATP Book for the hard of thinking!

  301. Golfnut says:

    @ Andrew McLean, thanks for taking the time to post that, I asked yesterday after searching in vain for this, the comments on Facebook were pretty appalling, quoting the totalitarian regime bit without the rest, so completely out of context.

  302. Scott Shaw says:

    o/t Could a kind winger give me a link to information needed for cancelling the BBC tax? I’ve finally persuaded my good wife to stop paying to be lied to. Thanks in advance

  303. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Andrew McLean { Now Kezia and Ruth are lawyers}Mwaahaa

    Dugdale Masters in policy studies

    Davidson must hiv done her degree by semaphore lol.

    They are both credited above they’re stations in life as is.

  304. Scott Shaw says:

    Cheers for that Inverclyder. I will get her on it pronto.

  305. Arabs for Independence says:

    Scott Shaw

    You could phone the licensing number and advise them that you are going away for 9 months and they’ll leave you alone. Or you can just cancel it and ignore any reminders and ‘scare’ letters.

  306. orri says:

    The problem with the legislation is that it does not make it explicit that any sharing of information must comply with privacy and data protection laws. That doesn’t mean that such protections are by default implicit.

    Of course the main worry from some will be that if, as is threatened, the UK is withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the ECHR those implicit protections will no longer apply. As such it’s not as ironic as some might think that those opposed to the legislation want explicit protections built in. They’re simply hedging their bets.

    Tellingly it’s only the potential appeal to the ECHR that has been found in favour of the complainants so it’s more of a technicality than anything. However it might actually be a bad precedent to allow unchallenged as it opens the floodgates for other existing laws to be contested if they too fail to account for other laws.

  307. Legerwood says:

    Andrew McLean @ 11.00 am

    Thank you for the link.

    I think it is worthwhile giving the ‘legitimate and benign’ paragraph in full.

    “” 91. As to the first of those questions, it can be accepted, focusing on the legislation itself rather than on individual cases dealt with under the legislation, that Part 4 of the 2014 Act pursues legitimate aims. The public interest in the flourishing of children is obvious. The aim of the Act, which is unquestionably legitimate and benign, is the promotion and safeguarding of the wellbeing of children and young persons. As the Dean of Faculty submitted, the policy of promoting better outcomes for individual children and families is not inconsistent with the primary responsibility of parents to promote the wellbeing of their children. Improving access to, and the coordination of, public services which can assist the promotion of a child’s wellbeing are legitimate objectives which are sufficiently important to justify some limitation on the right to respect for private and family life. “”

  308. K1 says:

    ‘…it looks like an unnecessary erosion of the family and is a disaster waiting to happen…’

    Very ‘journalistic’ phrase that.


    Naw it disnae.

  309. Andrew McLean says:

    Ronnie Anderson says:11:44
    Kezia took a postgraduate masters in public policy, her degree is Law. Correct on Ruth though, my bad. But since her degree is in English Lit, she should be able to comprehend the ruling, I can and I dint even get an English “O” level.

    So in conclusion, my competent assertion stands! 🙂

  310. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Heres the Highland Councils press release regarding the NP decision in the SP. Given they have been running the NP scheme since 2010, their view is worth far more than any Yoon opinion piece. It is very useful for smiting mischief making in discussions.

  311. Willie John says:

    Going to get easier now, isn’t it? Pity those who brought the case couldn’t be prosecuted if even one child comes to harm.

  312. handclapping says:

    523 children identified by Police Scotland and we don’t need Named Persons? Do ask your Tory friends and relatives that one.

  313. Iain More says:

    Well according to the Brit Nat Press and Media in this context and to their slavish army of trolls I will sum things up as this – Proven Brit Nat State snooping on us all is good but alleged SG snooping on a percentage of us is very very very Baahd.

    The Brit Nat Govt already has powers that go far and away above anything in the Article 8 of ECHR legislation but I don’t suppose we will ever see that challenged in the Ingerlish Supreme Court. Stick that in yer craws trolls.

  314. gordoz says:

    Big story braking on Sky News from Police Scotland about child abuse ring.

    Why aren’t the SNP onto this !!!!! SNPBaaad. Its all tha Sturgeons fault.

    What are Mail & Express going to come up with now.

  315. heedtracker says:

    I’ll pray for you pet. Try not to bust a gut, too late, it’s done and on going = ) Hope you notice the peace and love and all understanding soon (probably when you least expect it!)

    Thanks Ghillie, can you ask God for Scottish independence in your prayers asap please? Also can you ask him to get rid of my bald spot too? That’s about really, oh can I have fibre broadband as BT aren’t going to fit for decades, if ever, they say.

  316. Fred says:

    Folks, a shocking statistic I saw the other day on the “Edinburgh at War” site, that during the Great War Scotland’s infant mortality was greater than the number of men killed.

  317. Not Convinced says:

    Given the way the media is currently going with this “story”, I strongly expect that in the next couple of weeks we’ll see a flurry of articles along the lines of “Scottish Government presses ahead with illegal snooping scheme”.

  318. Vestas says:

    @ Gordoz : “What are Mail & Express going to come up with now.”

    Isn’t it obvious?

    SNP fails child sex victims despite illegal spying regime

    I think that probably ticks all the unionist boxes?

  319. Bob Mack says:

    After today’s revelations the Scottish Government BETTER push on with the illegal scheme. To hell with the Supreme Court.
    I wonder how many of these kids also had good parents? Probably most.

  320. Macbeda says:

    BBC on the story too. I wonder BBC Scotland news will spin this into SNP Bad

  321. Ghillie says:

    Heedtracker @3.51pm

    Will do = )


    Am away to OT to find your poem = )

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top