Ian Bayne (Letters, 26 August)is right: appointing a form of state guardian to every child has concerning implications.
On the radical liberal view that lurks not too far below the surface of the Scottish political consensus, families are seen as engines of inequality, because parents keep doing their best for their children, and promoters of views that are not quite in line with liberal orthodoxy.
On the other hand, the more the state can intervene in raising children, the more uniform their upbringing can be, and the more “appropriate” messages can be delivered.
The establishment consensus focuses on promoting children’s “rights” and favours a permissive conspiratorial approach to what many parents regard as moral issues, such as sex and drugs.
Richard Dawkins, darling of the BBC and media establishment, regards a religious upbringing as tantamount to “child abuse”.
How long will it be until children are urged to contact their state guardian when they feel that their parents are not listening to their views (for example, by not giving them what they demand), or treating them unfairly (for example, by disciplining them)?
How long until parents with “unsuitable” views are deemed unfit?
The obstacles already faced by those with more conservative, traditional or religious views in the fostering system should be a warning that the state’s definition of “suitable parent” is narrowing.