14 Apr 2021: The Equality Network is a government funded lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) equality and human rights charity.
Its influence over SNP policies and many areas of Scottish society is absolute. Political Party’s will be expected to conform to the LGBTI agenda or face oblivion at the ballot box. But the electorate may not subscribe to the changes without consultation of which there has been very little, to date. People are afraid of change and this might well be reflected in the way in which they cast their votes on 6 May 2021.
The network which represents around 0.4% of Scotland’s population is monitoring the commitment of political parties in Scotland to social and changes in the laws of Scotland advocated by the network and has reported the applicable agenda for change in the Green Party manifesto, which states:
“We will ensure that health and social care services throughout Scotland, including mental health services, are fully inclusive of LGBT+ people and designed to remove barriers and tackle health inequalities.”
“Implement the Time for Inclusion Education (TIE) campaign recommendations, including the delayed delivery of promised funding to assist this important
“Deliver long overdue reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, including statutory self-declaration, recognising non-binary identities and all genders, and providing access to health care for trans minors with parental or guardian consent.”
“Introduce an informed consent model of trans healthcare, and in the meantime continue to push for access to Gender Identity Clinics within 18 weeks, in line with NHS standards for other services.”
“Ban so-called ‘conversion therapy’, which refers to unethical and unnecessary interventions that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBT+ people or alter a person’s sex characteristics without their consent.”
“Ensure LGBT+ inclusion in Scottish Government international development policies, and enshrining the Yogyakarta human rights principles into Scots law.”
Yogyakarta human rights principles: To avoid gender discrimination, in whatever area, full provision must be made for all those people who experience discrimination because of their gender role, gender identity or gender expression. In particular, provision must be made for those with an absence of intimate conviction as to being a man or a woman.
The Yogyakarta Principles: Women’s Rights Were Not Considered
Professor Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at Kings College London, is an expert on anti-discrimination law and sexual orientation law, and was one of the co-authors of the influential “Yogyakarta Principles”.
He now says the international human rights community got it wrong in merging lesbian and gay rights with the idea of a right to have “gender identity” replace sex.
The Yogyakarta principles, developed in 2006 built on the UK’s Gender Recognition Act, presenting it as international best practice. Principle 3 argues for a right to have gender identity replace sex on all identity documents and in all situations
On Inclusive Education: Fully implement the recommendations of the LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group, underpinned by new statutory guidance on the conduct of relationships, sexual health and parenthood education for schools.
On healthcare: Ensure that all NHS healthcare professionals can meet the needs of their LGBTI patients by incorporating training that addresses barriers faced due to both sexual orientation and gender identity.
On mental health: Commit to funding mandatory training for mental health professionals, including front line CAMHS staff, on supporting LGBTI people, and ensure mental health and suicide prevention training delivered to NHS staff is inclusive.
On social care: Ensure that LGBTI people can access welcoming and inclusive social care services, by providing targeted training for staff with a focus on those working in residential care settings.
On reproductive health & fertility services: Ensure that NHS reproductive health and fertility services recognise, and address, barriers and health inequalities faced by LGBTI people, particularly by lesbian and bisexual women.
On Conversion Therapy: End the harmful practice of sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy in the next parliamentary session, working with the UK Government where necessary.
On the Gender Recognition Act: Improve laws on gender recognition in line with international best practice to allow trans people to change the legal gender on their birth certificate with a simple process based on the principle of self-determination.
Recognized worldwide as one of the most talented politicians of his and other generations Alex had a high-profile in Scottish politics even before winning two historic Holyrood elections as SNP leader and securing a mandate to hold a referendum on Scottish independence.
Born in Linlithgow in 1954, he graduated from St Andrews University and took up a career in economics working first for the Scottish Office before moving to the Royal Bank of Scotland.
He began his parliamentary career as MP for Banff and Buchan in 1987, building a small team of dedicated supporters who would remain loyal throughout his time in politics.
He served as Party leader from 1990, standing down after 10 years but was persuaded to return and rescue the Party that was near collapse under the uninspired leadership of John Swinney.
Portrayed by Unionists as arrogant and self-serving, he confounded his critics when under his stewardship Party fortunes recovered dramatically and on a platform of fighting for Scottish independence he led it into government in 2007 and in a barnstorming election campaign in 2011 he achieved the impossible getting the Party back into power with an overall majority of MSP’s.
The 2014 referendum
The result of the 2014 Independence Referendum shattered Alex who had led a hard-fought campaign for a “Yes” vote. And the day after the result he dropped the bombshell announcing he was standing down as first minister and S.N.P. leader.
The 2015 General Election
At the time of his unexpected resignation Alex could not have foreseen the SNP landslide victory only six months later in the 2015 General Election. The momentous change in the fortunes of the party was brought about by the disgraceful backsliding after the referendum of “Unionist” politicians interested only in containing Scots within the existing political constraints. The much touted joint Unionist commitment to fully implement their “Vow” !!!!……to devolve substantive new powers to Scotland, just short of independence proved to be yet another a “big lie” that broke the hearts of many Scots who had voted to remain in the Union on the substance of Unionist promises.
Alex, had been persuaded by his supporters, in the Gordon constituency to remain active in Scottish politics, but this would be at Westminster in a role that did not impinge on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the Party. But in an extraordinary turn of events the Party leadership did not embrace the wishes of local Party activists believing the election of Alex to Westminster would undermine the authority of Nicola Sturgeon who was enjoying the fruits of successful politicking handed to her on a plate by Alex when he stood down from his leadership role. But the local Party team prevailed and Alex was selected as the Party candidate for Gordon. He went on to win the seat. Putting the boot into the Unionists Fifty-five other SNP candidates were also elected.
The SNP at Westminster
After leading the large contingent of SNP MP’s into the House of Commons Angus Robertson who was appointed leader of the team at Westminster, said:
“Westminster is going through culture shock in coming to terms with the fact the SNP did so well in the election. That we are here in such strong numbers, elected as Scots who support independence, is also not lost on them. We were elected to pursue an anti-austerity agenda and more devolved powers for Scotland and we will do just that.”
The final sentence in his statement dictated the approach and conduct of the SNP at Westminster. It should have read:
“We were elected to pursue independence for Scotland and we will do just that.”
The large block of SNP MP’s were rich with talent and enthusiasm but lacked political experience and badly underestimated the strength of the bias against any challenge to the Unionist dominated Westminster political system.
The one shining light was Alex Salmond, who having accepted his place at Westminster would exclude his direct input into Scottish matters took on the duties of “Foreign Affairs” spokesman for the Party. It was a role to which he was well suited and he was able to deal effectively with a truculent “Speaker” and a truculent Unionist majority. It was satisfying to witness him commanding the stage when he spoke to his brief, but there was a sadness observing him sitting on the fringe near the rear of the SNP group watching the ineffectual efforts of his leader Angus Robertson..
2017 General Election
The unexpected 2017 General Election brought with it unwelcome efforts by the Party leadership to pressurise Alex to retire from politics. The advice being that, as an elder statesman of the Party he would be better suited to less taxing work in the media through the many contacts who had provided him with numerous television and radio appearances over the years. But, spurning the opportunity of a new direction Alex decided to stand, once again for a seat at Westminster, representing Banff and Buchan.
Peter Murrell’s cock-up
The SNP leadership had not expected another election so soon and failed to inspire Party activists to get out and support the cause with result that some candidates failed to be re-elected. There were also issues about the lack of financial and campaigning support for candidates who were not seen to be fully committed to the ideals of Nicola Sturgeon and her team within a team at Party headquarters.
The Unionist’s were well ahead of the political game and introduced “tactical voting” to Scottish politics setting aside their political differences and jointly campaigning in a number of Scottish constituencies, (in particular the North East) where the incumbent SNP MP would be vulnerable to a low percentage swing in the voting.
Another factor was the ineffective performance of the large body of SNP MP’s at Westminster which had exposed the futility of sending SNP MP’s to Westminster. Unionist politicians enthusiastically seized the opportunity given over to them by the inexperienced and complacent SNP leadership and planted seeds of confusion and apathy among Scots voters. Faced with these drawbacks Alex and a number of other SNP candidates failed in their bids for re-election.
Alex Bows Out of Front-line politics
Alex accepted a need to change direction and considered a future in the media, the most promising of which was as the editor of a major Scottish tabloid newspaper. But the new venture failed to materialize, due to the political pressure of Unionist supporting financial backers with result that he became increasingly dependent on appearance invitations from the right wing media and BBC. But shock and horror, he was also denied that platform through Unionist controlled entities. Lesser persons would have given up the ghost. But not Alex, who turned to the English language television and radio station, Russia Today (RT). And having been given written assurances there would be no censorship or any other pressure applied to himself, his guests or content, he signed up to produce and present a weekly current affairs television show. The show proved to be a hit with viewers (it still is) and with his future assured Alex was a happy bunny once again. All’s well that ends well!!
Not quite. Nicola Sturgeon had not long before returned to Scotland from the US where she had been feted and fawned over by influential women’s political groups. The politics of the reborn Sturgeon had changed. “Independence” was out replaced with the buzzword “accommodation”. And her philosophy did not extend any accommodation to Putin and Russia. She joined with the Unionist and criticised Alex for taking up the offer of free airtime with RT. A real stab in the back for Alex from a person he had guided and mentored for many years.
The Whigs fared badly at the 1724/5 election and lost many supporters but Cock-a-hoop with their malt tax victory over the Scots Walpole’s new government put the boot in and forced even more commodity taxes on Scotland. The recently increased Scottish presence at Westminster counted for nothing since with a built-in majority guaranteeing its power England cared nothing for Scottish opinion.
Mindful of General Wade’s attack on Glasgow and the murder of civilians just a year or so before Scots were well aware of the threat of the English military should any violence occur and took a new tack by forming into political groups. These, in turn, merged and over the next ten years of the Whig government, the movement developed into a potent political force at Westminster. But victories were not so significant as to cause Walpole to worry unduly.
Porteous Riots Edinburgh
But England was not without its problems on the political front as an increasing number of Whigs became disillusioned with Walpole’s authoritarian style of leadership and his foreign and economic policies which alienated the United Kingdom from Europe and the world. Adopting the title, “The Patriots” a new political grouping evolved and claiming to be the protectors of the unwritten English constitution attracted a significant following and the support of the Scottish politicians at Westminster.
Around this time the English press was just taking off with its reach extending outside London into the provinces and the “Patriots” were quick to use the new medium to inform the public of their aims and aspirations. But achieving change was a slow process and political guerrilla tactics adopted by the “Patriots” took time to wear down Walpole and his ultra-right-wing English centred supporters who had ruled the roost for so long years.
The election of 1734 provided the opportunity to challenge Walpole’s Whigs and the “Patriots”, in an alliance with Scottish peers did just that making maximum use of the media to get its message across to the nation. And the message was!! That there was nothing wrong with the recently formed United Kingdom. The way forward was to embrace and enhance a fully integrated nation-state under a Protestant monarch. Scots peers responded positively and support for Walpole’s Whigs in Scotland began to waver. A new newspaper, the “Thistle” published weekly, was widely circulated in the central belt, less so in the highlands who had not been persuaded to the “Patriot” cause preferring a return of the Stuart divine-right monarchy. The political message, “there is another way” resonated well with Scots. The problem for many was “which way”.
Walpole
The “Patriots” agenda promoted the message that a victory for them would bring a return to a political system true to the content of the Acts of Union ensuring equal rights for all. The strategy failed because of the limited reach of the campaign and the “Patriots” changed tack and concentrated their efforts in the professional sectors of Glasgow and Edinburgh and failed to extend it to the rest of Scotland. So not enough people got the message!!! But they did make inroads in the cities!!
In England Walpole’s Whigs took a beating but retained power which meant that Scotland was bang in the firing line for more harsh treatment at their hands.
The Porteous Crisis 1737/38
The crisis brought Scots of all political persuasions together under the “Patriot” banner to protest against Whig government abuse and disrespect of Scottish legal and political autonomy. It began in the spring of 1736 when two habitual burglars were done for breaking and entering and robbing the Collector of Customs building in Kirkcaldy. A crime for which they were sentenced to Hang. While awaiting their execution both prisoners escaped custody. And their exploits brought support from the public who considered the sentence to be unjust. But authorities ignored their pleas and went ahead with the execution. The public execution in the Grassmarket was attended by a large crowd who were vocal in their protests and when the deed was done a few of them started to throw stones at the hangman and his helpers. This was not an unusual occurrence and usually passed without further incident. But on the occasion, there was an immediate and brutal response when city guard leader, Captain John Porteous fired into the crowd and ordered his men to do the same. When the shooting stopped there were eight dead and much more seriously wounded. The public protested vehemently and Porteous was charged with murder, tried, found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging in the same Grassmarket where he and his men had committed the atrocities.
The incident would have been closed had the execution been carried out, but Whig peers petitioned the Queen Regent Caroline to suspend the sentence so that appeals could be gathered and presented to the courts. She duly consented to their request and ordered the Scottish Lords of Justiciary to suspend the sentence for at least 6 weeks. Edinburgh citizens, sorely aggrieved that they were being denied justice took matters into their own hands, dragged Porteous from the Tollbooth and hanged him in the Grassmarket.
THe Hanging of Porteous in the Grassmarket, EEdinburgh
News of the “riot” reached the Westminster government who immediately ordered General Wade and his English forces to Edinburgh to assist in the “speedy and exemplary punishment’ of the riots” “ringleaders and abetters”. A second large body of English soldiers was moved into Edinburgh castle to patrol the area and to conduct “stop and search” patrols and enforce curfews. The Westminster Whigs also took the view that the Edinburgh city authorities were at fault. Opinions that were strengthened in the weeks that followed when no-one had been brought to account. General Wade complained that: “the magistrates had conspired to allow the murder of Porteous and aided their escape from justice”. His unfounded assertions provided the catalyst the Whig government had been waiting for and it speedily introduced a new act, the “Bill of Pains and Penalties” and used it against Edinburgh, with the charge that the City authorities had “insulted the royal prerogative”. Edinburgh’s Lord Provost was arrested and many “Royal” privileges were removed adversely affecting traders and the city was placed in purgatory. Edinburgh citizens were angry at the actions of the government and questioned the legality of the English moves against the city. The question most raised was, “what right had been bestowed on Westminster that gave it the authority to punish Edinburgh for a crime involving Scottish citizens, that had taken place on Scottish soil? Scottish politicians set aside their petty partisan quarrels and protests were raised at Westminster strongly condemning the Whig government for its, “contradiction to the express Articles of Union”. But their protests fell upon deaf ears. Edinburgh was made to pay a heavy fine to the exchequer and every church minister in Scotland was forced to read out a proclamation apologizing for the behaviour of Edinburgh citizens.
The Malt Tax
The Porteous affair was one of many incidents in which the Walpole government protected the military from its excesses through the imposition of “Martial Law” and acts of public violence against the people of Scotland. What was particularly galling was the unequal treatment of Scottish protestors when rioting in English cities had never been subject to military occupation and martial law. The Whig victory was pyrrhic since it confirmed what many Scots knew in their hearts that Scotland was not an equal partner in a Union of countries but a colony of England. The indignities inflicted by Walpole’s Whigs drove some Scots to seek the overturn the British and to invite the return of the Stuart’s to Scotland, but people in the Central belt and lowland parts of the country preferred to remain with the Union hoping for the removal of Walpole’s Whigs and a return to the ideals of the Acts of Union. Wishful thinking indeed!!!
2010:The Sarwar Dynasty in Central Glasgow – Anas Sarwar – Son of Mohammad Elected to Holyrood
Sarwar was selected for and elected to the safe Labour Glasgow seat previously held by his father.
His rise to the top echelons of the Labour Party was spectacular, but not unexpected.
He was the head co-ordinator of the, “No” campaign in the 2014 Scottish Referendum. How’s that for nepotism!!!! No end to it, as yet.
2011: Sarwar appointed Deputy leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.
In his address to Party loyalists he said: ” I will never define my politics by allegiance to the Scottish flag but rather to the values and principles of the Labour movement”.
2014: Sarwar relinquishes MSP status transferring his allegiance to the Unionist Labour Party in England taking up the post of shadow spokesman at international development.
Clearly a diehard, “Red Labour” unionist supporter intent on furthering his career in England, piggybacking on his Glasgow constituency.
2013: Sarwar attacked the Scottish Government for its alleged failure to mitigate the worst effects of the Bedroom Tax.
But , during a vote on the said tax being repealed in Westminster on 13 November 2013, Sarwar along with 45 other Labour MPs abstained, with the subsequent vote being lost by 252 to 226 – fewer than the number of Labour MPs who had failed to vote.
The bill was carried with the assistance of the labour party and the Bedroom Tax was imposed upon Scotland. And it was the Labour party that had called for the debate and vote.
Sarwar disgracefully misrepresented the findings of an impartial, non-political research study which found that an independent Scotland would be far better placed to reduce inequality. Full report here: (https://wingsoverscotland.com/lying-liars-tell-more-lies)
2014, Sarwar came under criticism for choosing to send his son to Hutchesons’ Grammar School
the same exclusive independent school that he himself attended, rather than a state school highlighting the hypocrisy of Labour Party politicians who preached social justice and public services while sending their own children to private schools.
Feb 2015: Jackie Baillie, ever willing to claim credit for the good works of others
Had the audacity to make claims in the press that it had been her intervention that had saved the day for Scots forcing the SNP government to find recurring finance cancelling out the effects of the Bedroom Tax. The brazen bid for glory exposed her to the ridicule of the Scottish electorate who were well aware that £30m had to be diverted away from the Scottish health Service to fund the new tax burden. the Scottish electorate.
Nov 2015: Ousted MP Sarwar buys himself a safe seat in Holyrood
Plotting his political comeback, Sarwar, who lost his Glasgow Central Westminster seat in May, contacted MSP’s, councillors and activists with an invite to hear his “views on the recovery of the Labour Party in Scotland”. Guests were treated to an expensive free dinner at the Riverside Palace, one of Scotland’s leading banqueting venues which can cater for up to 500 people and boasts of its high degree of elegance and grandeur.
A Scottish Labour parliamentarian said “The future of the Labour Party in Scotland isn’t about an individual’s view. It’s a collective approach, a team approach. Do the people on the street really want to commit to supporting one person’s vision for the party? People are apprehensive about the ambitions of Sarwar. I think he is looking to make a comeback in Scotland”
Feb 2016: Sarwar tops the Labour Party list for Glasgow and is guaranteed a seat through the back door
Scottish Labour’s list for the Glasgow region was topped by former MP Anas Sarwar, followed by former leader Johann Lamont, current MSP James Kelly and former MSP Pauline McNeil.
This Is Anas Sarwar
Sarwar was shown the exit door from Westminster in 2014 by his Glasgow constituents who judged him to be a sleazy disingenuous individual who sought to further his political career by feigning concern about his constituent’s misery with the goal of attaining for himself the fleeting glory of political stardom and personal gain.
His popularity in the Party is not mirrored in the community who rejected him when became clear he was a charlatan who enjoyed a life of capitalist excess whilst representing many of his constituents whose existence was dependent on food banks.
Sarwar’s parliamentary register of interests previously revealed he accepted £40,000 from a non-family firm ultimately controlled from the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands.
Mar 2019:Nuclear weapons Doon the Clyde
Sarwar clarified the Labour Party in Scotland and his own position on the continued harbouring of Polaris submarines and many hundreds of nuclear weapons. He stated: “The Labour party in Scotland took a policy position that we didn’t support the renewal of Trident, but the UK party takes a different view.” So that’s it then?
The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 was an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed on 19 February 2014. The legislation was part of the SNP Government’s “Getting it right for every child” policy implementation. The scope of the act made provision for the rights of children and young people. The provision of services and support for or in relation to children and young people. Children’s hearings, detention in secure accommodation and consultation on certain proposals in relation to schools.
The provisions of the act gained the support of parents, professionals involved in childcare provision, childrens organisations and charitable institutions and implementation of the new measures was scheduled to be implemented from 2015.
But the public became increasingly concerned about the wisdom of a “Named Person” when press coverage revealed the propensity for the abuse of children.
Press Report:
Dayna Dickson-Boath was appointed one of the first Named Persons in Scotland, but is now banned from working with children for the rest of her life. She had held a senior position at a secondary school in Moray, but yesterday consented to being struck off by the General Teaching Council for Scotland on the charge that, between 8 August 2014 and 10 September 2014, she “did send, by means of a public electronic communications network, messages to another person that were grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, in that you did converse regarding the sexual abuse of children”. Dickson-Boath was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register and ordered to undergo treatment when she was convicted in Elgin Sheriff Court.
A trickle of protests reached tsunami strength at the start of 2015 as concerns were raised about aspects of the legislation which were draconian, poorly drafted and “Big Brother State”.
The SNP government ignored requests for a dialogue and forced the new measures through. But the public would not be denied and a number of Scots parents and Christian organisations took the SNP government to court in an effort to get parts of the act repealed. They failed in their efforts and all appeared to be lost. But they gathered strength from increasing support of Scots who had been alerted to what the SNP government was seeking to impose on the nation. They appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
2016: The Supreme Court Judgement – The Named Person Scheme
In their summary ruling against the introduction of the scheme the Supreme Court judges noted that the appropriateness of the novel new legislation hinged on the government’s assertion of a need to ensure the “wellbeing” of the child.
But “wellbeing” was not defined and reliance on SHANARRI indicators (standing for Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included) were also not defined and were in some cases notably vague.
A unanimous ruling of Supreme Court judges also stated: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.
They were also agreed that the idea that parents must comply with any advice given “could well amount to an interference with” Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life). The Court also held that the legislation’s data sharing provisions, which they held were central to the role of the named person, “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.
And yet, In his 2016 speech to the Scottish Parliament following receipt of the judgement Swinney insisted that the judgment itself did not require current policy to change. His message to local authorities and health boards was to continue to develop and deliver the named person service. Encouraging the disregard of the Supreme Court ruling set a dangerous precedence since in continuing the development of the named person provision, its information gathering and sharing processes the Deputy First Minister encouraged unlawful practice by state bodies.
Dr Jenny Cunningham, a recently retired community paediatrician from Glasgow said that the named person scheme was “illegitimate and illiberal” and argued that an open democracy depended on the principle that “parents ought to be autonomous in relation to their own families”. he continued saying: “The underlying assumption by the SNP government is that adults are unable to identify vulnerable children – so the state has to intervene! This belittles parents. She concluded: “We should strongly resist and argue against this idea that parents are incapable of assessing children’s wellbeing needs and accessing services – parenting is about establishing good relationships with children and establishing parental authority.”
Maggie Mellon, an independent social work consultant said: “It’s important that we understand the rationale and the ideas underpinning the legislation. The SNP government has made it clear it thinks the Supreme Court judgment is purely technical and they’re going to plough on regardless. But there is no duty under the Act to consult or collaborate with parents. It’s just not there. We’ve been treated to flights of complete fancy about the voluntary nature of the scheme. We were told it was in response to parents’ demands – then we were told it was to save children from their parents. A Named Person can’t provide a hot meal, a pair of shoes, a warm home but they can spend time doing SHANARRI somersaults with 300 wellbeing outcome signifiers and 200 risk indicators! It wont work.”
Aug 2018: Plan B to by-pass MSP’s and implement the Named Person Scheme by the Backdoor
The SNP Scottish Government is considering controversial proposals to implement the detested named person scheme “by the back door” even if MSPs refuse to support changes to the law. Discussion of a so-called “Plan B” is revealed in documents which were only made public, after a Freedom of Information (FoI) request was submitted. The papers were produced following a meeting of unnamed top level government officials and advisors in February 2018. An annex under the headline “CONTINGENCY” stated: “Contingency plan? What if the legislation is not passed?” And adds: “Plan B for if Bill fails to make sure parts 4&5 can be implemented without information sharing.”
The scheme has been riddled with problems and last month a further delay was revealed. Swinney set up a panel to produce a Code of Practice by September 2018, after Holyrood’s Education and Skills Committee said it would not pass the legislation without one. But Professor Ian Welsh, chair of the panel, wrote to Mr Swinney to inform him that the panel would not be able to meet this deadline.
Lesley Scott of the TYMES Trust, said: “These worrying documents show the focus is clearly on implementing Named Person Scheme by the back door, regardless of whether the new Bill gets through Parliament. Clearly, we are now dealing with a Government which is ignoring the UK Supreme Court, has no regard for the elected representatives of the Scottish people and is determined to shun public opinion. They are riding roughshod over the democratic system in pursuit of a flawed, failed and discredited project.”
Lesley asked to be provided with details from three key meetings of the Statutory Guidance Framework Group tasked to review the named person scheme in October and December 2017 and in February 2018. Subsequently only one set of minutes was released and was useless since the names of all persons in attendance had been redacted. An appeal was submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office seeking a review of this decision to withold the documentation.
Maggie Mellon, former chair of the Scottish Child Law Centre, said: “The names of all present including the chair are all redacted. So much for open government. There is no way of identifying which agencies are providing wrong advice or whether the persons present represent their colleagues and agencies properly. Is it now so toxic to be associated with the named person scheme that people are not willing to have their names made known”? Adding: “These are presumably many of the same people who advised the government so badly first time round, that breaching confidentiality is ok even when any concerns fall well below the proper threshold. What is so important about this flawed scheme that it has to be pushed through” ?
Sep 2019: Named Person Scheme Scrapped?
Deputy First Minister John Swinney announced in the Scottish Parliament: “We will now not underpin in law the mandatory named person scheme for every child. We will withdraw the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill and repeal the relevant legislation. Instead, existing voluntary schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, when councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.” Swinney’s announcement led to widespread media coverage, with some containing misleading content. So here we set the record straight.
Summary
The July 2016 UK Supreme Court judgment stated: “the sharing of personal data between relevant public authorities is central to the role of the named person scheme” and concluded that the information-sharing provisions:
Were incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
May in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information:
Were “not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, deeming the legislation “defective” and blocking it from coming into force:
Bizarrely, Swinney responded to the ruling at the time saying: “I welcome the publication of today’s judgment and the fact that the attempt to scrap the named person service has failed”. But three years down the line he was forced to admit that the mandatory Named Scheme, with legal powers to grab and share private information at the low level of wellbeing, cannot work without breaching the human rights of children and families. It had to be scrapped.
So, where do we go from here? Swinney, in his statement yesterday said: “Instead, existing voluntary schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, where councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.” A voluntary single point of contact. So if you still see a Named Person service being offered, it will now be on a strictly voluntary basis. It will be up to councils and health boards to decide if they wish to offer a voluntary named person or some kind of voluntary single point of contact for parents, and it will be up to parents to decide if they want to use the service.
The ‘voluntary single point of contact’ will not be able to share information on “wellbeing” concerns at will. Instead it will have to adhere to current data sharing frameworks. There will no longer be a statutory Named Person service imposed on every child in Scotland. Parents can feel confident that when they are given advice or offered a service by a voluntary “Named Person” or “voluntary single point of contact”, they do not have to accept it. As the 2016 Supreme Court judgment stated: “Care should therefore be taken to emphasise the voluntary nature of the advice, information, support and help which is offered”.
BBC bias is well capable of swinging an election or referendum
The BBC is an immensely powerful organisation and the way it presents news significantly impacts election/referendum results. In 2017 economists of the Columbia Business School, analysed 18 countries’ news media markets and developed a “power index”.
Across all countries, the UK had the most concentrated media sector, mainly due to the BBC. Over all mediums, the BBC influences 81% of people who consume news and has the most power to affect public opinion of any news organisation worldwide.
According to the researchers, it required just 5% of the BBC’s audience to be completely trusting of its output to give it the power to swing a close election by 1%. It could swing an election by 2% if 10% of consumers were naïve. This makes it much more powerful than, any major UK newspaper.
To achieve the same result a major newspaper would require in excess of 38 % of its readers to be trusting of its content. Poll after poll suggests that the BBC is the most trusted news source in Britain, and therefore the combination of its reach and reputation means its output substantially impacts elections and public opinion.
The trust in the BBC has been cultivated by the Westminster government, over many years and the perception of trustworthiness is easily maintained since newspapers have editorial viewpoints and priors, and the BBC claims to be absolutely impartial.
But with great power comes great responsibility and the issue of bias is critical, as it only requires a small proportion of people to question the impartiality of the presentation of a news item to reduce the impact on public opinion. (Cato Institute)
Comment:
The Westminster government influences the bias of the content of news and current affairs presentation of BBC (Scotland) ensuring Scottish affairs eg independence and SNP Scottish governance are presented in a negative format or not reported on at all. The financial share of the distribution of the compulsory annual licence fee is very unfavourable to Scotland since only about 20% of money collected from Scot’s for the BBC coffers finds it’s way back to Scotland and this is only transitionary since the bulk of programming is contracted out to Menthorn, a concern whose controlling company is based offshore in a tax haven. Broadcasting policy is retained by the Westminster government which is unfair to Scotland and this needs to change so that a balanced output can be achieved. Without change the outcome of any independence referendum in the future could be prejudiced against “Yes” by between 2% – 4% massively distorting the outcome as it did in 2014.
In January 2018 a number of independence minded friends decided to form the “Aberdeen Independence Movement” (AIM) to campaign for Scottish independence concentrating their efforts in the North East of Scotland. The headquarters is located in Aberdeen. It is an umbrella organisation whose membership is made up of WOKE minded independence activists of any political persuasion (so long as your are SNP). It is not affiliated to any political Party.
Aberdeen Independence Movement Executive Committee:
Co-Chairs: Fatima Joji: Nigerian-Scot from Westhill, Aberdeenshire, tops the SNP’s north-east regional list for the Scottish Parliament elections. Kenny Anderson: Long time SNP supporter. Managing Director and Majority Shareholder, Anderson Buchan Properties Ltd.
Finance Team: Virginia Dawod: Manager, Robert Gordon University. SNP activist. Danny Forbes: Robert Gordon University – SNP activist.
Joshua Mennie: (media consultant), SNP, NEC member. List candidate North East Scotland
Theo Forbes. Graphic Media And Communications Officer for the Aberdeen Independence Movement (AIM). Post occupied from 17 Jun 2017. Before that from 2015, Graphic Customer Advisor in the employ of B&Q. Just to confuse matters was a member of the National Executive Committee and the the National Events and Fundraising Officer for the SNP group “Young Scots for Independence” from 2016-2018. But just to be really clear was also the Graphic National Events and Fundraising Officer. Being at a loose end for some time he attended Aberdeen University between 2017-2021 studying Politics & International Relations. Oh!! And he has been employed by the SNP as an intern from September 2020.
Aberdeenshire Independence Movement (ASIM) launched January 2020. Team leaders:
Neil Baillie, SNP Councillor Vicky Harper, SNP Councillor Andy Stuart, SNP Convenor Aberdeenshire West Fatima Joji, SNP List Candidate
Comment: Clearly an SNP funded organisation. Why so secret ?
Rhys Crilley, is a native of Wakefield in West Yorkshire who lives in Glasgow. He is a gifted academic, prolific writer and university lecturer. His primary interests are in war, militarism, scandals and outrage.
His partner is leading WOKE activist, Councillor Rhiannon Spear and through her he maintains close political relationships with senior SNP leaders and actively supports the policies they espouse. To that end it is important that readers of his political articles give due deference to his situation as it is in April 2021.
Election 2021: Why is Alex Salmond’s Alba Party polling poorly? By Rhys Crilley
Rhys Crilley (WOKE) supporter and guest columnist for the Herald asked the question of readers but produced no evidence to support his claims. Very poor journalism. But he did get a response from some readers.
David P S****:
Why? Total failure on the part of the media to print anything but abuse, innuendo and personal attacks, and the cowardice of the same media in failing to hold the SNP government and NS to account in any way whatever for their actions in attempting to frame an innocent man.
Crilley’s remarks about support for trans rights infer that he alone is sufficiently well informed and humane to pontificate on this. In fact I’d suggest that very few people regard trans rights as an issue which will affect their vote, but as far as this opinion piece is concerned it gives him another stick to hit Alba with. Really if this wasn’t written by Crilley, it could as well have been scrawled by some overheated youth in Nic’s office.
As a long term (now former) member of the SNP I experienced the lean days when we had little support. We routinely struggled to get a quorum for branch meetings. So Crilley’s observations that Alba is struggling to make an impact is disingenuous. Alba will grow, in time for the election. and, where I am now is vastly preferable to being a supporter of a party which oversaw the shambles of the Salmond trials, the internal gerrymandering of the rules to eliminate dissenters, the alleged disappearance of £600,000 of funds, secret unrecorded meetings with donors who were subsequently awarded preferential treatment. So don’t waste my time or Alba’s with your pseudo intellectual (“tropes” indeed, Dr Crilley, pretentious or what?) tripe.
Zander T***
And to be expected, Rhys Crilley, the author of this piece is at the forefront of Trans Rights, the GRA and gender self-ID. He is all for and 100% behind and in support of Trans men, who have self-ID as a woman, free rein to enter Ladies toilets, everywhere in Scotland. Here’s what he wrote on June 6th 2019:
“The Scottish government’s ongoing review of the Gender Recognition Act has also brought bathroom politics to the fore. Some politicians and pundits have suggested that allowing transwomen to use women’s toilets threatens the safety of women. But research shows that places with trans-inclusive bathrooms have no recorded instances of harassment or assault from transgender people.”
So to all women of Scotland, if you are unhappy with the idea of men dressed as women coming into a public toilet whilst you are there, do not vote SNP and do not vote GREEN. In fact whatever you do, if you find this disturbing, say nothing, because the SNP and the GREENS will send you to jail via the Hate Crime Bill. Scotland has truly become a most unpleasant wee country in which to reside. (The Herald, today)
Oct 2019: The National Parent Forum of Scotland (NPFS) conducted an online meeting to discuss matters arising from John Swinney’s new curriculum for Scottish children.
Right from the start parents expressed anger at his addition without discussion and agreement of a new relationship, sexual health and parenthood programme to the curriculum.
Providing graphic descriptions of what was being taught to kids a father said:
“Right from the beginning of primary school they are teaching that sex is assigned at birth and gender is a subjective factor. I think that is a very dangerous and confusing message for young people. Masturbation is being positively promoted in schools. Children as young as 6yo are getting compulsory sex education lessons on ‘self-stimulation’ and touching themselves.”
NPFS chair Joanna Murphy reminded the father that the session was being streamed online. To which the father replied:
“If what I am raising is not suitable for discussion among a group of adults how can it possibly be suitable to talk about in schools?”
He continued:
“The curriculum features links to video content directing older pupils to erogenous zones in the anus. And one lesson plan explains that in some cultures male masturbation is seen as a waste of semen, which is supposed to be about creating life. And transgender life is introduced between P5 and P7. One lesson plan encourages kids to be whatever kind of girl or boy they want to be, free from stereotypes and gender-biased expectations”.
Swinney replied:
“A lot of care has been taken to ensure that the contents of the material are truly age appropriate. That involved extensive dialogue with a number of organisations whose confidence I have wanted to make sure are in place around these materials. It is promoting nothing. It is equipping young people with a knowledge and an understanding of what they can make their judgments about as responsible citizens. It simply deals with the world as it is and makes sure that young people will be equipped to handle that. I understand that there will be parental opinion that will not like this, and that should be a source of dialogue with schools to resolve that issue. I repeat my commendation for the materials . . . I don’t think we should allow our young people to be able, without context, to see things and experience things in our society that we have not properly equipped them for.”
Comment: End of discussion. But I am wondering, as I am sure you are also, just who were the “organisations” Swinney dialogued with!! Stonewall!!! for one I bet.
An American teacher warns about the invasion of WOKE orthodoxy in the education sector
I have been a teacher for nearly two decades. My awareness of WOKE ideology started about five years ago when our schools began to be consumed by “WOKE ideology”. The schools became obsessed with sophomoric and divisive notions of diversity, equality, and justice; increasingly hostile to freedom of expression; addicted to cancelling anything that offended the WOKE movement and prioritised activism over understanding as the goal of education.
The purpose of this letter is to alert the “sleep-wokers”. A sleep-woker is one who has not taken the WOKE creed to heart, but tacitly complies with the linguistic, pedagogical, political, and moral imperatives of wokeness. Sleep-wokers go through the motions; they are like religious folk who say prayers without thinking, attend worship services without engaging, and perpetuate dogmas without believing. I was a sleep-woker. In some ways, due to a combination of timidity and tiredness, I still am.
Sleep-woking, like sleepwalking, is very dangerous. While sleep-woking, an English teacher can unwittingly help cancel Chaucer, Keats and Conrad in the name of decolonisation. A biology teacher might find herself obliged to deny important differences between the sexes. A football coach will not be able to cheer on a player after a strong tackle, as strength and physical violence smack of toxic masculinity.
Wokeness has proven to be oppressive and totalitarian rather than inclusive and liberating
Most of my sleep-woking colleagues are good people. Like me, they were lulled into complacency by a WOKE take-over that was slow and subtle. What’s more, some changes were initially promising and even corrective — of course we should pay more attention to marginalised voices and overlooked narratives, and I am glad that we now do. To bemoan an expanded curriculum is simple chauvinism. In the end, however, wokeness has proven to be oppressive and totalitarian rather than inclusive and liberating.
My objection is to the effect of WOKE ideology on education, not to liberal politics. My grievance is that teachers are increasingly under pressure to adopt the WOKE agenda or be ostracised.
I empathise with the difficult situation that top school officials find themselves in. As wokeness takes over culture, schools face enormous pressure to follow suit. That said, those with the power to stop the degradation of education have a special responsibility to do so, and those of us with less power have a responsibility to remind our superiors of their duty. Here is some of what wokeness introduces:
Offence in is the Eye of the Offended
Schools are required to teach that if one feels offended, one has been offended. For example, if a student or colleague claims to have been offended by your words or actions, it does not matter if you intended no offence. More troubling is the fact that it does not matter if your words and actions were not those that a rational person should find offensive — you are an offender merely by virtue of the fact that someone claims to have been offended. Since legal norms follow ethical norms, if schools (and societies) succeed in changing the ethical norms of speech and offence, they will eventually have a basis upon which to change the legal norms. As soon as they can show that a normal or typical person is offended by certain language or certain ideas, they will be able to argue that a person presenting such language and ideas is failing to abide by the reasonable ethical cultural expectations. In essence, we are training students how to be offended so that their perceived offence can be used to eliminate anti-woke expression.
Elimination of Non-Woke Student Clubs
Any student group that resists WOKE orthodoxy is forcibly disbanded or prevented from forming with the outcome that free thinking students have trouble officially meeting and inviting speakers. If a non-woke speaker is invited, the wokes mobilise to deny them a platform and they feel righteous for doing so. Few free thinking students openly identify as such because they are afraid of repercussions from teachers and other students. Not only is this unfair, but it is also dangerous. Alienated free thinking students are being pushed away from moderate disagreement towards political extremism.
No Resisting WOKE Slogans
Opposing WOKE slogans or voicing contrary slogans is not tolerated. Since opposing wokeness is thought to be motivated by hate, voicing opposition to WOKE slogans is tantamount to hate speech. A student who challenges a WOKE slogan is bullied and harassed by the WOKE majority. Meanwhile, WOKE slogans and images are hung in school buildings and cannot be removed.
Cultural Appropriation
White or Western students are told not to participate in cultural traditions of non-white, non-Western people — the oppressors cannot participate in the culture of the oppressed. For example, several white students who wore shirts with African designs were reprimanded and forced to change their clothes. The fact that the shirts were a gift from their teacher, a black African man, made no difference. The students wore the shirts to show affection for their teacher and to honour his gift, but that was still cultural appropriation. In another instance, a musician was reprimanded for blending a western and non-western musical style into a new artistic expression. The musician was accused of cultural imperialism.
Cancelling Curriculum
Shakespeare, Homer and other canonical authors are being eliminated from the curriculum. In some cases, schools and teachers boast about cancelling these patriarchal racists. Even at schools that do not officially cancel canonical Western texts, the texts are subtly replaced in the name of anti-racism. The result is that many students move on to university never having read Homer or Shakespeare, though they will have been required to read many texts and attend many lectures on intersectionality and gender identity. They can speak at length about toxic masculinity and a panoply of so-called phobias, but they would not recognise the terms “iambic pentameter” and “dactylic hexameter”, let alone recognise actual examples of the meter.
Normalising Fallacies
Ad hominem attacks are presented as the cornerstone of critical thinking rather than as a fallacious form of argumentation. Teachers educate students to evaluate texts and arguments by primarily attending to the author’s race, gender, and sexuality.
Mandatory Training
Students attend mandatory training sessions in which experts teach them how to identify and report microaggressions. And since to a student with a hammer everything looks like a nail, the students begin informing on each other and on their teachers. White teachers are told to attend racial-political re-education workshops in which they strive to overcome their whiteness in the classroom. (It has long been accepted that “whiteness” is a meaningful category.) Teachers who claim to not be a racist are seen as the worst, most unredeemable kind of racist and labelled heretics who will not admit heresy. Suffering from something called “white fragility”.
Trigger Warnings
Before introducing any new activity teachers are required to compile lists of trigger warnings for it. The warnings which are shared with students alert them to any and all things in the subject that could cause them stress, frustration, anger, or sadness.
Manners and Dress Codes
A side-effect of the WOKE attacks on tradition, authority, and hierarchy has been the revocation of dress codes. So long as their genitals are covered and no profane words are visible, students can and do wear anything they like. Many students eat meals with headphones in their ears while watching videos on their phones. The less respectful students don’t bother with headphones. “Sir” and “Ma’am” have long since disappeared as too authoritarian and gendered. The terms “master” and “headmaster” cannot be used as master might connote slavery.
Elimination of Objective Assessments
Exams are being eliminated for two reasons: first, because exams are apparently inherently racist, sexist, classist, heteronormative, or otherwise unfair; second, because exams cause students stress, and stress makes students feel bad, and feeling bad negatively impacts their well-being. Additionally, some students do poorly on exams, and this has the potential to result in a situation that is inequitable.
Pronouns
Schools are increasingly pressured to identify their pronouns. Failure to identify one’s pronouns is seen as transphobic or cis-centric or both. Students can reassign their own pronouns at will. If a teacher mistakenly does not use the student’s preferred pronoun, the teacher is accused of misgendering. Misgendering a serious offence, even a kind of violence.
In Summary
The unchecked advance of wokeness results in two major failures. First, teachers and students lose the ability to freely read, write and speak as pupils and teachers. Second, the education provided becomes unrecognisably impoverished. The second effect is probably the hardest to accept. In place of free-thinking young scholars, the education system churns out generations of woke activists who believe that feelings matter more than facts, that perception is reality, and that it is more important to judge a text than to understand it — where “judging” means anachronistically interpreting the author’s words in light of the most recent WOKE orthodoxy.
Students claim to be proud practitioners of social justice yet they have only an elementary command of grammar and geography. They struggle to write complete sentences and are unable to locate Turkey on a map. Some question the need to take maths seriously given that maths is apparently grounded in Western patriarchal rationalism. Wokeness has been achieved at the expense of education. Reason has been subordinated to passion. Plato’s charioteer has been replaced by the horses he was meant to reign in. To not be woke is to be asleep: unconscious or ignorant of what is really going on.
Perhaps some of you are disturbed by some of the woke excesses at your schools and in your communities, even if, like me, you readily support appeals for greater diversity, genuine inclusion, and a multicultural curriculum.
There are some who instinctively to dismiss the excesses as isolated incidents with sayings like “The pendulum will swing back” or “That will never happen at my school.” But the pendulum will not swing back because the WOKE movement is not a pendulum; it is a steamroller.
One of the canniest bits of WOKE linguistic manipulation has been appropriation of the term “WOKE” itself. To not be WOKE is to be asleep: unconscious or ignorant of what is really going on. Either one is Woke or one is not aware of reality. Or, as in the words of a WOKE student “if you are not WOKE, it must be because you are uneducated or hateful — or both. Such is the WOKE reality. (The Critic)
caltonjock 