I WAS disappointed to read Rosemary Goring’s article claiming that banning smacking will make Scotland a "truly civilised nation" ("A smacking ban would make us a truly civilised nation", The Herald, October 17).

I, and the vast majority of parents, do not feel this in the slightest. As Ms Goring herself points out, less than 30 per cent of respondents to a recent poll support a smacking ban.

Other polls suggest that nearly three-quarters of Scots do not want to see parents criminalised for this entirely normal parenting technique. What makes Ms Goring think that politicians should impose her (minority) parenting view on the entire country?

She writes: “Most parents will admit that smacking is not a sign that they are in charge, but that they have lost control.” But the parents I know who smack their children do so infrequently.

If a parent ever does cross the line between reasonable and unreasonable chastisement, the law as it stands holds them to account. Anything which leaves more than a "temporary reddening of the skin" is unlawful. So is any blow aimed at the head, and the use of an implement.

John Finnie’s bill to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement would make all physical contact for the purpose of disciplining a child potentially criminal. A mum who pulled her child’s arm to stop her running out on the road, or tapped her child’s hand as it strayed towards a plug socket, would suddenly become a potential suspect.

Even if no prosecution followed, there would likely be long-term, disruptive social services involvement in that family. This is not right, and it is not what loving parents want.

The law as it stands is firm enough to protect children, and fair enough to protect parents. This seems entirely civilised to me.

Penny Lewis,

Spokeswoman, Be Reasonable Scotland,

1B Challenge House, 29 Canal Street, Glasgow.