The Hateful 88
When we ran this story on Monday, some of the press got rather upset with us. Even though we’d linked to the full data tables published on the ComRes site, Scottish Daily Mail political editor Alan Roden, for example, huffily tweeted a link to a cropped table suggesting that the real sample size was higher.
And as it turned out, it was.
ComRes eventually published the new version of the tables late last night on its poll archives page, without acknowledging that anything had changed – the publication date was still given as the 12th of March, even though the new version of the tables hadn’t appeared until the 29th:
That was quite weird in itself, because if you click the link the page gives the publication date as the 10th of March, yet says that the fieldwork was done between the 2nd and 13th – which means the final results of the poll were published three days before ComRes even finished asking people the questions.
So the new tables raise a lot more questions than they answer. But let’s ignore all those rather shady-looking shenanigans and take them at face value.
What we learn is that despite the Scotsman having blared a banner headline about a “MAJORITY OF SCOTS PARENTS”, the total number of Scottish parents surveyed was a mere 142, of whom just 88 had said that the Named Person legislation was an “unacceptable intrusion”.
From the new version of the data we learn (as can be seen in the picture above) that the full poll sample was weighted to be representative across the UK – that is, the Scottish subsample was NOT weighted.
So even if you could normally draw any meaningful conclusions about public opinion in Scotland from just 88 people – which of course you staggeringly obviously can’t – and even if the poll hadn’t asked a series of incredibly leading and biased questions (which it did), the data would be rubbish anyway because your entire subsample might be child-abusing UKIP voters from Orkney or something.
When we originally wrote to the Scotsman pointing that out, they snapped back that our figures were wrong and that “Our report is as far as I can make out entirely accurate”. The paper subsequently supplied us with the full new data tables confirming that their headline represented only 88 “Scots parents”.
Because we care about getting the facts right on Wings, we’re publishing this post to update the original story, which was correct based on the data ComRes had released at the time we wrote it – data which has now been very quietly altered in a somewhat suspicious manner.
We’re happy to do so. We wonder whether the Scotsman will be.
Data “have” been altered, y’know….
[ducks and runs for cover]
I’m very dubious about that law too and I generally vote SNP these days.
It’s an unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into families.
It concerns me because it is a totalitarian state type of law. (And I’m not about to believe anything the Scotsman says about it either)
Obviously they predicted the three “missing days” results by some ingenious method like tea cup readings,or a quick visit to a palmistry.
Alternatively and most likely ,they made it all up.
Stu – you are at it again. Confusing the issue with facts. If you want to be popular with the hacks at the Scotsman, you really need to stop doing this.
You can have more people at a Branch meeting than that.
On the Scotsman basis 100% of Scots will vote SNP! 😀
Brian MacLeod says:
30 March, 2016 at 12:14 pm
I’m very dubious about that law too and I generally vote SNP these days.
It’s an unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into families.
It concerns me because it is a totalitarian state type of law. (And I’m not about to believe anything the Scotsman says about it either)
BUT, is your opinion, as the Hootsman liars headline states, the “majority of Scots parents?”
It’s not the job of The Scotsman to inform its readers but rather use warped BritNat propaganda to undermine the Scottish National Party & if possible, dissolve Holyrood, so that total control of our finances & legislation returns to Westminster.
You know, the place where laws are made by 26 unaccountable Lords Spiritual (Church of England Bishops) & 825 Lords Temporal including 92 hereditary peers. I must add though that 37 of them are on leave of absence or disqualified from sitting because some of them are inconveniently still in prison.
Why on earth would Rev Stu be concerned about being popular with the hacks at the Hootsman?
For 99% of parents they will be unaware this law even exists. Far less of an intrusion than say poverty or homelessness.
Very strange shenaningans.
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was passed without opposition; with the agreement of all people involved.MSPs had unanimously agreed to back his bill without opposition, with one accord, with one mind, to a man, as one, one and all, each and every one, bar none, without exception, we won’t count the 15 Tories because abstaining means you aren’t arsed either way, you have no opinion!
Supporters of the Bill. Aberlour (Scotland’s Children’s Charity)
Action for Children Scotland
Barnardo’s Scotland
Children in Scotland
Children 1st
Alliance Scotland
NSPCC
Parenting Across Scotland
Quarriers
Royal College of Nursing Scotland
Save the Children Claire
Scottish Secondary Teachers Association
Scottish Youth Parliament Education & Culture Committee
Social Work Scotland
Together Scotland:
Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights
One Parent Families Scotland
The Scottish Child Minding Association
Who Cares? Scotland
YouthLink Scotland
Against 88 unknown unverified persons who may or may not actually exist?
If all the organisations above say it’s a good thing, surely the reverse is not doing it is a bad thing?
Why don’t the Scotsman run with the NSPCC statistics that last year over 2,800 children in Scotland were identified as needing protection from abuse, an when every child protection charity and the government tried to do something about it some 88 people opposed it, why?
So a question for parents, who do you trust? the 88?
NO OF FUCKING COURSE YOU DON’T ITS A STUPID FUCKING PROPOSITION!
What has happened to the intelligence quotient of Scotland, has there been a outbreak of the fucking stupidity virus!
I don’t often reveal personal details,but I will today. At 12 years of age, I rejoined school after a serious accident. There was a gap in my education. The maths teacher made no allowances for me whatsoever and one day asked me to stand in front of the class and explain how a formula was reached to a conclusion.
I was unable. My reward was 6 strokes of a robust strap. He kept me on the front and persisted. Due to my inability to answer I received another 6 strokes. This carried on till I received 24 strokes in a forty minute period.
The same thing happened on the two following days.Total 72 strokes over three days.
On the fourth day he sent me to the head of Dept, a Marist brother,who despite knowing my difficulties felt he had to act to placate the Maths teacher.In his office he gave me a choice of another 4 strokes of the tawse, or two hits on the bare backside with his hand. I chose the tawse.
My mother or father knew nothing of this.They died ignorant of my abuse,(either real or intended).
The point is that things happen to kids that they often keep to themselves. Their friends often know, but the parents can be none the wiser.
Eh and what @Andrew Mc!ean says.
@Morag
“Data “have” been altered, y’know….”
link to oxforddictionaries.com
Usage
In Latin, data is the plural of datum and, historically and in specialized scientific fields, it is also treated as a plural in English, taking a plural verb, as in the data were collected and classified. In modern non-scientific use, however, it is generally not treated as a plural. Instead, it is treated as a mass noun, similar to a word like information, which takes a singular verb. Sentences such as data was collected over a number of years are now widely accepted in standard English.
Andrew Mclean @1233
Didn’t you know that the World Health Organisation confirmed that there was a mass outbreak of the stupidity virus on Sept 18th 2014′ there was a mini outbreak confined to a TV studio in Glasgow last night.
…and above all else, it is voluntary !
It’s an unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into families.
It concerns me because it is a totalitarian state type of law. (And I’m not about to believe anything the Scotsman says about it either)
It sounds as if you have been believing what the Scotsman says about it. It’s not intrusive, and it has been extensively trialled with no problems and no howls of outrage from the parents involved.
Rev–why don’t you undertake a proper weighted poll with neutral, non-leading questions re the NP and put the Hootsman straight? Go on–show ’em how it’s done.
I think that you are being unfair Rev!
The Hootsman 88 represents the number of people who actually
purchase their Rag, and we all know that they let the Hoots
think for them.
I hope they are all keeping well as we wouldn’t like to see this biased rubbish disappear from site?
I was half joking But look its true, I want Nicola to wear a mask at the next leader debate!
link to naturalnews.com
Of 142 fundamental Christians interviewed only 88 didn’t like the policy .. perchance?
What a smelly bin bag of crapology is the Scotsman.
What Morag says.
Agree entirely with what you say. People really need to read up on this instead of believing they hype about some sort of totalitarian law.
link to gov.scot
Bob Mack @ 12.35
Shocking – but the perfect answer to those who spout forth from their high horses criticising attempts to prevent abuse in all its forms. To those people – would you not wish at least some attempt at protecting the vulnerable? It ain’t perfect, but there has to be a starting point somewhere and can evolve and be improved over time.
Bob, thank you for your bravery in sharing this awful personal experience with us. Hopefully it will make some critics stop and think again. My very best wishes to you, and I hope you have achieved some closure of this dreadful experience. Xxx
Rather than have knee-jerk reactions, perhaps this initiative should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Child protection is a sensitive area and the success or failure of this legislation will be evident in time.
I am sadly old enough to remember the reaction to seatbelt legislation and I was against it (wrongly).
The main thrust of this thread, however, is the use of patently questionable figures and the extremely biased questions to achieve them, in order to promote negative headlines.
There is no doubt in my mind that the MSM know exactly what they are doing and it is all agenda led.
Wings is one of the few places we can go to redress the balance and challenge the headlines or as I see it “propaganda”.
Then again I am preaching to the choir!
“Weighted to uk”
Does this mean roughly 35% tory voters, 30% Labour voters and 5% SNP voters?
Aye, very representative of Scotland so it is…
“It’s an unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into families. It concerns me because it is a totalitarian state type of law.”
What is it about the legislation, exactly, that makes you think that? The legislation and the trials that have already been carried out, not the hysteria you may have heard in the media.
I think comment and criticism of Named Person is perfectly fine and dandy. I just completely fail to see how using words like “totalitarian” to describe it is useful to man or beast.
Deja vu in the Telegraph.
link to archive.is
The Hootsman keeps it up: 🙁
NICOLA Sturgeon’s controversial state guardian scheme will come under fire today when Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson meets parents opposed to the initiative.
Ahead of her visit to Aberfeldy, Ms Davidson said: “It’s not only an unacceptable intrusion into family life, but it spreads resource too thinly.”
————————————————————
I’m off to the beach with the grandchildren… schools out.
Also got three disclosure checks for various organisations which were OK! 🙂
Look back later.
“88 cats (who expressed a preference)…”
Before the four score and eight Sweaty Sock parents could make their survey answers, they had to wade through about 175 words of biased preamble. All I can is, I salute their indefatigability. 😉
175 words! that’s about 7 full Twitter messages, or enough plot for 3 Hollywood blockbusters.
Grouse Beater We need a professor of crapoligey to do a graph, intermeshed with GERS it should be a fascinating, deep dark look into the mindset of the Yoon!
@ call me dave, The Scotsman is missing a trick in writing about “Sturgeon’s controversial state guardian scheme”. Surely it must be
“Sturgeon’s controversial one-party-state guardian scheme”
or
“Sturgeon’s controversial northern region guardian scheme.”
“Totalitarian”?
In what way? Please explain in what way this legislation is totalitarian? Otherwise people will just think you’re making it up.
Hwanofbute says:
30 March, 2016 at 12:54 pm
What Morag says.
Agree entirely with what you say. People really need to read up on this instead of believing they hype about some sort of totalitarian law.
Ruby replies
I don’t think the people who ‘believe’ this is some sort of totalitarian law would want to read anything that might contradict their opinion.
I haven’t read up on it. I’m quite happy to accept the opinion of the organisations listed in Andrew Mclean’s post.
The people who are opposed to this law are not making their reasons for opposing it very clear and I can understand why the could easily be mistaken for trolls.
I am not prepared to spend time reading up on this law just so I can enter into a futile argument will ‘trolls’
It looks to me as if Ruth Davidson is desperately looking for votes.
She perhaps believes The Scotsman’s headline and thinks that by being opposed to this law she will gain the majority of Scots votes!
Ruby , and she is only going to get 88 more – should take her far!
Oh, that’s just nonsense polling and as for the language used by the titles involved?
Seriously?
By all means have a debate about a thing, air concerns, even agree to disagree, but the media appear to be in full shit stirring mode. It serves no useful purpose other than muddying waters and throwing shite like a chimp on a sugar rush.
Thoughtless idiocy.
@Lollysmum,
I’m fine thanks. Probably why I went into the field of Psychology.
A final word of caution though. Most of the teachers in my day were soldiers demobbed from the services and helped into teaching as a route to normalisation. They were often battle scarred,
Cameron has proposed this as a route for today’s military,and has set the wheels in motion to make it possible. Let us hope they have been properly assessed prior to re training ,or today’s kids might be facing imilar issues.
@ Bob Mack
What a ghastly experience for a 12 year old to have to cope with. It illustrates what the child protection legislation is about. Authority figures with a touch of sadism would think twice about attacking vulnerable children if they knew that someone might take action against them. Thanks for telling us about it.
I am posting this account of the way Named Person is supposed to work as I find it a clear reason to support the concept. I got it from the comments section on an article in the National and its writer is apparently someone called Jacqueline Marshall.
” At its core, this is about clear responsibilities on information sharing around welfare and trying to keep all involved agencies in the loop when it comes to safeguarding or additional support needs etc.
Just as an example of how it works, imagine a 3 year old child. They attend A&E with a skin infection, they’re assessed and treated appropriately but while there, staff notice they’re a bit grubby and drinking from a feeding cup which could do with a good scrub. Nothing anywhere near the threshold for involving social work but makes staff a bit uncomfortable. They make a quick call to the named person, in this case the health visitor, to pass on what they’ve noticed.
The child also attends nursery, where they’ve noticed they are quite often hungry on arrival and not appropriately dressed for the weather. They’ve noticed the little one is often a bit scruffy and smelly too. Nothing substantial enough to go to social work, but they let the named person know.
The child is seen by the dental service visiting the nursery, who find little one’s teeth are badly decayed and signs of at least one old abscess. Again, the information is shared.
The child was diagnosed with anaemia 6 months ago and advised to be on an iron supplement but reviewing the records, the GP notices no prescriptions have been picked up and a letter has come through saying they didn’t attend their follow up in paediatrics, they mention it to the health visitor.
The child’s mother attends A&E deeply intoxicated, having been found collapsed in the street by police. She denies having children and it takes staff some time to establish who they’re with and that they’re safe. Nothing immediate needs done but they let the named person know about the incident.
Mum’s partner, who lives in the home, is convicted of assault in an incident not related to the household. The children aren’t in direct danger but the information is passed on.
Each one of those agencies had some concerns but nothing substantial enough to act on. The named person now has documented concerns about an unkempt child, often hungry at nursery, poor dental hygiene, not engaging with healthcare or getting their prescribed medication, mum possibly struggling and a violent offender in the home. In combination, that’s enough to get different agencies together and include social work to see if this is a vulnerable child and a family in need of support.
When you look back at many of the horrendous cases of children being abused and murdered at home, often lots of people had concerns but no-one had the full picture.”
Last post should have been addressed to Mummy’s hugs! !!! Trying to do 3 things at once and failing in them all. ( smiles).
Is ComRes that desperate for business?
To me they do not seem to know the difference between a proper poll question and propaganda disguised as a poll question.
I have to say that if I wanted to commission a poll that had the public could have faith in, I would look at the quality of their previous work. I would view this effort as a reason to take my business elsewhere.
ComRes is listed as a member of the British Polling Council, and if you go to their site it says.
Really? You could have fooled me.
100% of Scots live in small towns.
I know it’s true because I checked with 142 of my neighbours.
The Yoon Bubbletariat is increasingly hilarious.
Rather interesting comments from 2014, and report in the Scotsman ? what changed?
link to scotsman.com
As well as my post above on charities and agencies who supported this legislation this is;
Labour and Liberals who Voted For NP Legislation
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beamish,
Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab) Beattie,
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind) FitzPatrick,
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab) Hepburn
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab) Mackay,
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab) Pentland,
John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) Stevenson,
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Stewart,
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Enough said!
I work in healthcare and can only see NP being a good thing. It’s understandable that some feel it is threatening and infringes on their parental rights – it’s something new and involves their children (fuelled by MSM hype, perhaps or there may be insecurities in how they perceive their own parenting skills and there is concern at feeling ‘judged’ which is not the aim of NP).
My own personal feelings are that if it helps only one child/young person, then surely it’s worth it? I think parents may feel reassured that there is a NP there, if needed.
I also feel that although NP is a good thing, communication between NP and council/education/NHS staff is also of huge importance and should not be forgotten about. Often the case that agencies don’t talk to each other and concerns are not passed on. Adding another person (NP) into the equation requires increased communication between all concerned – parents and child included. Many child protection cases discuss lack of communication being a key factor.
Dorothy Devine says:
30 March, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Ruby , and she is only going to get 88 more – should take her far!
Ruby replies
88 votes might sound like a lot to Ruth Davison. How many votes did she get last time?
What I find weird is that she didn’t vote against this law?
Re ‘The Scotsman’ they are only giving their readership what they want. The day ‘The Hoots’ published a poll about SNP 2016 election results their readership were furious!
In the online Herald (about 10 mins ago), Gardham of the Records apprentice, young Daniel Sanderson has a photo of Nicola looking at her wristwatch and a story alleging that during the Debate Nicola was receiving instructions from somebody. God perhaps ???
Here’s a sensible blog on the NP leglislation.
link to t.co
Outside the whole `Named Person` debate,
how come we have a survey on Monday with 2030 adults,
and now supposedly the same survey has 6120 adults,
and how come Rodin had access on Monday to the survey with 6120 adults,
but their web page on Monday showed only the survey with 2030 adults?
ComRes need to answer some questions about how they publish their data.
When did we ever have any great expectations of the Unionist Press Polls.
It would seem that this legislation has widespread support from a whole range of professional bodies and everyone bar the Tories in Holyrood.
It seems to me that the scaremongering comes from religious groups who might well have something to hide and a small number of politicians allied by a right wing press keen to try and frighten ordinary parents into voting Tory.
A pretty shabby state of affairs. The ordinary people should be a damned sight more worried about what the Tories are doing to them.
andandShrimp says:
30 March, 2016 at 2:20 pm
“everyone bar the Torie”s
Sorry to be pedantic but the Tories aren’t against NP legislation, they have no opinion!
Actually they ALL have no opinion. Chip mentality?
“Majority of Scots parents say named person plan intrusive”
Well, it’s in the papers so it must be true. (Guffaws).
BTW, surely the Hootsman missed a trick here? What happened to: “SNP Government in complete disarray as majority of Scots parents say named person plan intrusive”?
Oh well–maybe BBCSLAB will catch it.
SNP x 2 + 1 x EU IN = FREE
Question for those who are familiar with the legislation.
Is there any provision in the bill to be able to change the Named Person?
I ask because from what I have read so far,the person likley to have been designated to my kids had this been in place a few years ago would have become involved due to brevement.
But the kids and I couldn’t stand her,a feeling that was returned in spades,and her even attempting to make contact would have made thing’s worse.
As Bob’s story above demonstrates not every teacher has scruples.
Newspapers
What do we expect, they ask a load of people in another country about a law that’s coming in a country they don’t live in, that they know nothing about until they’re told by a newspaper and come up with a stupid answer based on total stupidity, then have the Temerity to use that nonsense as an argument for what’s essentially gossip
Because the folk in that other country won’t have read one line of the law and the pubs that they did their survey in would have to be giving away free drink to get any genuine person of that country to care a jot about what Scotland does or doesn’t do unless the question is a UKIP one and involves shoveling huge amounts of cash over Hadrians Wall
For those complaining about NP can I please suggest reading the Feckin thing for God sake
Because if you don’t then all you’re doing is gossiping or repeating other peoples crap, Just read the damn thing and then if you’re still not convinced, you have the right to open your gubs and complain, just don’t do the “I’m voicing my concerns” shit, there are no concerns until you’ve read it, so read it, read it, read it or shut up
Pissin me aff wae aw this… mumble mumble.. uninformed ..mumble…bloody…mumble..Jeeezchristmumble…Ach
The sooner The Britnat [shame to call it The Scotsman] ceases publication the better for truth and decency.
@Gordon Ford
The FM has a Cybernatic implant Gordon so that she can be contacted directly from the bridge by first officer Swinney
She did away with the watch thing last year, old fashioned now, this years campaign also sees the end of the use of the helicopter,… beaming in and out now’s the thing…
O/T
Just 1 day left to contribute to the WoS fundraiser. It’s only about 2.3k to reach the 80k mark. Help keep WoS going. Help keep the truth flowing.
Fundraiser here:
link to indiegogo.com
Hello Liz G
I think the NP depends on the childs age. Younger child would have a health visitor, school age – usually a head master/mistress or a guidance teacher.
If the NP was the person you discuss, remember there is no obligation to take the NP’s advice or support – they don’t have legal powers to ensure advice is followed! Perhaps a discussion with the head that you would prefer another teacher as a point of contact in future?
NP is there to advise and support the child or parent if needed. That’s all. Yes, the named person needs to act on concerns, but so do all persons in healthcare, education etc so nothing different there. It would make sense to have a NP as someone you get on with and was approachable. In my case, my kids NP is the headmaster, but I always contact the guidance teacher as I get on well with her – any concerns are passed on this way.
@Bob Mack
I can empathise with you. I was 9, very small for my age,(still am) red hair and very much the class clown. The class had been left alone and so I was entertaining the troops. I got 4 strokes of the belt. As I went back to my seat I couldn’t help myself and bowed to the class who all fell about again. I got 2 more strokes. Needless to say it didn’t deter me but did make me question “my betters”. In my teacher’s defence she was wearing tight fitting peerree heels and whenever she wore them she was always in a mood!
Would also mention that Archie McPherson (yes that one)was to be my next teacher the following year. Due to unforeseen circumstances this didn’t pan out which I am forever grateful as being very alert to bigotry I wouldn’t have been able to keep my mouth shut.
Both my parents were unaware of this belting, however, were of the opinion that “we” as children were always in the wrong and the adult knew better. Such was the life of the child born in the 50’s in my opinion!
I think the media is using opinion polls to turn the soft no’s to the Tories. It’s all they have to try and stop the avalanche that’s coming. This NP bill is not the enemy it’s the media manipulation that is the enemy. Look what happened on the other thread…we were ALL manipulated by OUR views on the subject. The trolls had a field day they found a little chink of light where they could disrupt and it worked. Everyone on here has differing opinions and that is good but the one thing we have TOGETHER is our determination for INDEPENDENCE. That is the only thing we should be thinking when we read ANY headline.
If you take your eyes off the target it will be lost. That’s the only thing these headlines want. Divide and Rule is the yoons way and they will never stop. So forget your feelings on the NP act it’s just smoke and mirrors to confuse and divide us. SNP got us here and will always stand up for Scotland, the yoons are just worried about how much more money they can cipher before it’s too late for them.
Stand as one people!
SNP X2 EU IN
Would that be the 88 that still buy the Hootsmon?
ComRes has further discredited itself over this as well.
I fully agree with Scot Finlayson that pollsters ComRes “need to answer some questions about how they publish their data.”
For me, there are strange anomalies in several of their data tables where the numbers simply do not add up, ie they are wrong. It is as if they cobbled together two different surveys, and forgot to check that their sums added up.
Look at the table in this article’s first picture, 6120 people were interviewed. Of them, 4461 have no kids, and 1638 have kids, for a total of err 6099 people.
So ComRes managed to either:
A) lose 21 people
B) find 21 people who both have and don’t-have children
C) interviewed 21 people on an FBI witness relocation program and then had a gov’t hacker invade their computers to erase any data that could identify these witnesses. (Less of Plan B, more like Plan B Movie.)
But wait, that is only for the ‘unweighted’ numbers. When ComRes ‘weight’ the numbers of people, to make them more accurate (!), we get 4444 with no kids, 1658 with kids, and only 18 on Witness Protection.
Looks like some cop took a bribe, and sold out 3 of them to the mob. Don’t you hate it when there’s a dirty cop in your department?
Must do better, ComRes, must do better.
If its in the SCOTSMAN take with a large pinch of SAXA ,more tripe than a butchers windae ,more stories than Jackanory
I’m a little concerned about the NP being too close to the children they are meant to protect.
I was 5 (in the 1960’s) when my Primary One teacher force fed me beaked beans and otherwise made my life a misery. I never told my parents. She was the teacher and was to be obeyed.
Luckily I changed schools after Primary One and my new teacher was brilliant.
With this knowledge I paid careful attention when my children were at school. At the first sign of teacher bullying I managed to get onto the School Board and tackle the issues for my children and others bullied by her in this way.
heedtracker says:
30 March, 2016 at 12:29 pm
Brian MacLeod says:
30 March, 2016 at 12:14 pm
I’m very dubious about that law too and I generally vote SNP these days.
So just another drive by then. Ah well, no harm in asking at least one of the 88? a question or two.
At the very least Brian, you and your “majority of Scots parents” will be able to take Scots.gov to the European Courts of Human Rights.
Oh wait.
Although, if its Brexit in a few weeks time, Scotland could well decide to finally stop letting its neighbour run Scotland, make all decisions for ourselves, stay in the EU maybe and then “majority of Scots parents” can then take Scots.gov to EU Courts of Human Rights. Its what its there for.
In times like these, I look to my Slovene girlfriend, constitutional expert, ferocious yoon, great kisser, for advice
Adam Tomkins ?@ProfTomkins 19h19 hours ago
As I said last week, tax is a key issue, perhaps the key issue, in this election. This is a good thing.
Talk about your yoon dumbing down?
“…more tripe than a butchers windae ,more stories than Jackanory.”
More porkies than David Cameron.
Shiregirl @2.52.
Thanks for your reply.
I am broadly supportive of the named person act.
My kid’s are all now adult’s so it won’t affect me.
My brilliant GP actually did what I am assuming this act is designed to do,and made it clear to the kid’s, individually and more than once,if the weren’t coping and did not want to worry me they could go to him.
So I can see the value of this legislation.
But in a large High School its most likely going to be the guidance teacher as the named person,and without “The Right”to change them it’s unlikely to happen.
I did request from the head of year and the headmaster my younger two be assigned someone else, with no success.
My only option was to by pass the woman as much as I could but the school continued to route all contact through her,(or try to)as that was her role.
Being able to refuse the NP service is all very well,but if we needed it and our only choice was her I don’t think I could have persuaded my lot to use it.
If Ruth Davidson is so concerned about the named person act why did she sit with hands under her fat arse and abstain?
As far as I am concerned if you abstain you don’t give a damn one way or the other and give up all right to bitch about it afterwards. Same as someone who doesn’t vote. She is a cynical leader of a non caring party trying to stir the blue rinse brigade into a frenzy of indignation. She isn’t thinking of the children. All she sees is a possible vote winner. Hypocrites the lot of them.
Hi Liz
I agree completely. Like you said, your GP was fantastic and ensured your kids had someone there to talk to, if needed. This is what NP is all about.
I am by no means an expert in the new legislation, but if someone – parent or child – preferred to go to someone else other than a teacher (like their GP or practice nurse) and it was of benefit to the child or parent and ensured the appropriate services could be accessed if required (like speech and language or child mental health services, for instance) then surely this is ok?
I couldn’t see any health, education or care professional saying ‘sorry, I’m not the NP – talk to them’. I think the NP is just ensuring people know that advice and support is available from someone in that child’s life in that period of time. If young people identify others they can go to, then I think this is totally acceptable.
@Dr Jim
“For those complaining about NP can I please suggest reading the Feckin thing for God sake”
But did you read it? All 18 Parts and 5 Schedules? Here it is:
link to legislation.gov.uk
Can you point me to the parts, sections and paragraphs, and quote them, where it says:
1). Under normal circumstances (no risk otherwise identified) it is voluntary that parents have to have anything to do with a Named Person.
2). Under normal circumstances (no risk otherwise identified) the child can refuse to be asked questions by the Named Person, or have one to one contact with them in their capacity as a Name Person.
3). Under normal circumstances (no risk otherwise identified) the parents can refuse to be asked questions by the Named Person, or have one to one contact with them in their capacity as a Name Person.
4). If child or parent are not happy with their assigned Named Person, they have the right to ask and be granted a replacement Named Person.
Thanks.
Interestingly enough the Scotsman saves on ink by not printing the entirety of the question. The bits with the leading questions.
Also interesting is that those with younger children seem far more accepting of the Named Person concept than those with older. There’s a complicating factor in that some people will be in more than one category.
Briefly looking through the questions up to this one there are some where I’d probably raise questions but not with the entirety of the concept. If I were a parent I would be concerned that the NP would have some power to overrule me even when to do so was not in the best interests of the child.
Add to my previous post The Scottish Police Federation supports Named Person’s
So who actually are the 88, I think we should be told!
Almannysbunnet Scottish Parliament Rules, To Abstain: MSPs might abstain in a vote. This means that they are voting neither for nor against a motion.
MAP of Johnston Press,owners of The Scotsman—–into many parts of the United Kingdom.
At 3:45pm share price £0.41 GBP
Down 0.31%
link to johnstonpress.co.uk
Brian Macleod @ 12.14 states… ”It’s an unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into families.
It concerns me because it is a totalitarian state type of law.”
Does he not understand… this is voluntary!! There will be no ‘intrusion’ if it is NOT wanted or warranted!! Please get the facts before scaring folks! I’m a 2 times GREAT Grandma and 7 times Grandma, 3 times Mum, so I speak from experience and knowledge of times when a 3rd person could have been handy!
“…Ruth Davidson is so concerned about the named person act why did she sit with hands under her fat arse and abstain?
“Two fat ladies, 88”. Hmm – thinks of fat-arse Ruth-the-Mooth and… and Jaba. Let’s face it–they’re Red and Blue Tories Together. Just like the old days.
Is this story from this rag one of the reasons that Standard&poor have downgraded Johnston Press to ccc+
question to people of Scotland – how to you tell if the SNP has a good policy ?
Answer – see how much the yoons scream global disaster,nazi communists,one party state boohoo no fair SNP bad.
Its like a never ending bad soap opera the SNP coud cure cancer and it would be a bad thing jeez.
Its a small step in the right direction the hyperbole is because it is social welfare something the yoons wish to privatize to remove the responsibility of running it like they have done with just about everything else,the SNP have a different idea and think government should be responsible and involved i tend to agree with them and thats why they will get my vote to be my government.
Must be an election or something coming up since the yoons are in full howl at the moon mode.
The opening lines of the part about Named Persons in
link to legislation.gov.uk
19 Named person service
(1) In this Part, “named person service” means the service of making available, in relation
to a child or young person, an identified individual who is to exercise the functions in
subsection (5).
So although not entirely clear it seems the SNP are interpreting that to mean it’s a bit like the tea making facilities in a hotel room or even the mini bar. It’s there if it’s wanted.
Personally I have been a bit indifferent to the NP act as I have no young children in my family.
However I used to be a guidance teacher and had approx 200 pupils in my care, ie, I was their named person.
Part of my remit was to interview every pupil at least once in the year.
I would say that was probably my only interview with about 95% of those pupils, apart from keeping an eye on results etc.
The remaining 5% had various amounts of input from myself and others.
But my main point is I watched Ross Kemp’s programme on sexual exploitation of young people in England and Wales and it was shocking.
A lot of these young folk were in abusive sexual relationships and were unable to break free from them, a lot of the parents were completely unaware.
It might be a NP could help to cut down the amount of this abuse.
I wouldn’t want any national legislation influenced by the opinions of 88 people in my street —
and that includes me!
Orri
I agree – the NP approach is formalising what has been happening in many parts of Scotland already. Having a NP in situ is mandatory, however it is completely up to the child or parent to seek out the NP for advice or support. The NP approach and GIRFEC (getting it right for every child) has been about for a while here and it has been positive and supportive for parents. The headmaster at the kids school put out a letter just before the holidays to ensure all parents and kids that although he is the named person for those attending the school, alternative arrangements for the NP over the holidays had been made – contact details, etc were on the letter. No parents I know off have raised any concerns.
The legislation/how NP works is very clear. The MSM however have muddied the waters and some would rather read the MSM version rather than the Scottish Government briefing. I think many are worrying about something that already happens in their area – they just aren’t aware of it.
I urge people to read the Scottish Government information, not MSM versions of what NP is! – there really is nothing concerning about NP, just another way of ensuring children and families have a point of contact and a way of accessing appropriate resources.
@orri
Yes, and the SG’s simple guidance page makes it failry clear that it’s there as a service, not a burden.
The problem is that the SG is the Legislative, they are also the Executive for their responsibilities under the legislation, but various authorities are also empowered by the Act. Which is in fact basicaly what the Act is about, not just on Named Persons.
If there’s any problem caused to child or parent by the application of the Act, then ultimately recourse is through the Judiciary. At that stage the only thing the Legislative – the SG – can do is amend or repeal the Act, which can take time, a long time, and unlikely to happen quickly for the sake of the few caught short by the legislation, the Act itself. It’s down to the Judiciary – the Courts.
The Judiciary would not go on a one page description on the SG’s website, they would go on the Legislation, the Act itself, and any other Acts that might apply.
That’s why the Legislation itself has to be sound and complete, and why parents might have a perfectly sound reason to dislike the Act. Because protection is not written in to the Act – as far as I could see.
Almannysbunnet says:
30 March, 2016 at 3:29 pm
..She is a cynical leader of a non caring party trying to stir the blue rinse brigade into a frenzy of indignation. She isn’t thinking of the children. All she sees is a possible vote winner. Hypocrites the lot of them.
———-
That’s the problem right there. I would guess for every 1 person genuinely concerned with the bill, there are another 9 who just see it as an attempt to attack the SNP.
I think the SNP need to hammer home the message that it is a voluntary service.
Of course, parents refusing to engage with the named person in certain circumstances could raise suspicions, but I don’t see how that is any different from what goes on at the moment with regular teachers or headmasters.
Would any sane person really believe poll information printed in the Scotsman (a misnomer) or the pretendy, Scottish Daily Mail.
Don’t they realise that we are on to them, and have been for more than two years now.
Jack Murphy
One woman on the board. Tut, tut.
As others have mentioned above there seems to be something not quite right about the figures from ComRes.
The Herald covered the story on 28th March the same day as WOS.
The Herald story referred to a UK wide sample size of just over 6,000 with a total Scottish weighted sample of 532 which is in line with the table from the Scotsman above. From the total weighted sample for Scotland 64% agreed that NP was intrusive. But looking at the ComRes data linked to in the first WoS article all the tables were based on sample sizes of around 2,000 within which the Scottish sample was usually less than 200 just as in the parent sample above.
Just how many versions of this data did ComRes release? Where did the 6100 figure come from? Did they aggregate the 2000 plus samples? Who knows? But not in any statistician’s book does 88 equate to the opinion of an entire country.
I do not have any problem with the legislation. It is basically taking services that already exist and streamlining them. The part of the Act that deals with this and the named person has been subject to judicial review which upheld the provisions of the Act and that judgement has been upheld on Appeal. Now we await the judgement of the Supreme Court.
Since the European law on Human Rights was incorporated into Scots Law when the Scottish Parliament came into being all legislation has to take that into account when it is drawn up to make sure it does not breach the Human Rights judgement. The judicial review and subsequent appeal confirmed that this legislation did not breach the Human Rights legislation.
We shall have to await the Supreme Courts ruling but I should imagine if it upholds the Act then the anti groups will then take it to the European Court.
@indyref2
Part of the reason protection can’t or won’t be written into the act will be a mix of non-devolved powers or ones that are covered elsewhere by Holyrood.
For instance there’s a potential that any information collected by an NP might constitute slander. Certainly Data Protection might come in to play. The easiest way to avoid that kind of problem is not to trying to looking further than the available evidence suggests.
The act does mention the passing of information and when that must be done. That doesn’t remove the protection parents and children have.
By not specifically going into protection there’s less chance of something being missed or contradicted or falling out of sync if other legislation is changed.
If the Tories think this law is so bad, why didn’t they vote against it when it went through Parliament. Surely this isn’t another case of politicking with no concern who gets hurt in the process? Surely the lovely family-friendly Tories wouldn’t do such a thing?
@Orri
Yes, there’s a valid argument for having as little as possible in legislation to make it as clear as possible, and as unchallengeable as possible.
I think the legal challenge to the Act was on the wrong basis, and perhaps the wrong approach as well, but then that’s perhaps because the challengers were of let’s say, an extreme nature. It would have had more success if it had been in the form of suggested specific urgent amendments.
The purpose of the Act itself is excellent. There were amendments proposed rejected by an SNP majority, but most of those were to do with undevolved legislation, or even other legislation.
Some were rejected though because this would be put down in the guidelines, and that does leave a little wiggle room. Legislation perhaps needs to be able to refer to future guides as a neccessary part of it, but that’s a can of worms in itself. How are these guides democratically agreed to?
@Angry Weegie
I think their idea was that it was covered at UK level, but that they wouldn’t vote against it because it was basically a good idea. I did find a Scottish Parliament webpage that had all the amendments and the debate and votes, can’t remember where it was though, I was in flyby speedread mode.
I’ve always held the view that the ‘State’ makes the worst parent but if we’re to avoid any more cases of child abuse then we would be failing in our duty of care to children. If this leglisation helds to save just one child then it will have been worthwhile. Is it not amazing that the most noise about this is being made by those who represent ‘The Establishment’ known to be among the worst offenders of child abuse and have been getting away with it for years.
Their filthy abuse stops now.
Auld Rock
The named person model has been in operation in the Highlands since 2007. Can anyone cite a single example of a complaint of intrusion? It is in place so you have one person accountable for the well being of a child instead of there being multiple agencies involved but with nobody having overall responsibility. A child will only be invloved with the named person if they are at risk. A model like this could have prevented the death of Baby P.
Onwards @4.46
You had said you didn’t see how refusing to engage with teachers was any different than it is now.
Try it the other way round.
My kid’s (and I’ve just asked one of them)felt very comfortable and comforted by having the option to approach their GP.
Also happy to have considered using any services he suggested,introduce the concept that their Guidance teacher having to be informed as their NP that this was happening and everything changes.
Also as I suspected it’s not that they have a NP,its who the NP is that’s the issue.
Therefore my kid’s and I while not engaging directly with the teacher would not have felt that we were able to ask for any help from our GP should we have needed it because of her role,by virtue of our circumstances being (for want of a better word)activated.
As I said I do support the act but would like to see it improved in this area.
I am only using my past experiences to illustrate where there is the potential for problems as I am sure someone somewhere will be in the position of the NP whom they already can’t stand unexpectedly being obliged to act.
You know we’re screwed when my wife gave a school coat to a foster child. Foster Parents paid so much money it funded their home extension and car, truly need an overhaul of the system.
@Bill 1844
Bill, as someone who is going through the process of becoming a foster carer, I can assure you that the majority of foster carers are not in it for the money – it’s for the want to give children and young people a safe and supported home to help them reach their potential. I am certainly not doing it for the money – I will need to give up work and as a family, we will be on a lower income.
Foster carers are not paid that much that they can afford home extensions, cars etc – they are paid a nominal wage with a weekly sum towards the keep of the child.
I would imagine if your wife is being required to hand out coats to foster children that it raised concerns and your wife took it further?
If Davidson has moved or extended her attack on to the cost of the service then it might be because the attempt at misinformation in order to generate support for a decision imposed by the Supreme Court against it seems to be floundering.
In the run up to an election where independence is officially back on the agenda a decision to overule our own judges might not be to unionist parties electoral advantage if it seems contrary to popular opinion. Nor would I say basing it on fiscal impropriety is a valid reason for doing so but your milage might vary.
ComRes must be employing Galafriens.
But surely the realise the potentially distortion effect to the polls data collection by haveing published the poll ahead of sampleing data was completed some of the sample set may have read to results and their oppinons coloured by it.
In indeed it might have changed an oppinon open the door to a paradox and collapse of causealaty.
Or it might expose a shocking lack of transparency and professionalism.
I leave you to decide which is the mostly
@Orri
“YMMV” – you don’t see that one so much these days 🙂
Yes, what you say is interesting about the Supreme Court overuling our judges. One of those less obvious facets of Independence.
It’s also interesting that on the one hand the Scottish Conservative submission to Smith was better than Labour’s, their proposal as they said, should be seen as the floor, not the ceiling. And then Davidson and co abstain on the children’s and young persons act because it’s covered by the UK or something like that. Which is an argument for LESS devolution in a way.
They’re getting themselves in a knot same as Labour.
I’ll aplogise in advance for this being a long one…
@yesindyref2
1). Under normal circumstances (no risk otherwise identified) it is voluntary that parents have to have anything to do with a Named Person.
It’s in the title:
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the rights of children and young people; to make provision about investigations by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland; to make provision for and about the provision of services and support for or in relation to children and young people; to make provision for an adoption register; to make provision about children’s hearings, detention in secure accommodation and consultation on certain proposals in relation to schools; and for connected purposes. ”
The clue is in the language – “to make provision for”. This is not saying ‘mandatory you must obey’ in legalese, it’s saying that the state has to provide these services not enforce them.
2). Under normal circumstances (no risk otherwise identified) the child can refuse to be asked questions by the Named Person, or have one to one contact with them in their capacity as a Name Person.
3). Under normal circumstances (no risk otherwise identified) the parents can refuse to be asked questions by the Named Person, or have one to one contact with them in their capacity as a Name Person..
I’ll take these together. The Act says nothing about what the child/parent can do or is expected to do because the Act (in the legislative sense) is not interested in the child/parent, it is written to force the Councils / health bodies to be ready to deal with instances where a child/parent needs/wants those services.
What you’re asking for is like expecting a capital punishment law to include the line “The offender will be compelled to adhere to the compliant act of being killed.”
4). If child or parent are not happy with their assigned Named Person, they have the right to ask and be granted a replacement Named Person.
Again, you’re focussing on the child/parent which is not what the Act is for. But there is this – Part 4, Section 19, subsections 2 and 3. It defines who can be a named person – it doesn’t say who your named person has to be. Your local authority (or health board for pre-school) must provide people who can meet the named person criteria and it must provide them to you but it doesn’t say anything about you being stuck with them.
AND THERE’S MORE!
Part 4 Section 19, subsection 8 – “Responsibility for the exercise of the named person functions lies with the service provider rather than the named person.”
So if an NP is abusing their responsibilities or if you don’t like what they’re doing, then the Council will take the heat.
It’s nowhere near as convoluted as the Scotland bill was but – and this has been discussed on WoS before – it is still written in legalese. It’s not a law, and it doesn’t define any offences. That means that even if the worst case scenario of these objectors were to happen and a parent was taken to court for ignoring the NP or the NP was trying to take custody of the child or whatever, the SG would be laughed out of court.
So having read it, I’m going to say that I don’t think it is a bad piece of legislation and I don’t think it is poorly thought out.
As for some of the other hysteria “what if” scenarios? Here’s the language from Part 4 Section 19, subsection 5 which lists what the NP can do:
* advise
* inform
* support
* help
* promote
* safeguard
* discussing
So if anyone out there really thinks that an NP has the power to stop kids being taken to church by their parents or can freely access information about contraceptive prescriptions (read Part 4 Section 26 on Information Sharing section for that one) then you’ve come up the Clyde on a Banana boat!
I think you are slightly missing the point. Surely the key issue is that the question is incredibly biased. Don’t you do opinion polls? How about: ‘For every child, there should be a clearly identifiable individual responsible just in case there are child protection issues’ – same meaning, different wording, surely different response.
The underlying issue is of course that child protection can always be spun both ways, as intrusive and anti-family or as important and pro-child. In the current climate, any child protection policy that the SNP will champion will be attacked.
@Balaaargh
Yes I agree it’s about “making provision”, and sets out duties of those making the provision. As a fairly minor point, though it does have bearing on inclusions and omissions, the very first Part is titled “Rights of Children”, but the sections are:
“1 Duties of Scottish Ministers in relation to the rights of children
2 Duties of public authorities in relation to the UNCRC
3 Authorities to which section 2 applies
4 Interpretation of Part 1 “
which isn’t about “Rights of Children” themselves. It’s mis-titled.
But the key thing is this for example in Part 4:
“20 Named person service in relation to pre-school child
(1) A health board is to make arrangements for the provision of a named person service in relation to each pre-school child residing in its area.”
That’s for EACH as in every child. Whether at risk, or not. Same for the other age groups. So it’s certainly not voluntary to have a Named Person for every child or young person. Every child or young person in Scotland will have one.
So when it says “to make provision”, it means to make Provision for every child, not just those that need or ask for it. It’s obligatory, not “Voluntary”.
As for not saying you’re stuck with the NP, neither does it say you can change the NP. But it’s the authority that makes provision, and therefore it’s only the authority that can change the NP – if it decides it wants to, unless otherwise specified in the Act.
Excellent post Balaaarag,
yes indeed yesindyref2 just as health boards make provision for each esident in its area, for example 100k residents them X number of doctors X number nurse X number therapist, it’s to stop an authority saying we don’t have enough resources!
To understand law you do require some understanding of legal terms, and that words we use in every day vocabulary, if used in an act would result in mayhem.
The biggest problem I have recently was explaining suitable and sufficient, as an absolute requirement, and not up to vague interpretation.
@Andrew Mclean
Yes, that’s the other interpretation. In theory at least, an authority (call it a local authority to make it easier), could count the children in its area “100,000”, look at the geography quickly, decide to appoint 200 Named Persons, quickly flip through a list of head teachers, deputies if any and / or principal teachers if not, “job’s a goodun, time for lunch”.
Yeah, reading legislation and European Directives and the legislation enabling them is a real pain, but once you get the hang of it it doesn’t take long to get what you want from it. As a small law-abiding business without a legal department (I’m it), I’ve been able to point officials in the right direction when told what the law was when it wasn’t, it really wasn’t. Politely of course, they ended up on my side.
Substitute each with some, or most and it becomes stupid, who would provide part of a service?
But I will point out that Ruth Davidson isn’t a wicked person or stupid, if the legislation was as bad as she now pretends she would have voted against and created a stink, that said what decent person plays political games with child welfare?
@Andrew Mclean
Well, few of the MSPs are legally trained, and even if so, at a “basic” level, not specialised. For me, as the Scottish Parliament gets more and more powers, including those over primary legislation, it means it too has to evolve.
First would be to beef up the Committees – as Tricia Marwick (SNP) wanted to do. Second would be to have some sort of second chamber whose job was to nitpick over the wording, omissions, false inclusions, and even bits totally forgotten about in the cause of pursuing the primary purpose of the legislation itself. What the House of Lords should be, and to an extent used to be, rather than what it is.
We’re also going to need a proper People’s Constitution.
All of these are good selling points for Indy Ref 2.
‘..that said what decent person plays political games with child welfare?’
A Tory?
They pride themselves on ‘decency’ do they not? But really their policies reveal the indecent nature of their philosophy; to divide and rule. Have’s against have nots, the dice loaded from birth…this is the status quo they work hard at maintaining.
Ruth Davidson is a typical careerist with ambitions to ‘be’ somebody, the heart of Tory philosophy as far as I have worked it out so far is ‘to get where you want to get, and it doesn’t matter who you step on to get there’.
That’s why the term Red Tories is so fitting. They revealed themselves ‘sold out’ for ‘position’ and money. Red or Blue or Libdem they all belong to the same choir rejoicing over their own exalted status.
Bunch a fannies.
It does seem odd when the system has been trialled with success in Highland region since 2009 that everybody is getting worked up about it now. It is part of the process in Scotland of trying to join up health and social care with education so that no child falls through gaps. Mr Alexander, the Head of Care and Learning said:
“We have fewer children being reported to the Children’s Reporter, we have fewer children on the Child Protection Register, we have fewer children offending. And we had an inspection by the Care Inspectorate in November and December where we got the highest grades out of any local authority in Scotland.”
He added: “I don’t understand why people want to spread misinformation about a system that supports families and reduces the number of vulnerable children and is a Scottish success story.”
@yesindyref2 says:
30 March, 2016 at 9:43 pm
..First would be to beef up the Committees – as Tricia Marwick (SNP) wanted to do. Second would be to have some sort of second chamber whose job was to nitpick over the wording, omissions, false inclusions, and even bits totally forgotten about in the cause of pursuing the primary purpose of the legislation itself. What the House of Lords should be, and to an extent used to be, rather than what it is.
We’re also going to need a proper People’s Constitution.
All of these are good selling points for Indy Ref 2.
——–
Isn’t a problem that it could perhaps prevent indy ref 2 ?
If a Scottish HoL alternative took the position that a second referendum was ‘ultra vires’. And if it was stuffed full of SNP politicians then it would be seen as pointless.
Forgive me if I am being thick but do Christians not have named people to help bring up their chilren in the faith viz. godparents?
@Onwards
Interesting point. I’d think if there was another Section 30 order, then no, there’d be no grounds. But if Westminster said no, but the SG tried to go ahead anyway, then yes, perhaps it could on the grounds it could be challenged in court. Not sure if it could protest on the grounds it’s not in the authority of Holyrood though, as there is wiggle room in the Scotland Act(s), and would require that court challenge.
I guess it could be a question of timing 🙂
@Onwards
An interesting possible paradox I uncovered 2 or 3 years ago is the Scotland Act 1998 itself. If as we do, we accept the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union, and also that in 1999 the Scottish Parliament reconvened, as it had not been dissolved properly in 1707, but just adjourned, then it could be argued that it would have needed the Scottish Parliament to accept and endorse the Scotland Act 1998, otherwise it’s not valid to actually (re-)create the Scottish Parliament of 1999.
I’ll get ma coat!
Referendum is not binding its advisory, no legal standing. The wording of the order was to make any legal challenge less likely to succeed. Regardless of outcome legal challenge can be made. Section 30 or equivalent is not necessarily for referendum.
It can be argued that a majority in MP from Scotland and majority in MSP is a mandate for UDI claim of right, after all troops on the street and abolishing Holyrood is never going to happen!
@yesindyref2
That’s arguing semantics on the first point and this was mentioned on a previous thread – the rights of children are defined in the UNCRC and don’t need to be re-stated here. It could be called the “Enforcement of purple lawnmowers for mowing of lawns greater than 10 metres squared” or whatever. The result of this section is that the UN Convention on the Rights of Children must be dutifully observed in Scotland and it is up to the ministers of the SG to ensure that this is so, and if they fail for whatever reason then they must take action to fix it.
You’re still seeing what you want to see, the legislation states it is obligatory FOR THE COUNCIL to be able to provide the service of a named person, it does not say it is obligatory for the child to have one. It’s obligatory for the NHS to provide care for you if you need it but that doesn’t mean you have to get ill!
And it is already specified in Section 17 that the Ministers of the SG have the power to intervene if the service provider is not doing what they should be doing. First and foremost, the NP should be acting in the interests of the child. If they’re not then the LA/HB have to be able to provide an NP who will. And if they don’t, then the SG can step in and make sure they (or another body) do.
Can _anyone_…really? trust anything in this rag nowadays..? It depresses me, greatly, that I used to buy/read it 6 days out of 7…although, when I think about it…
in those days it was really for the letters pages,the sports commentary, and the crosswords by people who understood what life was about, like Peter Bee…say no more…
@Balaaargh
Indeed, it’s arguing semantics, which is though what often happens with legislation afterwards.
Anyway, I see from the other thread Dugdale has made her position, ummm, clear, which seems to leave the SNP with the last word.
I think the solution will be quite simple.
I’m late to the party and things have moved on so chances are no one will read this, but I did watch the whole of the streamed court case on the Named Person at the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. From that I learned:
1) The named person is appointed to every child and there is no opt out of this. If a parent refuses to take the advice of a named person then that in itself might flag up more involvement from other service providers and might lead to an escalation.
2) There has been a shift from welfare – and the usual threshold of intervention of risk of significant harm – to wellbeing, which is much more difficult to define. With this shift the threshold of state intervention is reduced from risk of significant harm to concerns about a child’s wellbeing.
3) There will no longer be any patient confidentiality when a child goes to their GP as the named person will have access to their medical records (it was not made clear in the court whether or not this extended also to associated adults, ie parents, grandparents etc, but I have heard from parents who say that they have been told that their medical records can also be accessed by their children’s named persons, but I do not know if this is true).
The court raised the question that if a teenager knew that their head teacher had access to their confidential discussions with their GP about contraceptive advice, then that might well put them off from going to the GP in the first place.
For me, this also raises the question about what happens to this data? If the named person has accessed a child’s confidential medical records, then where are they stored? I have heard that the children of service personnel will not be allocated a named person because of concerns about the security of the data that is collected and shared by the named person.
4) Lack of recourse for parents if things go wrong. If the parents have an issue with their named person there is no independent, external body that will evaluate their complaint, all complaints will be dealt with by the named person’s employer.
The only indepedent recourse for parents if they have complaints against the named person would be a Judicial review, costing thousands of pounds and out of the reach for ordinary families.
Personally, I have been following this for some time and I have concerns about the way in which States in general are increasing their ability to monitor their citizens. Terrorism offers a good reason to tighten surveillance on all of us as citizens and child protection is now, it seems, doing the same within the family.
I understand the argument ‘if one child is saved from this it is worth the price’ but I don’t agree with it. There does come a tipping point when you are exchanging one kind of harm for another. Losing patient confidentiality is, in my opinion, too high a price to pay. There also comes a point where state intrusion itself does harm.
What if there are innocent families who end up with children taken into care because of the over zealous behaviour of their children’s named person? What if those children’s lives are ruined as a result? There has already been a named person arrested for child abuse.
There will be those that abuse their position as named persons, even if the majority don’t. What recourse do parents have if this is the case?
The vast majority of parents do a good job in bringing up their children, and if the named person was truly a voluntary service that parents could access if they needed to, then that would be one thing, but whether parents like it or not, the named person will be monitoring from a distance, accessing your child’s health records (and possibly yours) and having powers to interfene if they believe your child isn’t happy.
This may be a picture you are happy with, but personally I feel the balance between privacy and the rights of families to be quirky and weird and not have to conform to state approved outcomes has swung too far in the direction of the state.
Teachers are already able to report concerns about the children in their care, and I do not understand why this level of state monitoring is necessary. The goal of catching every abused child is laudable, but in pursuing it in such a singleminded fashion there is a danger of creating more overall harm in terms of privacy, trust, civil liberties and damage done to children by over zealous or abusive state officials.
“The named person is appointed to every child and there is no opt out of this. If a parent refuses to take the advice of a named person then that in itself might flag up more involvement from other service providers and might lead to an escalation.”
It’s not a named person’s job to offer “advice” to parents unless they ask for it.
So are ComRes chanting ‘Na Na na-na na, we can’t hear you’ with their corporate fingers in their corporate ears?
Because, right now, it looks like something odd is being done with their data.
@Pog
Were these “facts”, or wewre they arguments by the QC for the plaintiffs? He / she could claim what they like, it doesn’t make it true.
@Rev
Firstly it depends on how strict the guidelines, and then there’s those who will do it properly, and those that won’t. What can be done about the latter is down to the Legislation itself, other legislation, and the guides from the SG, and the various authorities. There are jobsworths, there are feuds, and there are nasty people around in any profession.
Pog/Indyref2
Just as a for instance, what are your thoughts on what would likely happen if a parent instructed a GP not to share information?
And also the Catholics confessional confidentiality thing
@rev Stuart Campbell 3.38pm
‘It’s not a named persons job to offer advice unless parents ask for it’,
The named person seems to have a dual role – the first is to act as a single point of contact to coordinate services and ensure that information is shared among professionals, the second is to discern whether or not there are any ‘wellbeing concerns’ about a child (there is a government supplied checklist for this – the so called Shanarri indicators in order for the named person yo evaluate a child’s wellbeing). If the named person has concerns about a child’s wellbeing they may come up with a ‘child’s plan’, a program of early intervention designed to prevent problems from escalating in the future.
Early intervention is one of the mainstays of the named person and it does seem that they are encouraged to act proactively in this capacity.
My understanding is that the named person is supposed to perform both these functions of acting as a contact point and assessing wellbeing and initiating early intervention, so yes, as far as I am aware, it is in the named person’s job description to offer unsolicited advice.
@yesindyref2 3.46 pm
These were mostly conclusions from questions asked by the Judges of the Governement’s QC and his replies and appeared to be pretty much established as fact by all parties.
Although Nicola Sturgeon said that the named person was voluntary, her QC acknowledged that it was not voluntary in that every child would have a named person and that failure to go along with a ‘child’s plan’ might lead to further escalation of state involvement.
Also, whether or not a parent chooses to engage with a named person has little affect on the fact that they can access and share confidential medical data about your child (and maybe you).
@Pog
Yeah. Well, the Data issues, there’s a new report on the Act apparently but I haven’t read it. And the gov.scot website is now in pre-election purdah so can’t be (politically) updated. There’s a leaflet on GIRFEC there on the main page which at least some schools are handing out on parents night, but clearly there needs to be one for the Named Person part, answering concerns – if that’s possible.
That GIRFEC leaflet does say:
“2. Not every child will require a Child’s Plan.
A Child’s Plan will be available for a child who needs extra support that is not generally available to address their needs and improve their wellbeing.”
but not anything about whether every child has a Named Person or not assigned to them, that it is implied elsewhere.
Meanwhile there’s uncertainty and unrest, and as a party, the SNP can and should promise to put that right if elected. “we listen”. Well, do they? Or should I say “we”, as I’m a member since after the Ref?
So basically it seems the LibDems should rename themselves the Dark Energy Party.
Sorry, last posting in wrong thread.
@David
There are other options, some people for privacy reasons don’t like to say whether they have children. Also polling questions can be inflexible wrt things like stepchildren, in formally married relationships and not formally married. So people can fall through the cracks which is likely why those numbers don’t add up. Some people could not or would not answer.
In terms of the publication dates I suspect what happened was a work in progress table got put on the website by accident or default (maybe someone opened an old workspace instead of a new one and didn’t realise that meant it was going live on the website). I don’t therefore think it has to represent some sort of skulduggery. Always rule out a fuckup before jumping to a conspiracy theory.