Au contraire

I always find it fascinating to read letters from readers who have taken the time to fire off an angry letter about something which has appeared in The Scotsman, without apparently taking the time to carefully read the article concerned. This seems to apply to Alan Thomson’s comments about the Named Persons scheme (Letters, 1 November).

My reading of the article by John Swinney referred to is that there is no intention to revive the original scheme, the legislation for which has been withdrawn. What I took away was Mr Swinney’s intention to strengthen the coordination of the protection of vulnerable children within existing legislation and child protection structures. Surely that is something we all want to see?

What is less laudable are the comments Mr Thomson made about the Supreme Court. He says “it [the Named Persons scheme] was ruled against by the Supreme Court with damning words suggesting control of children and families rather than care”. I suppose the less blunt way to describe Mr Thomson’s statement is to say that it is completely untrue. In fact, the Supreme Court said that the rationale for the scheme was “Unquestionably well-intentioned and benign”. However, the court expressed concern that the human rights of the children and families could be put at risk through inappro

information sharing.

As for Douglas Hamilton (Letters, same day) who says the SNP have no respect for democracy and we’re living in a totalitarian state. I suppose that’s why people keep voting them into power, but having just come back from a meeting attended by Nicola Sturgeon, I have to say that in the large group which attended, the socialist apparatchiks were remarkably well disguised.

GILL TURNER Derby Street, Edinburgh