WE learn that the UK Supreme Court has ruled against the SNP’s Named Person scheme. Leaving aside the illegalities of the plans, these represented a “snooper state” culture and a massive invasion of family privacy – grossly undermining the role of all caring, loving and competent parents in the raising of their children.

Raising a child to wholesome maturity is the most responsible and challenging role that any person can ever undertake. No-one knows a child better than his or her parent(s), and every child has a different personality and is raised in a different environment. Third parties, be it social workers, teachers or medics, may be trained in their respective professions but they are not “qualified” to fully understand any one child.

Additionally, personal prejudices in a Named Person could see children and families victimised if the moral and ethical values being taught in the home conflict with the particular views of the professional.

Finally, and representing the greatest danger of all, unfettered information-sharing on children as the scheme proposed, would be – as one credentialled critic of the scheme put it – a Paedophile’s Charter.

The SNP will of course be intent on saving face with this serious blow to its totalitarian project, but in effect, the court’s judgement in effect so cripples the scheme as to make it any implementation a gross waste of public funds. Let’s put an end to it now.

Colin Wilson,

19 Bellfield Road, North Kessock.

AS expected, the Supreme Court has ruled that the SNP’s Named Person scheme breached the rights to privacy and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. It said the legislation made it "perfectly possible" for confidential information about a child to be disclosed to a "wide range of public authorities without the child or parents being aware".

This fiasco underlines the weakness of our unicameral parliament – its impotent committee system which limply waves through legislation which is plainly incompetent. It is a national embarrassment that Holyrood should so often require the Supreme Court in London to act as a revising chamber for our devolved Scottish Government.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.

THE immediate impact of the UK Supreme Court decision on the Scottish Government’s Named Person policy rightly deserves exposure and debate. However, I would hope that some of the underlying features of this matter also get an airing.

This is not the first case where the Scottish Government’s position has been supported by the highest court in Scotland before being later overturned once it gets out of Edinburgh. The Minimum Unit Pricing policy is another high-profile example and there now has to be some kind of review of the Court of Session’s performance on matters involving the Scottish Government. Admittedly having only conducted a superficial analysis, I cannot find any important case involving the Scottish Government which did not receive the support of the Court of Session. This analysis was sparked by a Freedom of Information response from the second most senior solicitor in the Scottish Government Legal Directorate which confirmed that it was “normal process” for private discussions to take place with judges.

We appear to have a problem with the proximity of the Scottish Supreme Courts to the Scottish Government. Whether that is real or otherwise is not of primary importance; the fact that any reasonable person suitably armed with the facts may conclude that the Scottish Courts are biased in favour of the Scottish Government undermines faith in the suggested independence of the judiciary.

I could call for a review but, of course, who polices the policemen?

William Forbes,

23 Greenlees Park,


THANK goodness we are part of the UK, so that the Supreme Court can protect the rights of the Scottish families against the increasingly totalitarian SNP Government.

It should be noted that much of the impetus behind the No to Named Person campaign came from Christian organisations. Though opposition to the scheme became very widespread, it was the particular emphasis on the centrality of family life found in Christian teaching that sparked resistance to this unwarranted intrusion of the state into family affairs.

While we may rejoice that the SNP's wings have been clipped in this case, its damaging philosophies of education and childhood will continue to harm children and family life. The incessant emphasis in schools on children's rights will still tend to produce selfish and demanding young people, primed with latent victimhood awaiting expression. The SNP still intends to use schools to promote a radical gender ideology that will result in confusion and hurt for many kids.

The Government campaign to remove punishments from schools will continue apace, leading to ever-declining standards of discipline. The bizarre notion that children should not be punished will have a knock-on effect in families, undermining parental authority. What happens when a parent punishes a child who has been taught at school that punishments are ineffective and counterproductive?

Sadly, the Named Person scheme will probably return in a new guise, because the SNP does not understand the proper limits of the state.

Richard Lucas,

11 Broomyknowe, Colinton, Edinburgh.