Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, doctor jambo said:

Honest , well intentioned adults teaching them about inclusion , drag acts and gender transition …

😂😎

[JudyJudyJudy]

Oh I really really hope Kate Forbes wins any leadership challenge . The seethe on this would be a site to behold . 

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

Okay? And what? I see nothing in there about prodding into families business. Infact reading through a few pages of it the opposite seems true. It's the Families or Child who would be likely to make the first contact.

 

Data sharing procedures between services meant it was incompatable with other legislation so it got binned as any solution would have made any support processes buried in paperwork and lengthy delays before and help could be offered.

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

5 hours ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Can you provide any examples to back up your nonsense?

I have only just skimmed the last few pages but AFAIK you are the only one who has used any cliched stereotypes about the image  of Scotland

Similarly, as far as being "better than the English" goes, again you are the one who has introduced this trope into the recent debate

Scottish independence, or more accurately, the restoration of Scottish sovereignty, is not about being better than anyone, English or otherwise

It is about being a normal country rather than a subordinated partner in a forced, corrupt union

Independence is normal!

I'm sorry you feel like a subordinate, but I don't think the Union is the cause.

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Oh I really really hope Kate Forbes wins any leadership challenge . The seethe on this would be a site to behold . 

She appears to be the favoured candidate on this thread by Indy supporters. 

Unfortunately it will end up being Swinney. But then that's probably a good thing for Unionists.

 

Does he have a witty nickname yet?

[Tazio]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

Okay? And what? I see nothing in there about prodding into families business. Infact reading through a few pages of it the opposite seems true. It's the Families or Child who would be likely to make the first contact.

 

Data sharing procedures between services meant it was incompatable with other legislation so it got binned as any solution would have made any support processes buried in paperwork and lengthy delays before and help could be offered.

 

 

You must have missed the paragraph about them making kids trans. 

[SE16 3LN]

4 hours ago, Gizmo said:

Prove it, then. 

😂

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

She appears to be the favoured candidate on this thread by Indy supporters. 

Unfortunately it will end up being Swinney. But then that's probably a good thing for Unionists.

 

Does he have a witty nickname yet?

I actually don’t mind him as a person . He used to be a dishwasher at a restaurant I used to go to regular and apparently was a decent guy . But he’s too associated with the Murrels 

[micole]

3 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Okay? And what? I see nothing in there about prodding into families business. Infact reading through a few pages of it the opposite seems true. It's the Families or Child who would be likely to make the first contact.

 

Data sharing procedures between services meant it was incompatable with other legislation so it got binned as any solution would have made any support processes buried in paperwork and lengthy delays before and help could be offered.

 

 

Now there's the rub, people making assertions about nothing they know about, it all based on political/ personal bias.

[Gizmo]

3 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

😂

Thought as much. 

[Boof]

10 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Had the named person's act gone through it would not have surprised me to find out the named people shared similar political views as the Scottish greens

 

9 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yep 

 

9 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

 

Let's get this clear...are you claiming that health visitors and promoted teachers would have been likely to share similar views to the Scottish greens?

I can't recall all the epithets you've used but I doubt many of them are complimentary.

 

[Mikey1874]

So basically Named Person was a brilliant scheme. But the totally incompetent, stupid SNP Government abandoned it. 

 

 

[Boris]

Judy Cubed having a bit of a mare here.

 

Amongst others.

[hughesie27]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

So basically Named Person was a brilliant scheme. But the totally incompetent, stupid SNP Government abandoned it. 

 

 

Again, nobody is championing it. Just questioning why it's being misrepresented to make a point.

Why do people need to make stuff up to score points against the SNP, especially this week.

[micole]

2 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Again, nobody is championing it. Just questioning why it's being misrepresented to make a point.

Why do people need to make stuff up to score points against the SNP, especially this week.

Careful mate you will soon be accused of being a SNP  cultist. 

[hughesie27]

2 minutes ago, micole said:

Careful mate you will soon be accused of being a SNP  cultist. 

The first chance I'd get after an Indy Scotland is likely vote for Scottish Labour as they'll finally be free of the rUK shambles and be able to return to their non Tory sympathetic policies.

 

[Cranston]

12 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Honest , well intentioned adults teaching them about inclusion , drag acts and gender transition …

 

Exactly, the consequences of partnering up with the Greens. The suspicion would be, rightly or wrongly, that what started out as good intentioned, could be hi jacked, and used for promoting issue agendas instead.

 

Having now read up, on the government material, outlining the Named Person initiative, it certainly appeared very well intentioned, with the Children's/Young Adult's best outcomes being achieved at the heart of it. 

 

It certainly had potential at first glance, to make a positive difference, however, it could also have morphed into something completely different. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Again, nobody is championing it. Just questioning why it's being misrepresented to make a point.

Why do people need to make stuff up to score points against the SNP, especially this week.

There is someone making up stuff and it’s not me 

 

 

https://no2np.org/has-the-named-person-scheme-really-been-scrapped-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/

 

 

 

[micole]

2 minutes ago, Cranston said:

 

Exactly, the consequences of partnering up with the Greens. The suspicion would be, rightly or wrongly, that what started out as good intentioned, could be hi jacked, and used for promoting issue agendas instead.

 

Having now read up, on the government material, outlining the Named Person initiative, it certainly appeared very well intentioned, with the Children's/Young Adult's best outcomes being achieved at the heart of it. 

 

It certainly had potential at first glance, to make a positive difference, however, it could also have morphed into something completely different. 

I firmly believe it was well intentioned,  as I have said we had nothing but good feedback on it , it is worth noting that parents could opt out at any time and were nor obligated in any way. The impression we got was the best interest of the child was paramount. 

[Tazio]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

There is someone making up stuff and it’s not me 

 

 

https://no2np.org/has-the-named-person-scheme-really-been-scrapped-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/

 

 

 

Not the most unbiased of sources there. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Cranston said:

 

Exactly, the consequences of partnering up with the Greens. The suspicion would be, rightly or wrongly, that what started out as good intentioned, could be hi jacked, and used for promoting issue agendas instead.

 

Having now read up, on the government material, outlining the Named Person initiative, it certainly appeared very well intentioned, with the Children's/Young Adult's best outcomes being achieved at the heart of it. 

 

It certainly had potential at first glance, to make a positive difference, however, it could also have morphed into something completely different. 

Read the article I posted mate . As issue regarding descriptors of “ well being “ for children and who decides what they are ? What if professionals disapprove of a parents views on issues and their parenting styles etc   ?

[Thunder and Lightning]

40 minutes ago, micole said:

This is the point, people shouting from the sidelines, without actually having any idea how it works.  I suppose I'll get accused of being a cultist/ SNP ect but I can live with that.

Somone has activated their sleeper account obviously. 

[Cranston]

1 minute ago, micole said:

I firmly believe it was well intentioned,  as I have said we had nothing but good feedback on it , it is worth noting that parents could opt out at any time and were nor obligated in any way. The impression we got was the best interest of the child was paramount. 

I too believe it was meant in good faith from John Swinney. I remember long before the Snp partnered up with the Greens, that Swinney was all for - Children reaching full potential. 

 

A highly worthwhile ambition to reach for. 

 

It may also, have helped parent's who weren't necessarily, cut out for parenting, to reach out to a trusted person, to help in some way, understand what was going on with their child/s. 

 

I'm glad you and your family have benefitted, from having someone to turn to, when you needed extra help.

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, H2 said:

I am sorry you are unable to work out the simplicity of the land border. A country is a land border, a county is a land border, your house and garden are a land border which make up your address. It is "tragic that you are so mentally" closed to your own ideals that you do not recognise simplicity. When it comes to propaganda it would appear you are the one taken in by it all and ignoring simple facts, but hey if it makes you happy enjoy it! 

 

We're going round in circles here to no great effect

The original difference of opinion was on what defines a nation - your position is that Scotland and England are not nations since they share a landmass and that only landmasses can define national borders therefore the only nations in the British Isles are ROI and the UK

My position is that the UK is not a nation but a unitary state comprised of several nations since nationhood is not solely defined by a geographical border but encompasses language, culture, history and identity

 

Take international football as an example

 

FIFA and UEFA do not hold registrations from the UK FA - they hold registrations from the Scottish FA, the English FA, the Welsh FA and indeed the NI FA which allows these nations to compete internationally with other nations

 

 

15 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

I'm sorry you feel like a subordinate, but I don't think the Union is the cause.

 

So no examples then

Not only nonsense but now unsubstantiated nonsense

[micole]

1 minute ago, Cranston said:

I too believe it was meant in good faith from John Swinney. I remember long before the Snp partnered up with the Greens, that Swinney was all for - Children reaching full potential. 

 

A highly worthwhile ambition to reach for. 

 

It may also, have helped parent's who weren't necessarily, cut out for parenting, to reach out to a trusted person, to help in some way, understand what was going on with their child/s. 

 

I'm glad you and your family have benefitted, from having someone to turn to, when you needed extra help.

You see, now that is a well thought out unbiased response and I appreciate it. Thank you. Makes up for all the unfounded shite I read on here.

[Cranston]

7 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Read the article I posted mate . As issue regarding descriptors of “ well being “ for children and who decides what they are ? What if professionals disapprove of a parents views on issues and their parenting styles etc   ?

👍

 

I also understand, the other side of the coin, with such a scheme. Carried out well, it could have delivered positive outcomes, for children and parents likewise. However, it could also, be extremely problematic, in the wrong hands. Both sides of the coin. Its just personal thing of mine. Having seen so many young people go to the wrong side of the tracks, at the crucial young age, when possibly, in some cases, have been saved from that, by way of a helping hand. 

[micole]

1 minute ago, Cranston said:

👍

 

I also understand, the other side of the coin, with such a scheme. Carried out well, it could have delivered positive outcomes, for children and parents likewise. However, it could also, be extremely problematic, in the wrong hands. Both sides of the coin. Its just personal thing of mine. Having seen so many young people go to the wrong side of the tracks, at the crucial young age, when possibly, in some cases, have been saved from that, by way of a helping hand. 

Good post👍

[Cranston]

3 minutes ago, micole said:

You see, now that is a well thought out unbiased response and I appreciate it. Thank you. Makes up for all the unfounded shite I read on here.

👍

[hughesie27]

23 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

There is someone making up stuff and it’s not me 

 

 

https://no2np.org/has-the-named-person-scheme-really-been-scrapped-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/

 

 

 

 

No2NP.org. Brillaint

 

Twists the notion of Voluntary support option for parents with Mandatory assigned Named Person. 

Then goes on about state monitoring of children with no quotes from the Policy itself to back it up or even define what it means by monitoring.

 

 

I had a wee read at that sites section on how to answer questions on why it should be binned.

 

One bit said "I've heard people say that the named person could have a say in things like how a child's bedroom should be decorated, that's untrue."

The website claims it is true.

It then links to a Gov funded leaflet on the policy that says the named person would help to ensure the child is respected. It then lists examples of how a child can be seen to be being respected. One example of that is the Child having a say in how their bedroom is decorated.

 

 Nothing about the named person attending B&Q with the family on a Saturday afternoon.

I think I've seen enough from them.

Edited April 30 by hughesie27

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Cranston said:

👍

 

I also understand, the other side of the coin, with such a scheme. Carried out well, it could have delivered positive outcomes, for children and parents likewise. However, it could also, be extremely problematic, in the wrong hands. Both sides of the coin. Its just personal thing of mine. Having seen so many young people go to the wrong side of the tracks, at the crucial young age, when possibly, in some cases, have been saved from that, by way of a helping hand. 

I have not had an issue of “ targeted “ support for those you describe above . But this act was not targeted . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

 

Twists the notion of Voluntary support option for parents with Mandatory assigned Named Person. 

Then goes on about state monitoring of children with no quotes from the Policy itself to back it up or even define what it means by monitoring.

 

 

Dont you know what “ monitoring “ means ? 

[Tazio]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

 

Twists the notion of Voluntary support option for parents with Mandatory assigned Named Person. 

Then goes on about state monitoring of children with no quotes from the Policy itself to back it up or even define what it means by monitoring.

 

 

The name of the website is a wee bit of a clue…

[hughesie27]

8 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Dont you know what “ monitoring “ means ? 

Within the practical context of this policy, no. Please enlighten me.

[hughesie27]

8 minutes ago, Tazio said:

The name of the website is a wee bit of a clue…

See my edit.

[Mikey1874]

39 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Again, nobody is championing it. Just questioning why it's being misrepresented to make a point.

Why do people need to make stuff up to score points against the SNP, especially this week.

 

 

SNP abandoned named person. So any discussion of the merits of the scheme should start there. 

 

Though when they told us they were replacing council tax 16 years ago, that should have told everyone all they needed to know. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

SNP abandoned named person. So any discussion of the merits of the scheme should start there. 

 

Though when they told us they were replacing council tax 16 years ago, that should have told everyone all they needed to know. 

And he was saying no one was “ championing “ it on this ? Well they certainly were no critical . It got binned for a variety of reasons . And Back to square one , another SNP failure . 

[Boab]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Oh I really really hope Kate Forbes wins any leadership challenge . The seethe on this would be a site to behold . 

So do I.

I’d give her longer than Truss but not much longer. 🫣
 

[JudyJudyJudy]

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785344840022053159?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ
 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

👍

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, AyrJambo said:

 

We're going round in circles here to no great effect

The original difference of opinion was on what defines a nation - your position is that Scotland and England are not nations since they share a landmass and that only landmasses can define national borders therefore the only nations in the British Isles are ROI and the UK

My position is that the UK is not a nation but a unitary state comprised of several nations since nationhood is not solely defined by a geographical border but encompasses language, culture, history and identity

 

Take international football as an example

 

FIFA and UEFA do not hold registrations from the UK FA - they hold registrations from the Scottish FA, the English FA, the Welsh FA and indeed the NI FA which allows these nations to compete internationally with other nations

 

 

 

So no examples then

Not only nonsense but now unsubstantiated nonsense

Spot on 

[manaliveits105]

6 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

She appears to be the favoured candidate on this thread by Indy supporters. 

Unfortunately it will end up being Swinney. But then that's probably a good thing for Unionists.

 

Does he have a witty nickname yet?

The Dishwasher 

[AyrJambo]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

The Dishwasher 

Redactor John

[Gundermann]

8 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

SNP abandoned named person. So any discussion of the merits of the scheme should start there. 

 

Though when they told us they were replacing council tax 16 years ago, that should have told everyone all they needed to know. 

 

16 years ago SNP had fewer seats than now in a minority administration and Labour, IIRC, opposed the council tax replacement. 

[scott herbertson]

15 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Swinney, although a good bloke and Hearts fan, seems like the candidate to make bruised SNP egos feel better about themselves, rather than a credible leader to take them forward. 

 

 

He would in effect, in my opinion, be a caretaker candidate. The SNP will inevitably suffer losses in the westminster election . It's probably better for them that someone who is fairly 'safe' in the public eyes takes them through that, then someone else with less involvement with the Sturgeon days, takes over and develops a different approach. If I was Forbes I wouldn't stand against him.

 

[Dirty Deeds]

18 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Swinney, although a good bloke and Hearts fan, seems like the candidate to make bruised SNP egos feel better about themselves, rather than a credible leader to take them forward. 

That's also the way I see it. He's not inspiring and won't win votes but probably won't make the same pratfalls as Yousef. Maybe that's what the country needs?

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Gundermann said:

 

16 years ago SNP had fewer seats than now in a minority administration and Labour, IIRC, opposed the council tax replacement. 

 

That's like what the Tories say. Blame Labour and others despite 14 years in power. 

 

Fair play if thats the nationalists angle. Council tax wasn't reformed because of Labour. 

[Japan Jambo]

11 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

I actually don’t mind him as a person . He used to be a dishwasher at a restaurant I used to go to regular and apparently was a decent guy . But he’s too associated with the Murrels 

 

At least he's had one honest job then.

[Horatio Caine]

Swinney is a decent guy. I met him when he was campaigning in his constituency many years ago.  Boring, but decent.  I think if I were Kate Forbes, I'd be happy to let Swinney take the reins because the next election is going to be a horror show for the SNP.  Then, following that, she can take over and have the time out of government to make a real difference to the party which, tbh, has defo lost its way.

[Carter]

11 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Again, nobody is championing it. Just questioning why it's being misrepresented to make a point.

Why do people need to make stuff up to score points against the SNP, especially this week.

Are you being serious? Why do you think it was binned? You'd be quite happy with some unknown adult meddling in matters between a child and his or her parents. Who would these people have been, what would their background be and most importantly - what would be their reasons for wanting to hold such a role?

 

When you see what's happened with GRR Bill it was quite clear the Scots had to be saved from themselves. The Named Person Bill would've attracted people with highly questionable intentions. The School curriculum in Scotland is currently adopting some very debatable practices towards young children. John Swinney has been instrumental in the implementation of much of it.

 

Sorry you feel that your party/cult is getting a tough time, particularly this week. They must reassure themselves they can count on folk like yourself no matter how low they sink. 

Edited May 1 by Carter

[hughesie27]

16 minutes ago, Carter said:

Are you being serious? Why do you think it was binned? You'd be quite happy with some unknown adult meddling in matters between a child and his or her parents. Who would these people have been, what would their background be and most importantly - what would be their reasons for wanting to hold such a role?

 

 

Congratulations on making a fool of yourself. I'll hopefully save a pile on of laughter at you and break it down for you.

 

Why it was binned has nothing to do with folk making out that it was some amazing policy on this thread. Which hasn't happened but seems to keep being suggested by others.

 

Clearly you haven't read a single page of what the policy entails.

 

The named person wouldn't be "some unknown adult" who has signed up to join the Named Person Brigade.

 

It would be initially the Child's Health Visitor to to the age of 5 (this is effectively still the role of the Health Visitor btw even without this policy).

 

Then when at School the Named person would change to either their Deputy Head/Guidance teacher or similar until they left school.

Do you question the reasons some people want to become teachers? Do you think they are all creepy child abusers? 

Could you explain exactly what you mean when you say "meddling in matters" what would this involve that would be overstepping the mark?

Will you take this on the chin and spend some of your day educating yourself on what the policy is?

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1 by hughesie27