THE BBC’s reporting of the cancellation of the Named Person scheme is surely the most biased ever. First of all was the prominence given to Liz Smith’s opinionated and factually incorrect rant. Then there was the mention of the Supreme Court’s action against it on the grounds that it breached Human Rights Legislation. I have read the Supreme Court’s judgement in full and it described the scheme as “well intentioned” but it did not fully comply with Data Protection laws and therefore with the Human Rights rules. All this was repeated on the BBC’s Highland news plus the fact that the scheme was trialed in the Highlands, but no mention that the trial was deemed a success.
READ MORE: BBC faces criticism after sidelining SNP during Newsnight again
Not so long ago the BBC’s Ian Smart wrote to The National complaining that it had only picked out the critical comments from a report about the BBC. That was naughty of The National, but is it not what the BBC do to anything done by the Scottish Government almost all the time?
Let us remember where the scheme came from. Every time there was a tragic case of a child being maltreated or even killed, the media would fall over themselves looking for someone to blame. Why did social services not do more? Why did the agencies involved not exchange information which could have prevented the tragedy? That was exactly the problem the Named Person scheme was trying to address.
Let us remember too that the main opposition to the scheme came from the same sort of people who historically have demanded that not only their children but all children should be indoctrinated with their religious views. Somehow that was not deemed an invasion of family life and parental privacy.
Andrew M Fraser
Inverness
ANDREW Learmonth’s article, (Swinney scraps Named Person scheme plans, The National, September 20) is an excellent example of responsible journalism which is so often lacking in today’s media.
He examines how in 2014 the Scottish Parliament passed the proposal unopposed, but as opposition to the scheme developed across the political spectrum the courts became involved and then a panel of experts appointed. They could not agree a way forward – alas, so often the devil is in the detail. Thankfully the minister has now decided to withdraw the scheme.
READ MORE: Named Person scheme scrapped by Scottish Government
Remembering that it started with Parliament, moved on to the courts, interested groups and the general public and then back to Parliament to make the final decision, is proof that our system works.
I trust that the money saved will be used to enhance the services available to those children in need.
As for Deputy First Minister John Swinney, he has demonstrated that he will listen to arguments for and against and has the political maturity to accept the will of the majority – democracy at its best!
Thomas L Inglis
Fintry
HAVING just read Andrew Wilson’s column (Swinson’s hypocrisy on Brexit and indyref2 absolutely stinks. How very Boris..., The National, September 19), I’m struck by the absence of any reference to Jo Swinson’s five
}years as part of the coalition government and her party’s role during that period as enablers of austerity.
Alluding to her decision to say she’ll call a halt to Brexit if the LibDems win the election, Mr Wilson states: “It is a naked attempt to secure marginal advantage for her party, which is exactly the approach many condemn Labour and the Tories for – and hoped the Liberals would eschew.”
Seriously? Did people really expect them to be more principled than the Tories or Labour regarding their position(ing) vis-a-vis Brexit? Surely their 5-year bed-in with the Tories between 2010 and 2015 was more than sufficient to demonstrate how far the LibDems were prepared to go to fulfil their naked ambition?
Mr Wilson goes on to refer to the “unedifying tactics” and “win-at-all costs culture” of Swinson’s party in local campaigns, opining that their “position on Brexit elevates that culture to the national stage”.
Actually, we were already all too familiar with the LibDems blatantly venal actions from their time on said national stage during their 5-year hook-up with the Tories, as result
of which many people throughout the UK continue to suffer. We know fine what Swinson and her party are capable of; we’d do well to remember it.
Mo Maclean
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel