There`s quite a lot to come out of this.
Here`s the Motherwell Times:
"Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling - which stated the legislation is currently `incompatible` with European human-rights laws - organisations and political parties supportive of named person said ministers must take steps to fix the policy and regain public trust."
Now I`m only a layperson and like many others I can see that the Named Person legislation can only be `fixed` into oblivion. Gone are the SHANARRI wellbeing indicators and the powers to monitor and share children`s and families` `wellbeing` data. Gone is the training and guidance. So what`s left?
Well, you can approach the Named Person and ask them for advice, if you want, but that cannot be made compulsory. And they`ve no right to share your personal data without your permission. But then we have always been able to approach health visitors and teachers for advice. So really, it`s back to square one. This means that what you end up with is a `toothless` Named Person.
Yet there are still politicians, regulators and charities prepared to spout nonsense at us.
[Labour's education spokesman Iain Gray said:] "It now falls to SNP Deputy First Minister John Swinney to clarify how he will regain the trust and confidence of the Scottish public in the scheme."
[Scottish Greens education spokesman Ross Greer said:] "As I told the Scottish Parliament last month, the Scottish Government must do more to build public confidence and better explain what named person means in practice."
Well I`ve just explained it. It doesn`t mean a lot in practice.
What does this say about our judges, our politicians and our charities that they could not see that the Scottish Government was walking itself into a cul-de-sac? Incompetence or corruption? Either way, it`s not looking good.
David Scott goes into this in a lot more detail on UK Column News: http://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-29th-july-2016
From the judgment:
"It remains to be seen whether the Scottish Government will bring new legislation before the Parliament. But the existing scheme cannot go ahead. It is doubtful that any new legislation can deliver a named person scheme along the lines originally envisaged by the Scottish Government, given the `central` role of the information sharing provisions to the scheme that have been struck down."