In some ways it doesn’t affect me; my children and grandchildren are over the age when a government-appointed official can pass judgment on my family.
But the net will spread, so I’m guarding against complacency. After all, if I’ve nothing to hide why should I object to scrutiny? It makes communist sense, doesn’t it?
Are we blindly walking into a Soviet-style regime where all children will be encouraged to spy on their mums and dads?
What next? SNP party members reporting disloyalty to their masters at Holyrood? (MSPs are already banned from criticising their Dear Leader’s pronouncements).
The Gaelic becomes the national language? The Scotsman becomes Scotia Pravda? Funny? Let’s not forget: every journey starts with a single step.
I note that another contributor (Letters, same day), Malcolm Graham from Police Scotland wrote in support of this outrageous law.
One should never be surprised to hear of police supporting restrictive regulations; it makes arresting citizens so much easier to justify: simply trawl through the laws and out will pop a reason.
It may of course be that the Assistant Chief Constable Major Crime and Public Protection Police Scotland, Malcolm Graham, actually believes this new “Big Brother” law is good. On the other hand, the clue is in his title.
The SNP put all Graham’s troops under a single roof to be closely supervised; why would he object to the rest of us (children first) being closely observed in the SNP’s version of a “free and fair Scotland”?
Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham deserves credit for his comprehensive rebuttal of what was a very flawed and skewed article on the named persons scheme printed by The Scotsman on 2 July.
However, the letter from Charlotte Fox (same day) when she says that the plan demonstrates that the government believes that “Scottish parents are not fit to bring up their own children” displays such a critical lack of understanding of the named person scheme that it is clear that the Scottish Government needs to do much more to explain how it will operate.
That the government has said there is no obligation placed on parents to contact the named person, but that they will be there for parents who decide they wish to call on them for help or support if they so choose, does not seem to have been grasped by anxious parents like Charlotte Fox who seems to believe the named person will have the right to intercede and exert control on family life unbidden.
In this respect The Scotsman needs to accept a share of the responsibility for the levels of anxiety it has generated through its repeated references to “state guardians”.
This is a phrase which does not appear in any of the consultative documents issued by the Scottish Government.
It is a distortion of the character and role of the potential named persons, which appears to have been concocted by The Scotsman with the intention of cranking up the rhetoric and consequent overstated concern among parents. With what aim in mind is not clear. What is clear is that in this respect The Scotsman has allowed its standard to drop significantly.