Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You said 'fight for' a new referendum.

Like being able to call one was in question.

The right to call a legally binding referendum and its timing, is in question.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But Corbyn might still surprise everyone yet. He won and has held on despite everything thrown at him.

Why would Corbyn leave office? No reason too.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

The right to call a legally binding referendum and its timing, is in question.

Not apparently, during the EU campaign where a 'Leave' vote will see the break up of the UK as the Scots will hold another referendum, the result 'too close to call'... See Mr Hague and Clegg above. There's no question there of Scots 'rights' to hold one. Why, it's an inevitability if there's a Leave vote. Which is why everyone should vote to 'remain' of course.

It's a tactic, should it be used extensively during the run up to the EU referendum, that will cost them dear later I should imagine.

There will be no question of the Scots not being allowed to hold one... during the EU 'in' campaign at least

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why would Corbyn leave office? No reason too.

I meant start climbing in the polls. And looking a possibility for winning in 2020. It's hard to imagine now, but then, it was hard to imagine him winning the Labour leadership contest... hard to imagine him lasting past Christmas, hard to imagine Oldham success with him as leader... etc etc.

In the context of Scotland. Only he, or someone with similar policies can stop the SNP. As a lot of Labour voters will return back to the Labour party they see as having been lost since the very beginning of the Blair years. At the moment for them there is little point as Corbyn winning looks like a hopeless proposition. But then, Corbyn has surprised before. As I pointed out.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not apparently, during the EU campaign where a 'Leave' vote will see the break up of the UK as the Scots will hold another referendum, the result 'too close to call'... See Mr Hague and Clegg above. There's no question there of Scots 'rights' to hold one. Why, it's an inevitability if there's a Leave vote. Which is why everyone should vote to 'remain' of course.

It's a tactic, should it be used extensively during the run up to the EU referendum, that will cost them dear later I should imagine.

who are these people, Clegg and Hague?
High court judges ? future UK leaders ? or what

I have no doubt that the English will allow the scots another referendum as we are such decent, intelligent, unassuming, generous people even if there will be reservations about creating a one party nationalist socialist northern neighbour.

Leanne1812

I've been involved in a discussion with a couple of people tonight about the NP policy. One for and one against. The against is my friend who also detests SNP. The for is a teacher who says it has been in place for quite some time and this new legislation is simply slimming down what already exists. I've read through the link here and there is nothing that concerns me. Should there be? Why all the hysteria surrounding this?

This guide does seem quite simple & basic but the footnote does say it's been designed to be accessible for parents with learning difficulties.


http://no2np.org/wp-content/uploads/GIRFECleaflet.pdf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Why all the hysteria surrounding this?

TEN REASONS WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM

It undermines parents and permits the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.

The Government keeps saying there’s no need for families to use the Named Person but this is disingenuous. The scheme is compulsory. Every child will have a Named Person by law. They will have power to access confidential data on the family, and to talk to a child without their parents agreeing with what they say.

It’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children with the resources available. The Scottish Government is stretching those resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.

Appointing a Named Person with legal responsibilities for every child will divert resources away from vulnerable children. Time spent filling in forms for dozens of children at no risk is time that could be better spent on those children in need of help.

One piece of Government guidance says a Named Person has “responsibility for overall monitoring of the child’s wellbeing and outcomes”. This is the role of a parent.

Because of the pressure on them, Named Persons will be forced to act defensively, reporting trivial or irrelevant family issues to social services. This creates more work for social workers who will have to needlessly follow up these families, cheating vulnerable children of the resources that they need.

The Named Person is legally responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of every child. Official guidance says “wellbeing is another word for happiness”. How can the state monitor the happiness of every child?
Teachers are busy enough without becoming a Named Person responsible for monitoring hundreds of children and handling the large amounts of confidential data sent to them by all the other agencies involved in the child’s life.

These plans could result in children having their privacy invaded over personal issues and could lead to them shunning helplines and advisory services.

The current law says social services can intervene where a child is at risk of significant harm. But Named Persons can intervene merely where there are concerns about a child's "wellbeing" or "happiness".

http://no2np.org/named-person/

What on earth business is it of the State to determine whether a child has a say in what TV they watch, or what colour their room is painted?

Why should the State have the power to interfere in or question parental decisions about what is best for their child if no laws have been broken?

Why do we need a network of spies reporting on the decisions of parents and the gossip of their children?

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I've been involved in a discussion with a couple of people tonight about the NP policy. One for and one against. The against is my friend who also detests SNP. The for is a teacher who says it has been in place for quite some time and this new legislation is simply slimming down what already exists. I've read through the link here and there is nothing that concerns me. Should there be? Why all the hysteria surrounding this?

This guide does seem quite simple & basic but the footnote does say it's been designed to be accessible for parents with learning difficulties.


http://no2np.org/wp-content/uploads/GIRFECleaflet.pdf

how much time does the NP spend per year for each child?
how many forms does the NP fill in each year (or is it all computerised)

Leanne1812

Surely protecting vulnerable children is more important than folk taking offence at a so called intrusion?

If this is a bad policy what should the gov be doing that will protect those who need it?

Perhaps this article will expel some myths surrounding this issue.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/alistair-gaw-exploding-myths-over-named-person-law-1-3922768

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Surely protecting vulnerable children is more important than folk taking offence at a so called intrusion?

That is a very slippery slope to go down... Where does it end?

Protecting vulnerable children should of course be a priority.

But collecting information on every child so the State, not the parents, can determine such nebulous concepts as 'wellbeing' and 'happiness' is more than step too far.

If this is a bad policy what should the gov be doing that will protect those who need it?

Exactly what the government already does.

Intervene when there is a risk of harm to children.

Perhaps this article will expel some myths surrounding this issue.

Seriously?

Are you remotely surprised that the president of a Social Worker's group would be in favour of a law increasing mass surveillance of children by the State? Talk about biased...

It's a horrific intrusion into the privacy of families and the primacy of parents regarding the decisions made for their children.

This is just really, really awful stuff, Orwellian in nature, and I cannot believe any right minded person would not be extremely wary of such intrusion.