Say No to the SNP Named Person scheme

andy macmillanAndy MacMillan says unless we stop and reassess the Named Person scheme the SNP risks taking Scotland to a very dark place.

 

The SNP Named Person scheme will take effect on Scottish families from this August. This deeply sinister, mandatory scheme has been brought in under the guise of “child protection”.

School children will be encouraged to imagine Scotland as a garden, with each child as a special plant growing within it. All the adults in a child’s life, including their parents are to be “gardeners”, while the state-appointed Named Person will fulfil the role of “Head Gardener”.

The “Head Gardener” will be the most important person in a child’s life. The child’s parents will have no right to any information shared between the “Head Gardener” and their child. The SNP government is currently gathering “survey” information about children and their parents in selected primary schools. Unfortunately, this is only the thin end of the wedge, as today’s voluntary anonymous “survey” will soon be tomorrow’s compulsory fact file.

The state has no business interfering with family life to this degree, not even under the emotive pretext of child protection. To make every child a ward of the state is tantamount to operating a spy ring. This practice was last seen in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. The SNP Named Person scheme amounts to gross state interference in family life. Its purpose seems to be to mould the hearts and minds of children into the image of the state. All freedom-loving citizens have a duty to oppose this heinous totalitarian legislation.

Why are parents not taking to the streets over this issue? Perhaps because most parents do not know about this policy and if they do, they are genuinely terrified of complaining or refusing to cooperate. Many parents fear dissent will heighten the risk of having their names blacklisted, or their child being flagged up a on a social work register.

We all have a duty to protect the rights of parents. So grandparents, aunts, uncles, family and friends, who do not have young children, should help to stand up for parents who cannot act, for fear of being victimised.

The SNP are taking the people of Scotland to a very dark place.

Related Posts

4 thoughts on “Say No to the SNP Named Person scheme

  1. Well done Andy . There are not many people in Labour who will stick their head above the parapet on this topic, which isnt a surprise since it was Labour who instigated in back in 2001 – 2002 . It began with Tony Blair who wanted to `get in there early` – in some cases before a child was born – in order to stop children from becoming a “menace to society” and a “menace to themselves”.(Both quotes from Tony Blair) So it was always more serious than offering a `little bit of extra support.`as claimed by Scottish politicians Here is the BBC interview with Tony telling us about “early intervention”

    Tony Blair early intervention video .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xbKFlawOk

    Anyone who works with or comes into contact with kids already have a duty of care under the children Scotland act 1995 . The only thing this act adds to that is the ability to collect and share confidential information about everyone without consent. It gives professionals the right to breach confidentiality even if they are asked not to .

    Im still waiting for any politician to explain how this conforms to the Data Protection Act or the ECHR both of which are overarching legislation . And im still waiting for the govt or anyone from Labour to show me the “pressing social need ” for a universal policy with no opt out as is required by ECHR .

    When parents read comments like the ones below then it leaves me in no doubt that this is a very sinister policy that has no place in any democratic country .

    “Quote P&k GIRFEC Guidance (Page 13)

    Do I always need to seek Consent?
    No, not always.

    In such cases, where information will be shared, consent should not be sought, as to do so would give the subject (child or young person and/or their parents/carers) a false belief that they can control the decision, which they cannot.

    http://www.pkc.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17436&p=0

    ===================

    Minister for Children and Young People, Aileen Campbell, said in her evidence to the Education and Culture
    Committee on 25th June.

    “Everything that we do and all our policies are underpinned by GIRFEC—getting it right for every child—and making sure that the child is at the centre
    of decisions. Of course we recognise that parents also have a role…”

    Also ??

    ==================

    You are spot on when you say “make every child a ward of the state” and that’s effectively what this will do . This universal policy has not been asked for , is not wanted and until Labour start listening to parents instead of thinking they know better or listening their favourite kids charities who have a vested interest in this act then most mums and dads will not support the Labour party .

  2. You mentioned the Primary School surveys. I have been in correspondence over these surveys with the school and the head academics. I made a very simple point. The children have been asked to fill in questionnaires (allegedly they are told that they are voluntary, but what does that mean to a Primary 6 that has been told to comply with their teacher’s requests), then they are handed over to the University of Glasgow for analysis.
    So I pointed out that this meant that our children had been co-opted into an academic research project without anyone having given informed consent. As this was unethical, then the research was tainted. I pointed out that virtually all ten year olds don’t have legal capacity to consent to an academic research project, and that in future they would need to ask parents to consent prior to giving the children the questionnaire.
    I was patronised at first, had the importance of their work explained to me and told that I could look at a blank questionnaire. I explained to her that this business of telling parents that they can see blank but not completed questionnaires was wrong again, it is a parent’s job to protect the privacy of their young child from the world, and no one’s job to keep private anything from a parent, hence why it is parents who are given full disclosure on medical issues (where confidentiality is normally ensured).
    So then I was told, despite earlier assurances that no one could trace back the questionnaires to individual children, that she had my child’s questionnaire and would destroy it for me.
    The whole process makes you feel like you are being a nuisance, touchy, and interfering with their professional (read: better) ways.
    But personally I am fed up with this notion that once children are in school they are up for grabs by whoever feels they need access. Some years ago I had cause to contact the vaccination programme who had doubled up the Medical Consent required by parents with some market research questions! Initially there was resistance again to listen, until I pointed out that if they couldn’t show they had obtained valid medical consent then they had just assaulted thousands of children, and they took heed and amended the consent forms. But I gives you a flavour of where people’s attention is focused, and how little respect the have for the fundamental permissions they need to seek to legitimise ANYTHING they want to do.
    One of the many problems with the Named Person scheme is that once Head Teachers become embroiled in managing the intervention, talking to the parents will take up yet more time, so they will be marginalised.

  3. So is there any reason why my previous comment hasnt made it through moderation ?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: